Canada Election 2015

[Migs]

Originally Posted by Nathan

It still has to be ratified in all legislatures in the 12 countries, so it could still have issues, especially since much of the agreement hasn't been made publicly available yet.

We also haven't completely nailed down the Euro deal yet; ratification has not been completed.

Mexico has more deals though (and they have been the ones grabing the manufacturing jobs and propelling themselves upward), not a G7 country, but they are definitely ahead of us (and within our main trading block).

Of course it still needs to be ratified, all trade deals have to he after a deal is reached. Framework however is there & agreed upon, fantastic news for the Conservatives & more importantly the economy of Canada.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think it's that the issue seems to be getting the most traction in Quebec and that is where the NDP have the highest support. The Liberals seem to be gaining momentum in other parts of the country for other reasons.

They have lost some support in Quebec because of that (but they're still on track to win most ridings, last I checked)... and this loss of support has apparently caused somewhat of a snowball effect (completely unrelated to the "why") among centerleft voters in the ROC.

Again, though: I wouldn't be surprised to see the NDP stabilize in Quebec. Everyone who was going to leave over this is gone already, the current voters are obviously planning to hold their nose and still vote for them.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

At a glance this looks quite good. I like the part about increased transparency and creating a government advertising watchdog among other things. The part about letting their MP's vote freely is a bit toothless as it doesn't apply to any other parties and has several caveats for the circumstances in which they are allowed to do so within the Liberal party. Step in the right direction at least.

Re-instating the $40 million Harper cut for Federal Fisheries is a good sign along with re-organizing the NEB and re-instating the Navigable Waters Act. Much of their promises remain to be seen but they are at least going in the right direction.

MPs vote freely? I thought Trudeau refused to have any candidates who are pro-life. Can you imagine dictating to your members that you cannot be pro-life.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I'm not sure about deaths offhand, but in Saskatchewan the severity of injuries for motorcyclists is 5x that of cars/trucks/SUVs/Vans/etc.

What does "the severity of injuries is 5x that of cars" even mean?

Car drivers die and so do motorcyclists. Car drivers have extreme injuries and so do motorcyclists.

All comparisons regarding miles travelled are false equivalences. A motorcycle is not a car, a motorcycle is not used like a car, and comparing them in this way is pointless. A motorcycle is primarily a recreational vehicle that is used fundamentally differently than a car. You cannot compare miles travelled in a meaningful way anymore than you can compare the number of wheels - they are used fundamentally differently.

This line of thinking is also endemic of many people's positions regarding motorcycle helmets. They are uneducated about the topic, but it is "obvious" they are good, so they work backwards from the law "Helmets must be worn" and ad hoc seek out statistics that selectively show why a motorcycle helmet law is justified.

The fact is, car drivers make up a far greater percentage of the road going population, they make up a majority of our health care resources being used to treat serious vehicular accidents, they make up the vast majority of fatalities on the road. It is a bit absurd we have motorcycle helmet laws but not car helmet laws.

At the end of the day, the only, the one and the only, reason helmet laws are targeted and talked about so often is exactly the factor of tyranny of the majority in democracy. Car drivers should be mandated to wear helmets if any of the arguments against motorcycles were in fact sound.

It's kind of funny especially the people who want to bring up seat-belt legislation in comparison. Seat belts are a minimal cost, they are minimal impact to comfort, and their effectiveness is greater than helmets for motorcycles, and yet it took 5 decades, a litany of laws, and the most effective variable in raising seat belt usage was actually issues seat belt tickets, to finally reach 80% of driver's actually wearing seat belts.

https://wmoon.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/what-seat-belt-usage-can-teach-us-about-motorcycle-safety/

Helmets are a non-starter for car drivers, not only because it would be political poison, but at the end of the day car drivers really don't care about their safety, at least not like motorcycle riders do.

Democracy - two wolves and a sheep arguing about what to eat for dinner. Motorcycle helmet laws are a perfect example.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

How much do you think this tpp deal will impact the election?

Unless there is a dairy farmer party waiting in the wings to be politically relevant to all the upset dairy farmers out there, this won't matter. No major party will back out of the TPP.

[flar]

Originally Posted by Migs

Whew, good thing I'm not a socialist!

[flar]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Unless there is a dairy farmer party waiting in the wings to be politically relevant to all the upset dairy farmers out there, this won't matter. No major party will back out of the TPP.

The TPP is one of those things that goes beyond politics. It's part of the part of our system that is not open for discussion or democracy.

The only details we have on its content are from something that was leaked by Wikileaks.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Migs

MPs vote freely? I thought Trudeau refused to have any candidates who are pro-life. Can you imagine dictating to your members that you cannot be pro-life.

That's why they put the caveat that it can't go against the charter of rights. Like I said, this is toothless. Looks like we agree for once MIGS.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by flar

The TPP is one of those things that goes beyond politics. It's part of the part of our system that is not open for discussion or democracy.

