Has Layton sacrified the NDP chances in Alberta for Quebec?

[Scotty]

No coincidence he made his big attack on the oil sands in Quebec, where his party has overtaken the Liberals as number two. He clearly has hopes of picking up at least a couple of seats in Quebec, but has he sacrificed the NDPs one seat in Alberta, along with any chance of more?

I don't have to be an Albertan to figure out how him attacking the province's biggest industry to please Quebecers - who benefit from those same oil sands - is likely to play among Albertans.

[ToadBrother]

No coincidence he made his big attack on the oil sands in Quebec, where his party has overtaken the Liberals as number two. He clearly has hopes of picking up at least a couple of seats in Quebec, but has he sacrificed the NDPs one seat in Alberta, along with any chance of more?

I don't have to be an Albertan to figure out how him attacking the province's biggest industry to please Quebecers - who benefit from those same oil sands - is likely to play among Albertans.

How safe is the NDP seat Edmonton-Strathcona? If the NDP could pick up a couple of seats in Quebec, even if they lost their single seat in Alberta, that's still one step back two steps forward. If the seat is safe, they've got damned little to lose.

[Rovik]

No coincidence he made his big attack on the oil sands in Quebec, where his party has overtaken the Liberals as number two. He clearly has hopes of picking up at least a couple of seats in Quebec, but has he sacrificed the NDPs one seat in Alberta, along with any chance of more?

I don't have to be an Albertan to figure out how him attacking the province's biggest industry to please Quebecers - who benefit from those same oil sands - is likely to play among Albertans.

What? His announcement on cutting subsidies to the oil sands companies? These companies are making big profits and don't need any help from the Feds. The monies from the subsidies would be better served going toward companies developing clean energy solutions. If you don't agree with that, then perhaps the monies should go to supporting small business or to companies that are having a hard time of it (such as forestry companies.)

I can't see how Albertans would be against that.

[WWWTT]

Excellent thread

I believe his thinking here is to pick up the green vote.

If the NDP extend the olive branch now, and if the greens go down after this election the NDP can pick up those votes in future elections.

Sounds like Jack feels confident May and the greens may be gone soon.

WWWTT

[ToadBrother]

What? His announcement on cutting subsidies to the oil sands companies? These companies are making big profits and don't need any help from the Feds. The monies from the subsidies would be better served going toward companies developing clean energy solutions. If you don't agree with that, then perhaps the monies should go to supporting small business or to companies that are having a hard time of it (such as forestry companies.)

I can't see how Albertans would be against that.

As much as I hate the subsidies, ultimately they go towards the huge benefit of energy independence of Canada. It's probably worth the coin.

[Scotty]

What? His announcement on cutting subsidies to the oil sands companies? These companies are making big profits and don't need any help from the Feds. The monies from the subsidies would be better served going toward companies developing clean energy solutions. If you don't agree with that, then perhaps the monies should go to supporting small business or to companies that are having a hard time of it (such as forestry companies.)

I can't see how Albertans would be against that.

Are you kidding? Lots of successful businesses and industries in Canada get federal subsidies and credits of one kind or another. The oil industry is nothing different in that regard. And if Layton is against such subsidies, I'd like to see him announce in Quebec that there'll be no more subsidies for Quebec's Aerospace industry, and particularly for Bombardier.

The oil industry right now is Canada's economic engine, like it or not. It funnels billions and billions into our economy and into the tax coffers of the federal government so it can pay for daycare in Quebec. Don't think Albertans don't know it either. To have federal politicians attack that industry to please Quebec environmentalists must be galling.

[Scotty]

How safe is the NDP seat Edmonton-Strathcona? If the NDP could pick up a couple of seats in Quebec, even if they lost their single seat in Alberta, that's still one step back two steps forward. If the seat is safe, they've got damned little to lose.

They only won by less than 500 votes, against an already partially disgraced Rahim Jaffar last time around. But until the oil sands announcement it certainly looked like the NDP were going to try very hard to hang onto it and hope to even pick up more.

And as for Quebec, Quebec likes to flirt, but it rarely rewards you with much. Quebec might have surpassed the Liberals in popular support, but that support is spread all across the province and likely won't amount to much in the way of actual seats. Liberal support is concentrated around Montreal and Tory support around Quebec city.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Scotty

[wyly]

How safe is the NDP seat Edmonton-Strathcona? If the NDP could pick up a couple of seats in Quebec, even if they lost their single seat in Alberta, that's still one step back two steps forward. If the seat is safe, they've got damned little to lose.

good call...plus if it's already an ndp seat they have support...I don't know what demographic makeup is of that one riding but it's an error to believe that everyone in alberta is a conservative supporter or approves of the way the tarsands are being developed...only the FPTP system denies non conservatives in alberta a voice in parliament...

