Trying something new; a link to an imgur gallery containing projection maps for Alberta.
http://imgur.com/gallery/LlkFQ
This is presuming a united merged right lead by Jason Kenney, and the best and worst such a party could do against the NDP.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
28MAR2017 - updates (NI and personal)
Northern Ireland's deadline for forming a government has passed. Theoretically this means a new election, but the powers that be (in particular, the 5 parties and 2 governments - Ireland and Britain) are not keen on one, as such, there will be roughly a month or so of extended negotiations.
There are three main sticking points.
The first is language. SF wants protection for the Irish language. The DUP wants any protection also extended to Ulster Scots, and does not want any unique protections for Irish.
Second is legacy issues; many unionists feel that current programs looking at murders during the troubles focus too heavily on the actions of soldiers, and not heavily enough on the actions of the PIRA. SF feels the current process is properly balanced.
The final issue is that of RHI and weather Foster needs to step aside; however due to the inability to get past the first two issues, this issue has not been in the forefront recently.
As I outlined here, negotiations will take time. After watching things I have a few new suspicions on ways things can go, all based on changes to the GFA.
1 - "Permission"
This would be a change that would allow the DUP to sit outside of government, but, offer 'permission' for an executive to be formed. The simplest way to achieve this is for them to agree to a system where they can vote against an executive, but it still is able to take power. The current GFA clearly states the largest unionist party need to agree on an executive; that means the DUP. A new agreement could simply use the current 30 seat 'veto' barrier (for a cross-community vote) become the maximum size of opposition to an executive. Since the DUP only has 28 seats, such a system would allow a new executive to be formed without support of the DUP, but with their unofficial permission.
2 - "Balanced Majority"
This is similar to the above but would go one step further and allow SF to be excluded as well. It's important to note this would require another election. However, should such an election provide a result where the UUP, SDLP, and APNI hold a combined majority (right now they only hold 30 of 90 seats) the system could be changed to allow for this grouping to form the basis of a new government. This would require each party to win roughly 6 additional seats, or, have strong support from parties like the Greens and PBP. However, given the problems the DUP and SF have with negotiations, this becomes a possibility if the math allows after the next election.
3 - "Decapitation"
This would see an assembly (the one just elected) sit, but not form an executive (government) This would be a strange set of affairs, but, technically existed for a week prior to the election. It would allow for a body of elected representatives within NI to express their collective will on various legislation and bills while having official and executive powers exercised by the United Kingdom (likely in consultations with the Republic of Ireland) Should negotiations continue to fail over the long term, this may become a more palatable option. The danger is that should this option be chosen, it could become the 'new normal'
On a more personal level
One problem I have with consistent activity on the blog is that despite the fact I am basically going over things that have happened or will happen, writing is still, at its core, a creative activity. There are periods where I feel creative and periods where I do not and that's likely to continue into the future. The only way to combat that is to have a blog with multiple people writing for it so that the absence of any one particular permission does not go missed, however, this has a number of problems as these people can have clashing styles and ideals as to what an acceptable standard is for a blogpost.
In the past week my problems have been health related. I've always had bad teeth but I had a flare up of a tooth infection. Very painful; despite being on the maximum recommended dosage of Tylenol 3 (codeine) 2 pills of 30mg each, the pain was nearly unbearable. Fortunately, as I was on antibiotics, there came a moment when I literally felt the pain drain away, and it stayed that way. However; this made me realize I need to stop delaying dental care, and as such, have two new holes in my head where teeth used to be. Part of the problem is that these are only 2 of the 6 teeth that need major work done and/or removal.
Add to that the fact that these sorts of things give me immense amounts of anxiety - to the point that I will be speaking with my doctor about a prescription for it when I need see her.
The whole process has been unpleasant and will continue to be so; but in the end I have no one to blame but myself for taking poor care of my health.
Despite only having the teeth in question removed 14 hours ago, I felt like writing. Hopefully this will spark a new period of regular writing for me.
There are three main sticking points.
The first is language. SF wants protection for the Irish language. The DUP wants any protection also extended to Ulster Scots, and does not want any unique protections for Irish.
Second is legacy issues; many unionists feel that current programs looking at murders during the troubles focus too heavily on the actions of soldiers, and not heavily enough on the actions of the PIRA. SF feels the current process is properly balanced.
The final issue is that of RHI and weather Foster needs to step aside; however due to the inability to get past the first two issues, this issue has not been in the forefront recently.
As I outlined here, negotiations will take time. After watching things I have a few new suspicions on ways things can go, all based on changes to the GFA.