The only details we have on its content are from something that was leaked by Wikileaks.

That's how all international trade agreements work. The only people raising hell are being funded and influenced by domestic monopolies at risk of foreign competition.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by flar

Whew, good thing I'm not a socialist!

Teetering

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Migs

Yep those Scandinavian countries which are the envy of the world definitely seem defeated and envious of everyone else.

And how could you call the Swedes lazy?!? They put their people and a good portion of the world to work building their impossibly frustrating IKEA furniture!

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by geotag277

...

All comparisons regarding miles travelled are false equivalences. A motorcycle is not a car, a motorcycle is not used like a car, and comparing them in this way is pointless. A motorcycle is primarily a recreational vehicle that is used fundamentally differently than a car. You cannot compare miles travelled in a meaningful way anymore than you can compare the number of wheels - they are used fundamentally differently.

...

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning here. You seem to be saying that because they have some fundamental differences that you can't compare the risks, but you fail to elaborate why. Are you making the argument that since there are more people who use cars in a utilitarian way as opposed to a recreational way, that the risks that motorcycles pose should be considered more significant since there are fewer practical benefits to motorcycle use to outweigh the risks? Or are you saying that since more people use motorbikes recreationally, that the very nature of recreational use is riskier than utilitarian use, which would mean that using a car recreationally would be riskier than using one for practical purposes as well? Or some other argument entirely...

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by geotag277

What does "the severity of injuries is 5x that of cars" even mean?

It means exactly what it says. The average injury costs (medical treatment, remedial therapy, income replacement benefits, etc) are 5 times higher for motorcyclists than drivers/passengers in vehicles.

Motorcyclists when in a collision are generally more seriously injured and have a longer recovery time.

This kind of comparison matters when setting insurance rates. Risks with similar characteristics are grouped together and together enough premium needs to be collected to pay for losses/injuries to that group. Though there are some more modern ways to assess risk more individually.

This all comes from the Saskatchewan market though which is a bit of a different jurisdiction (Non-profit crown corporation), though Manitoba, BC, and a portion of Quebec industry have similarities.

To bring it back to where the discussion started, the Saskatchewan government and the provincial insurance company have been making safety measures stricter in order to reduce the severity of claims (more training, better protective clothing, etc) because claims (and therefore, the required premium) for motorcyclists have been skyrocketing. I doubt they will go out and allow people to opt out, especially with a publicly run insurance company.

Also, all new cars have airbags, these function like helmets protecting from impacts. Motorcycle airbag technology doesn't seem to be as developed as car technology for some reason...

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by flar

The TPP is one of those things that goes beyond politics. It's part of the part of our system that is not open for discussion or democracy.

It's a sad sign that our governments have been completely bought by bankers and corporations. Their interests come first before any person's health and/or welfare

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning here. You seem to be saying that because they have some fundamental differences that you can't compare the risks, but you fail to elaborate why. Are you making the argument that since there are more people who use cars in a utilitarian way as opposed to a recreational way, that the risks that motorcycles pose should be considered more significant since there are fewer practical benefits to motorcycle use to outweigh the risks? Or are you saying that since more people use motorbikes recreationally, that the very nature of recreational use is riskier than utilitarian use, which would mean that using a car recreationally would be riskier than using one for practical purposes as well? Or some other argument entirely...

It's a false equivalence for all those reasons and more. It is like comparing the quantity of sugar used in baking versus salt - they are used in different ways and they have different purposes.

More fundamentally, it is like comparing a data set of the miles flown of a fighter jet versus a commercial airliner. They cannot be meaningfully compared, the data sets are fundamentally different.

[Kitchissippi]

[RWin]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

What I don't understand is that the niqab is presumably what's been causing he NDP's slide. But the Liberals have the same position on it, and they're soaring. It can't be just that, but nothing else has come out in the past few weeks.

Maybe it's really a non-issue and people see the Liberals as the best way to defeat the Conservatives. Or maybe it's a real issue and people see the Liberals as the best way to defeat the Conservatives.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

That's funny since capitalism created this website & the device you're using to post that nonsense.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yep those Scandinavian countries which are the envy of the world definitely seem defeated and envious of everyone else.

And how could you call the Swedes lazy?!? They put their people and a good portion of the world to work building their impossibly frustrating IKEA furniture!

Scandinavian countries are capitalist. IKEA is not a product of socialism.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by geotag277

That's how all international trade agreements work. The only people raising hell are being funded and influenced by domestic monopolies at risk of foreign competition.

There's plenty of other concerns with TPP. For one, I am absolutely opposed to the massive expansion of copyright terms (up to 120 years for non-natural persons) which go way, way beyond what copyrights were intended for. The definition for copyright infringement includes infringements "have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain" and make those a criminal offence. The ambiguous language regarding "trade secrets" also makes the TPP threatening towards journalists and whistleblowers.