[Oleg Bach]

There are no blue collar jobs..there is no NDP...took Layton a life time to figure out that the horse left the barn a decade ago.

[Oleg Bach]

Poor Jack - and poor Elizabeth May - and Poor Iggy....and poor everybody...Imagine having to have an election every year to maintain a dictatorship? Sure gets expensive keeping the rich - rich....Now little Steve Haper has got the right idea..since he got briefed by the banksters....You would think that the banking community would educate all the politicans and not just a select few...Poor Jack - took him a life time to under stand that Carl Marx was dead and would never rise - unless he was properly financed...Even communism has to be funded and no one wants to fund Jack - so he is now an utter failure...oh well ...at least he figured out the system - a little too late though.

[kimmy]

What? His announcement on cutting subsidies to the oil sands companies? These companies are making big profits and don't need any help from the Feds. The monies from the subsidies would be better served going toward companies developing clean energy solutions. If you don't agree with that, then perhaps the monies should go to supporting small business or to companies that are having a hard time of it (such as forestry companies.)

I can't see how Albertans would be against that.

He's also calling for a moratorium on new developments ("until the environmental footprint is better managed", meaning probably forever.)

It's nothing new from Jack. It's actually a more diplomatic tone than he took in 2008, when he flew his plane over Fort McMurray and declared it a disgrace that had to be stopped immediately.

Funny that he didn't mention any of this when he was in Edmonton just last week tourstopping with Linda Duncan, proclaiming how he was going to "paint the town orange". Kind of a douche move to not mention any of that until he left town.

Edmonton Strathcona, Linda Duncan's riding, has the university and Whyte Ave. There's a lot of students, academics, and young adults. It's not a riding full of tradesmen, rig-hands, or roughnecks. Still, Duncan won by a narrow margin last time, and probably a big part of the reason why is that people were tired of Rahim Jaffer (who had already earned a reputation as one of the laziest MPs in the country, and who spent more time with Helena during the campaign than he spent in Edmonton.) This isn't a safe seat for the NDP, but I don't think Layton bashing the oilsands is going to be any more of a factor this time than it was last time.

I wouldn't bank on that "paint the town orange" thing happening, though.

-k

[Wild Bill]

Sounds typical for Jack and the NDP.

I believe it was one of the NP columnists who wrote that the Greens were against the Alberta oilsands because they provided oil mixed with too much carbon and groundwater, in favour of mid-East oil which is soaked in blood!

[Rovik]

As much as I hate the subsidies, ultimately they go towards the huge benefit of energy independence of Canada. It's probably worth the coin.

Really? So what do these subsidies pay for. Tell you what; for any profitable company that uses these subsidies, then they should open the books and show actually what the CEOs and other executive staff get paid (including bonuses and stock options). I don't know about you but I don't want to see my (taxpayer's monies) go toward these big salaries and bonuses of these fat cats.

One could almost justify it if Canada did not need the money to be spend elsewhere. But this is not the case; municipalities can't afford to maintain infrastructre, healthcare is falling apart, students are graduating with huge debt loads, poverty is more widespread then people know and so on and so on. Tell me how these subsidies help a taxi driver in Montreal or a grocery clerk in St. John's or a single mom in Winnipeg? Ask any of these people if it's worth the coin.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Rovik

[Rovik]

Are you kidding? Lots of successful businesses and industries in Canada get federal subsidies and credits of one kind or another. The oil industry is nothing different in that regard. And if Layton is against such subsidies, I'd like to see him announce in Quebec that there'll be no more subsidies for Quebec's Aerospace industry, and particularly for Bombardier.

The oil industry right now is Canada's economic engine, like it or not. It funnels billions and billions into our economy and into the tax coffers of the federal government so it can pay for daycare in Quebec. Don't think Albertans don't know it either. To have federal politicians attack that industry to please Quebec environmentalists must be galling.

In my mind, any company that doing well and making profits should not be getting a subsidy. If they are in trouble (ie..in a recession), they should pay back the subsidies (with interest) when they return to profitibility (no matter if the company is in Quebec or Alberta.)