1 - "Permission"
This would be a change that would allow the DUP to sit outside of government, but, offer 'permission' for an executive to be formed. The simplest way to achieve this is for them to agree to a system where they can vote against an executive, but it still is able to take power. The current GFA clearly states the largest unionist party need to agree on an executive; that means the DUP. A new agreement could simply use the current 30 seat 'veto' barrier (for a cross-community vote) become the maximum size of opposition to an executive. Since the DUP only has 28 seats, such a system would allow a new executive to be formed without support of the DUP, but with their unofficial permission.
2 - "Balanced Majority"
This is similar to the above but would go one step further and allow SF to be excluded as well. It's important to note this would require another election. However, should such an election provide a result where the UUP, SDLP, and APNI hold a combined majority (right now they only hold 30 of 90 seats) the system could be changed to allow for this grouping to form the basis of a new government. This would require each party to win roughly 6 additional seats, or, have strong support from parties like the Greens and PBP. However, given the problems the DUP and SF have with negotiations, this becomes a possibility if the math allows after the next election.
3 - "Decapitation"
This would see an assembly (the one just elected) sit, but not form an executive (government) This would be a strange set of affairs, but, technically existed for a week prior to the election. It would allow for a body of elected representatives within NI to express their collective will on various legislation and bills while having official and executive powers exercised by the United Kingdom (likely in consultations with the Republic of Ireland) Should negotiations continue to fail over the long term, this may become a more palatable option. The danger is that should this option be chosen, it could become the 'new normal'
On a more personal level
One problem I have with consistent activity on the blog is that despite the fact I am basically going over things that have happened or will happen, writing is still, at its core, a creative activity. There are periods where I feel creative and periods where I do not and that's likely to continue into the future. The only way to combat that is to have a blog with multiple people writing for it so that the absence of any one particular permission does not go missed, however, this has a number of problems as these people can have clashing styles and ideals as to what an acceptable standard is for a blogpost.
In the past week my problems have been health related. I've always had bad teeth but I had a flare up of a tooth infection. Very painful; despite being on the maximum recommended dosage of Tylenol 3 (codeine) 2 pills of 30mg each, the pain was nearly unbearable. Fortunately, as I was on antibiotics, there came a moment when I literally felt the pain drain away, and it stayed that way. However; this made me realize I need to stop delaying dental care, and as such, have two new holes in my head where teeth used to be. Part of the problem is that these are only 2 of the 6 teeth that need major work done and/or removal.
Add to that the fact that these sorts of things give me immense amounts of anxiety - to the point that I will be speaking with my doctor about a prescription for it when I need see her.
The whole process has been unpleasant and will continue to be so; but in the end I have no one to blame but myself for taking poor care of my health.
Despite only having the teeth in question removed 14 hours ago, I felt like writing. Hopefully this will spark a new period of regular writing for me.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Interesting things from Twitter last night
So there were some rather interesting things posted to twitter last night. In case you missed it with all the talk about Michael Chong, I am speaking about this thread https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/846103684601720832
I've been able to boil some of this down into simplistic rules of thumb that apply to the situation for the past few years.
For every 5 dollars the Federal government raises in revenue per capita, provincial governments raise 6, and municipal governments raise 2.
However, there is a massive amount of transfers. Mostly Federal to Provincial, and Provincial to Municipal. As such.
For every 4 dollars the Federal government spends of it's own money (outside of transfers to other levels of government) Provinces spend 7 (outside of transfers to other levels) and municipalities spend 3.
This means that Provinces get slightly more (from the feds) than they give (to municipalities) and that municipalities raise less than half of what they spend.
Assuming only "direct" transfers to the next level down (IE Fed to Prov, Prov to Muni) [This is not the case, there are always bizarre cases where, for example, a municipality might transfer money to the federal government for unexpected reasons] This implies Provinces get roughly 20% of all their money from the Federal Government, and, as such (by implication) are 20% beholden to the Feds. Municipalities, meanwhile, are 60% beholden to the provincial governments.
While the numbers have grown further apart, my old 'rule of thumb' still holds true; that the sum total raised by the Provinces (before transfers) and the Federal government is the same, while Municipalities only raise half this amount.
Disclaimer: this is based totally on the numbers in the thread, and not a personal examination of budgets by myself.
I've been able to boil some of this down into simplistic rules of thumb that apply to the situation for the past few years.
For every 5 dollars the Federal government raises in revenue per capita, provincial governments raise 6, and municipal governments raise 2.
However, there is a massive amount of transfers. Mostly Federal to Provincial, and Provincial to Municipal. As such.
For every 4 dollars the Federal government spends of it's own money (outside of transfers to other levels of government) Provinces spend 7 (outside of transfers to other levels) and municipalities spend 3.
This means that Provinces get slightly more (from the feds) than they give (to municipalities) and that municipalities raise less than half of what they spend.
