|
Reince Penis posted:There is lots of terrible stuff the OPC party is promising but this is the only one that makes my blood boil. If you wanted to gently caress things up, I mean really, long tail gently caress things up for a few generations, what the PCPO is promising this election would be a hell of a start. Postess with the Mostest posted:Maybe it'd be worth trying? What do you feel in the subcockles of your heart? A sharp pain. May have something to do with that all-American Big Mac in the styrofoam container and chain smoking. infernal machines fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Apr 30, 2018 |
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Because X can already vote for Greens and they don't. In the 2015 election when the progressive grassrots had the chance to rise up and Heave Steve, 32% of eligible voters still stayed home. If it turns out there's some massive underground city of dirty progressive folks who would vote for some hypothetical really progressive platform but wouldn't show up to vote against Harper, I swear I'll never make another demolition man reference again. I don't think there is though. I dont know what 'progressive' means, but people in my neighbourhood are pretty deflated and angry because of the rising costs of living and housing and wages not keeping up, to the point of there being actual rent strikes close to where I live. The liberals have shown no interest in all their time in power to fix this and the tories will 100% make it worse. If the NDP had leadership that had a credible history of left wing and socialist support and went full tilt on that platform they would probably wipe out the libs here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Parkdale?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Let’s revive the CCF
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Parkdale? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
It was good to see that the two major rent strikes actually got some coverage, and were to varying extents successful. I used to live in one of the Metcap buildings on Tyndall that were part of the first strike. TBH I was hoping the idea spread a bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
God I really hope Trudeau doesn't go along with whatever bullshit Israel is about to unload regarding Iran.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
tekz posted:I dont know what 'progressive' means, but people in my neighbourhood are pretty deflated and angry because of the rising costs of living and housing and wages not keeping up, to the point of there being actual rent strikes close to where I live. The liberals have shown no interest in all their time in power to fix this and the tories will 100% make it worse. If the NDP had leadership that had a credible history of left wing and socialist support and went full tilt on that platform they would probably wipe out the libs here. Yeah, that's not progressive, that's just wanting the federal government to make it easier for you to pay your own bills, it's the exact same motivation as rurals voting ABL because hydro bills. I don't think your riding ever goes full socialist though, even in 2011 libs + cons got more of the vote than ndp when they were choosing between ignatieff, layton and harper. Lot of people there with a lot of money to lose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Trudeau is in Vancouver fellating Amazon today. I hope there are pipeline protestors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Trudeau is in Vancouver fellating Amazon today. I hope there are pipeline protestors. Mate, you can't fellate a river. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Yeah, that's not progressive, that's just wanting the federal government to make it easier for you to pay your own bills, it's the exact same motivation as rurals voting ABL because hydro bills. I don't think your riding ever goes full socialist though, even in 2011 libs + cons got more of the vote than ndp when they were choosing between ignatieff, layton and harper. Lot of people there with a lot of money to lose. The NDP actually won the riding then though, and things have gotten a lot worse since 2011. If they run a lovely liberal platform again they'll lose to the actual Liberals again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:Mate, you can't fellate a river. Just watch me
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Lol. Vancouver just got stuck with HQ2. Forget any pretense of affordable housing ever again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Lol. Vancouver just got stuck with HQ2. Forget any pretense of affordable housing ever again. As if affordable housing in Vancouver was ever a possibility again without something like the Big One hitting and turning the city into a hellscape.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Lol. Vancouver just got stuck with HQ2. Forget any pretense of affordable housing ever again. I'm not seeing that anywhere, just blurbs about expanding their current Vancouver office.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
tekz posted:I'm not seeing that anywhere, just blurbs about expanding their current Vancouver office. You're right, it's only an expansion of the current offices. I misread it as being their new headquarters, not an expansion of their existing Vancouver headquarters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:You're right, it's only an expansion of the current offices. I misread it as being their new headquarters, not an expansion of their existing Vancouver headquarters. That's great, probably expanding there to support HQ2 in Toronto. Congrats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
JFC. Let's hope not. We don't need Bezos the destroyer loving poo poo up like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. E: VVVVV How so? infernal machines fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Apr 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:I know some politically disinterested non-CHUDs and they all seem to think he's not really a big deal and maybe some of the things he says are actually good. he is pretty explicitly racist though
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
lmao https://twitter.com/pressprogress/status/991029466959822848
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
"unpopular" is how i would describe this move if i had a fetish for understatement
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
How is anyone surprised
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:How is anyone surprised Just for the record, I'm not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