I really like to see the numbers in regards to monies going into the oil companies (subsidies, tax breaks, etc.) compared to monies that come back into the coffers. Until I see these numbers from an official source, I reserve judgement.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Rovik

[Rovik]

There are no blue collar jobs..there is no NDP...took Layton a life time to figure out that the horse left the barn a decade ago.

Really no blue collar jobs left in Canada?. Well let me tell that to the electrician that lives next to me ot the welder who lives a few doors down. Let time I checked there was an NDP, unless there's a hugh conspiracy to make the people believe in a phantom party. Maybe Layton is a figment of imagination. Perhaps the guy you see on tv is really an actor (perhaps Harper's cousin who needed the gig.)

Yes, you may have seen the horse that left the barn but you forgot to look in the barn to see the 10 that were still there.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Rovik

[Rovik]

Poor Jack - and poor Elizabeth May - and Poor Iggy....and poor everybody...Imagine having to have an election every year to maintain a dictatorship? Sure gets expensive keeping the rich - rich....Now little Steve Haper has got the right idea..since he got briefed by the banksters....You would think that the banking community would educate all the politicans and not just a select few...Poor Jack - took him a life time to under stand that Carl Marx was dead and would never rise - unless he was properly financed...Even communism has to be funded and no one wants to fund Jack - so he is now an utter failure...oh well ...at least he figured out the system - a little too late though.

Sorry to let you know but the NDP are not communists; though you and many others tend to mistakenly try to make that comparsion (typical scaremonger tactic.) So much hatred toward Layton; did he ever do anything personal to you in the past?

[Rovik]

He's also calling for a moratorium on new developments ("until the environmental footprint is better managed", meaning probably forever.)

It's nothing new from Jack. It's actually a more diplomatic tone than he took in 2008, when he flew his plane over Fort McMurray and declared it a disgrace that had to be stopped immediately.

-k

[/quot

What's wrong about completing a thorough environmental assessment? Seems just like good due diligence to me. And I doubt such an assessment would take forever. Let's get it done right the first time before any "problems" happen down the road. Perhaps if an environmental assessment was complete, you wouldn't have nuclear reactors built close to Earthquake zones (perhaps they didn't bother with assessments when they build reactors close to earthquake zones in California.)

I don't see the oilsands been shut down with such an assessment. I see the oilsands having less of a negative impact on the environment if done right.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Rovik

[kimmy]

What's wrong about completing a thorough environmental assessment? Seems just like good due diligence to me. And I doubt such an assessment would take forever. Let's get it done right the first time before any "problems" happen down the road. Perhaps if an environmental assessment was complete, you wouldn't have nuclear reactors built close to Earthquake zones (perhaps they didn't bother with them when they build them close to earthquake zones in California.)

I don't see the oilsands been shut down with such an assessment. I see the oilsands having less of a negative impact on the environment if done right.

It's not an environmental assessment, it's a moratorium on new projects. Something he's been talking about for years.

By the way, what's this about using the money to train people for renewable energy research? Are the unemployed tradesmen going to be designing solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells with Jack's help?

And why didn't he bring any of this up when he was tourstopping with Linda Duncan a week ago?

-k

[Rovik]

It's not an environmental assessment, it's a moratorium on new projects. Something he's been talking about for years.

By the way, what's this about using the money to train people for renewable energy research? Are the unemployed tradesmen going to be designing solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells with Jack's help?

And why didn't he bring any of this up when he was tourstopping with Linda Duncan a week ago?

-k

Well the moratorium on the projects would be over once the assessments were complete. And don't have these assessments open-ended; Have a deadline date for these assessments to be complete to prevent them from dragging on. I don't believe he mentioned shutting down existing projects (hard to have assessments on projects that have already started).

The tradesmen may not design the solar panels, wind farms and hydrogen cells but they would definately be there in implementing and constructing such endeavours.

I really can't answer your last question since I don't know why. I would suggest that it's hard to bring up all details in the short time they have at the campaign stops.

[TimG]

Perhaps if an environmental assessment was complete, you wouldn't have nuclear reactors built close to Earthquake zones (perhaps they didn't bother with assessments when they build reactors close to earthquake zones in California.)

Please get your facts straight. All of the nukes in Japan survived an earthquake that exceeded their design specifications with no problems. It was the tsunami that caused the problems. Edited April 3, 2011 by TimG

[Rovik]

Please get your facts straight. All of the nukes in Japan survived an earthquake that exceeded their design specifications with no problems. It was the tsunami that caused the problems.