a few places are trying to spin it as "liberals claim that doug ford wants to sell the green belt" but it kinda falls flat when there's a widely-available video of him saying "i, doug ford, want to destroy the green belt"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Because X can already vote for Greens and they don't. In the 2015 election when the progressive grassrots had the chance to rise up and Heave Steve, 32% of eligible voters still stayed home. If it turns out there's some massive underground city of dirty progressive folks who would vote for some hypothetical really progressive platform but wouldn't show up to vote against Harper, I swear I'll never make another demolition man reference again. I don't think there is though. You're describing a folk theory version of the standard theory of democratic inveolvement, in which political parties act as entrepreneurs who min-max their positions to attract the ideal winning coalition of voters. It's intuitive plausible but actually not very well supported empirically. In fact there's a bunch of research indicating that people often get involved in a cause before they develop strong ideological attachments to that cause. A friend gets you to come out to a rally, or you check out a meeting because it looks interesting, etc., then as you're drawn into group activities you internalize the group's ideas and make them your own. quote:What comes first, belief or action? Do people join causes because they believe in the cause, or do they believe in the cause because they joined the action? Evidence suggests elections are less about individual preference and more about competing tribal loyalties. I'm quoting here from a book that is primarily concerend with American elections (though it draws on some research from other parliamentary systems) and it again seems to show a dynamic where instead of fighting for the centre ground (what would be called the 'median voter' in classical election theory) parties succeed by driving higher turnout. Voters have a web of social relationships and identifications which inform their politics and they vote accordingly. Elections in America tend to be fought and won not in the centre ground competing for swing voters but rather through mobilizing your own side in higher numbers. In cases where someone has to ask between their personal beliefs and their partisan identity there is an extremely robust tendency for voters to shift their opinions to align with their partisan loyalties: Democracy for Realists Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, Christopher H. Achen & Larry M. Bartels p. 17 posted:Next, we examine the evolution and impact of citizens’views regarding the highly charged issue of abortion. As the Democratic and Republican parties took increasingly clear, opposing stands on the issue through the 1980s and 1990s, partisan identities often came into conflict with gender identities. We show that this conflict was resolved in quite different ways for women and for men. A substantial number of women gravitated to the party sharing their view about abortion, reflecting the deep significance of the issue for women. Men, on the other hand, more often changed their view about abortion to comport with their partisanship—in effect, letting their party tell them what to think about one of the most contentious moral issues in contemporary American politics. In both cases, identity was politically powerful in ways that the folk theory of democracy obscures or ignores. It would be interesting to see what a more in depth study of Canadian voters might reveal, as we tend to be more inclined to switch parties than Americans. But the tribal aspect of voting seems to be pretty substantial everywhere: Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, Christopher H. Achen & Larry M. Bartels pp. 17-18 posted:We illustrate this phenomenon by examining beliefs about a highly salient and significant political fact—the size of the federal budget deficit. The deficit had decreased by more than half during Bill Clinton’s first term as president; yet most Republicans in a 1996 survey managed to convince themselves that it had increased. Even many Democrats and Independents had too little real information to get the facts right, but for Republicans the lack of information was compounded by a partisan desire to see a Democratic administration in a negative light. Indeed, moderately well-informed Republicans had less accurate beliefs than the least informed; a modicum of information was sufficient to discern what they should want to be true, but not enough to discern what was in fact true. They sounded like they were thinking, but no one should be fooled. Democrats behaved in much the same way on other issues. To be clear, I agree that the NDP simply declaring the most radical possible platform would likely lose more votes than it would win. But there's a case to be made that policy in general is less important than cultivating an organized and motivated core group of supporters. If you can do that effectively then over multiple cycles you can have a dramatic impact on the entire political system even if you are pushing ideas that would actually be very unpopular with the majority of voters. My point here is that parties are less constrained by their ideological commitments than we think, and actually more reliant on their organizational capabilities than the media leads us to believe. Of course conservative identities are much more accessible to the average voter these days and the left in general isn't very good at picking tribal divisions that would leave it anywhere close to a majority, so this is all highly academic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Hey look: CBC has determined that, on the whole, Albertans enjoy having things, and do not enjoy paying for things. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/albertans-not-conservative-road-ahead-survey-1.4639232 This is truly some groundbreaking research. (also I have no idea how anyone can judge us to be any form of socially progressive if we elect Jason Kenney, and it certainly looks like we will)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:a few places are trying to spin it as "liberals claim that doug ford wants to sell the green belt" but it kinda falls flat when there's a widely-available video of him saying "i, doug ford, want to destroy the green belt" If there’s one thing the Ford brothers know it’s destroying belts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
poo poo like this makes me actually scared BGrifter posted:If there’s one thing the Ford brothers know it’s destroying belts. poo poo like this makes me actually lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Hey look: CBC has determined that, on the whole, Albertans enjoy having things, and do not enjoy paying for things. There's some interesting data here but this article makes an enormous analytical error very early on that made it hard for me to take anything else they said seriously. quote:The bulging middle That is not what that means, Janet Brown. It means those people self-identify as centrists rather than extremists, but unless you show us the cross-tabs on what those centrists think about the issues it absolutely does not mean "everyone is a moderate". It just means a lot of people identify in the centre, and then likely go off and support right-wing things and vote for the UCP, because they see right-wing policies and political identities as moderate rather than radical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Thanks Helsing. That was informative. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There's some interesting data here but this article makes an enormous analytical error very early on that made it hard for me to take anything else they said seriously. Yeah, that's a big flaw. The other big flaw is: if you want a bunch of programs that require spending but have no interest in taxes being raised to cover the poo poo you want, you're just a greedy moron. That's not either left or right -- it's just stupid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
A gofundme has been started for those Nelson House kids. https://www.gofundme.com/3-young-lives-lost-nelson-house-mb
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:That is not what that means, Janet Brown. It means those people self-identify as centrists rather than extremists, but unless you show us the cross-tabs on what those centrists think about the issues it absolutely does not mean "everyone is a moderate". It just means a lot of people identify in the centre, and then likely go off and support right-wing things and vote for the UCP, because they see right-wing policies and political identities as moderate rather than radical. Seriously, how the gently caress did that one get reported without a little critical analysis. They're describing themselves as moderates because they see some sort of moral value in being in the middle of the spectrum, not due to any serious reflection on their political opinions. This is an example of politically informed ideological voters being in the minority; everybody else just plunks themselves in the middle by default. loving LOL at the description of us as 'not fiscally conservative, just tax averse' though. That's so incredibly on the nose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 23:16
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:loving LOL at the description of us as 'not fiscally conservative, just tax averse' though. That's so incredibly on the nose. At least actual fiscal conservatives and actual leftists alike notice that revenue, spending and deficit/debt are all linked. This "give me all the poo poo, but I don't want to pay for it" is just childish. But arguably it describes the majority of Albertans perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Maybe this is a dumb question, but the Amazon Vancouver announcement started me wondering. What's preventing individual municipalities from levying municipal sales taxes to make up for the revenue lost from local businesses shutting down?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
just another posted:Maybe this is a dumb question, but the Amazon Vancouver announcement started me wondering. What's preventing individual municipalities from levying municipal sales taxes to make up for the revenue lost from local businesses shutting down? Municipalities are creatures of the province, they have no independent authority to raise revenue outside what the provincial government authorizes them to do, so they would require provincial legislation to enact a sales tax. A sales tax was considered in Vancouver a couple years ago but it was put to a referendum and lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There's some interesting data here but this article makes an enormous analytical error very early on that made it hard for me to take anything else they said seriously. Janet Brown had a really eyebrow-raising survey a few weeks ago that felt strategically timed to boost public opinion of a council Olympic bid following the province telling them to gently caress off: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-olympic-bid-support-poll-1.4616307 And also there's this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/elections/alberta-votes/alberta-election-polls-hold-influence-even-if-they-re-wrong-janet-brown-1.3039734 This week she's in the catbird seat because the CBC has been hyping their big giant poll of political opinion they did in collaboration with her. It started a few weeks ago when they went into the intense methodology they use to build a political survey of this size, and now they are trickling out the results. Stuff like "the UCP will win Calgary handily," "the Liberal party isn't good at getting votes," and "people in Alberta don't like paying for things" have been front-page news, each revelation with its own article, probably to justify the expense in editorial/analysis by getting those hits up. She was one of the big voices who was calling Postmedia out on their super-slanted poll interpretation (and subsequent radio silence) running up to the '17 Calgary election. She's also a panelist on the local CBC news all the time so it's easy for them to get a soundbite from her. Seat Safety Switch fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Apr 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
PT6A posted:
It describes the majority of Canada, USA, and probably most first world countries tbh. Political polls that say that people want both lower taxes/government funding and better social services are pretty much the norm everywhere I think, because collectively people are dumb as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
CRISPYBABY posted:It describes the majority of Canada, USA, and probably most first world countries tbh. Political polls that say that people want both lower taxes/government funding and better social services are pretty much the norm everywhere I think, because collectively people are dumb as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Helsing posted:Municipalities are creatures of the province, they have no independent authority to raise revenue outside what the provincial government authorizes them to do, so they would require provincial legislation to enact a sales tax. A sales tax was considered in Vancouver a couple years ago but it was put to a referendum and lost. Yep. For the benefit of those who are not Helsing: Under the constitution, the provinces have defined powers, the federal government has defined powers plus essentially everything not given to provinces, and municipalities get one line in the province section (s. 92.8). As such, municipalities have the subset of provincial powers that each individual province has decided to delegate to them and nothing else. The provinces can elect to run cities in any way that they like. This is why provinces can amalgamate and de-amalgamate cities at will. I presume that, should the province of Ontario so decide, they could (for example) also abolish local elections and directly appoint the entire mayor and council of Toronto. In terms of my local politics, this has been a continuing problem in Alberta. In Alberta, there is only one Municipal Government Act and, with a few regulatory exceptions largely related to investments and debt, it treats every municipality in the province from the tiniest hamlet to the sparsest rural county to the biggest city exactly the same. This is not a great system, and it's why the mayors of Calgary and Edmonton have been going on and on for ages about city charters that might let them take a few other powers from the province. David Corbett fucked around with this message at 01:41 on May 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 01:39
|
|