One would think that when factoring in earthquakes (especially if the reactor is adjacent to the coast line) that tsuamis should also be factored in. It's not like tsunamis have only started since 2006. Earthquakes and tsunamis have been linked together hand in hand since the dawn of time. Why the specs would not factor in tsunamis as a risk factor is beyond me.

In regards to the reactors in California; I don't know how close they are to the coast (in regards to a tsunami hit) but if an earthquake's epicentre (say a big 9.O+ earthquake) were to be located very near a nuclear reactor, I doubt that any design specs could prevent issues from occuring.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Rovik

[blueblood]

One would think that when factoring in earthquakes (especially if the reactor is adjacent to the coast line) that tsuamis should also be factored in. It's not like tsunamis have only started since 2006. Earthquakes and tsunamis have been linked together hand in hand since the dawn of time. Why the specs would not factor in tsunamis as a risk factor is beyond me.

In regards to the reactors in California; I don't know how close they are to the coast (in regards to a tsunami hit) but if an earthquake's epicentre (say a big 9.O+ earthquake) were to be located very near a nuclear reactor, I doubt that any design specs could prevent issues from occuring.

The day wind and solar are comparable to hydrocarbon combustion and nuclear in terms of output and efficiency is the day hell freezes over and the devil offers free sleigh rides.

Those who advocate shutting the tar sands down should explain why we should have to have a lower standard of living.

What's even richer is an easterner advocating a moratorium on the tar sands while keeping quiet on the production of the offshore hibernia field. Last time I checked there was a situation with an offshore oil rig and not the tar sands.

[TimG]

Why the specs would not factor in tsunamis as a risk factor is beyond me.

You made a blanket statement about nuclear plants in earthquake zones which you now appear to repudiate. The tsuanami is a risk factor that they did account for but not enough (5m expected vs 10m actual). There were two other plants hit by the tsunami that are fine so you can't say this is a problem with all plants.

In regards to the reactors in California; I don't know how close they are to the coast (in regards to a tsunami hit) but if an earthquake's epicentre (say a big 9.O+ earthquake) were to be located very near a nuclear reactor, I doubt that any design specs could prevent issues from occuring.

There are only so many places in the world where a 9.0 earthquake is even remotely likely to occur. California is not one of them.

http://thenewschronicle.com/scientists-magnitude-90-earthquake-hit-locations-2/0323012699/

The San Andreas Fault, commonly recognized to be more destructive than the Cascadia Fault due to its closeness to several major coastal cities in California, does not have the capability to generate a Magnitude 9.0 earthquake. At the most, the strongest would be less than Magnitude 8.0, according to Houston.

[Rovik]

The day wind and solar are comparable to hydrocarbon combustion and nuclear in terms of output and efficiency is the day hell freezes over and the devil offers free sleigh rides.

Those who advocate shutting the tar sands down should explain why we should have to have a lower standard of living.

What's even richer is an easterner advocating a moratorium on the tar sands while keeping quiet on the production of the offshore hibernia field. Last time I checked there was a situation with an offshore oil rig and not the tar sands.

I don't advocate shutting down oil and nuclear energy production. All I'm saying is to have them as environmentally friendly as possible (and if that can't be done within acceptable levels, than delay until there is technology that will allow it too do so). For example, building an nuclear power plant in a stable geological environment would be one way to make it safer for the environment (compared to a high-risk reactor located next to the San Andres Fault). Of course, there is no way to completely eliminate the risk (an astroid strike for example) but you know what I'm saying. At the same time research and develop alternate energies. Yes, wind and solar are currently not feasible for widespread energy production but with research and innovation, perhaps it can be optimized to be much better in the future than it is today.

Again, I don't think that many are advocating a complete shut down of the oilsands, but to ensure that any future development is safer for the environment. And yes, there are risks with offshore drilling (I don't support risky deep-water oil drilling). As far as I know, the risk to the environment is not as large as the oil sands but if they came out tomorrow and said that offshore drilling is causing great irreverisble harm to the environment (and this is proven), then yes I would support stopping it.

[RNG]

Yet again, what subsidy is any oilsands operator, or any oil company getting from the feds? Show me a cancelled cheque. Tell me how much money was sent to them. Tell me how much money the government spent to buy their product at a false high price to resell at a lower price, or give to third world countries as foreign aid?

A tax break is not a subsidy. More left wing lying propaganda.