Assuming only "direct" transfers to the next level down (IE Fed to Prov, Prov to Muni) [This is not the case, there are always bizarre cases where, for example, a municipality might transfer money to the federal government for unexpected reasons] This implies Provinces get roughly 20% of all their money from the Federal Government, and, as such (by implication) are 20% beholden to the Feds. Municipalities, meanwhile, are 60% beholden to the provincial governments.
While the numbers have grown further apart, my old 'rule of thumb' still holds true; that the sum total raised by the Provinces (before transfers) and the Federal government is the same, while Municipalities only raise half this amount.
Disclaimer: this is based totally on the numbers in the thread, and not a personal examination of budgets by myself.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Martin McGuinness has died
I've spoken about him before in a past blog post.
Also an update; I'm still quite busy, and today in particular am facing some minor health issues. I'll try to return to more regular posting as soon as possible.
Also an update; I'm still quite busy, and today in particular am facing some minor health issues. I'll try to return to more regular posting as soon as possible.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Netherlands Results
Dutch media is suggesting the coalition I proposed earlier is very likely to take office.
33 - VVD - Conservative
19 - CDA - Christian Democrat
19 - D66 - Liberal
This gives the coalition 71 seats, short of the 76 needed for a majority; however, minority governments have happened before.
The main opposition parties are as follows:
20 - PVV - Nativist
14 - SP - Socialist
14 - GL - Green Left
It's been speculated the Green Left would be willing to join the new coalition. I don't fully understand the nuance; but it's been widely reported in the dutch media that this is the most likely way the coalition would reach a majority.
Other parties:
9 - PvdA - Labour
5 - CU - Social Conservative
5 - PvdD - Environment+Animal
4 - 50+ - Pensioner
3 - SGP - Christian Right
Labour is the largest loser in this, falling to 9 from 38 seats.
As well two new parties join Parliament:
3 - DENK - Social Democratic, and Multicultural, Pro-immigration
2 - FvD - Populistic, Nativistic, Eurosceptic, and Conservative
Feel free to compare this to my prediction. Despite the fact I placed VVD far higher than polls suggested, they managed to outperform even that.
33 - VVD - Conservative
19 - CDA - Christian Democrat
19 - D66 - Liberal
This gives the coalition 71 seats, short of the 76 needed for a majority; however, minority governments have happened before.
The main opposition parties are as follows:
20 - PVV - Nativist
14 - SP - Socialist
14 - GL - Green Left
It's been speculated the Green Left would be willing to join the new coalition. I don't fully understand the nuance; but it's been widely reported in the dutch media that this is the most likely way the coalition would reach a majority.
Other parties:
9 - PvdA - Labour
5 - CU - Social Conservative
5 - PvdD - Environment+Animal
4 - 50+ - Pensioner
3 - SGP - Christian Right
Labour is the largest loser in this, falling to 9 from 38 seats.
As well two new parties join Parliament:
3 - DENK - Social Democratic, and Multicultural, Pro-immigration
2 - FvD - Populistic, Nativistic, Eurosceptic, and Conservative
Feel free to compare this to my prediction. Despite the fact I placed VVD far higher than polls suggested, they managed to outperform even that.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
BC polling still off the mark.
A bit of a "breaking" story; but in short;
from my tweet thread
You know what you can't find easily in most BC polls? how people voted in 2013. Why? Cause they know these numbers are fishy.
If they showed you, they'd say 40% voted NDP in 2013 (they did) but only 34% voted Liberal. (it was 44%)
What this tells me is a very very simple fact; a LOT of people who voted Liberal last time are not answering polls
This was the key stat that told me the early Ontario and Quebec polls were wrong; but not the later (and correct) ones
And this is the key stat that showed me after the fact that both Alberta and BC were wrong in 2012/2013
It's been purposely hidden it seems because the BC pollsters likely know their numbers are way way off. Libs have ~10 additional pts
From a chat room
I just did some math
that shows the BC polls are ******* ********
this happened in 2013. and in alberta in 2012 with pc. I noticed it after the fact
it also happened in early polls with the liberals in ontario and quebec
it also happened in early polls with the liberals in ontario and quebec
Q: what are the amounts for other parties?
well as shown above, a poll that says the topline is 34L-40N-14G-10C should actually read 45L-41N-8G-6C
same with 36L-40N-14G-8C should read 45L-41N-8G-5C
Q: why?
WHY they don't answer? no ******* clue. but at least I've found a way to determine WHO is not answering.
TLDR: BC Polls are just as far off as they were last time, if not more so.
More to come in future posts.
The NDP's biggest long term problem: Left in the wrong way
The NDP is Left in the wrong way.
It wasn't until reading this great article in the Toronto Star that I was finally able to put to words the reason the NDP has charged headlong into failure so many times at so many levels. The NDP is Left in the wrong way.
To quote the article
There are a number of positions on issues that horrify mainstream voters. Not simply that they oppose the idea, but that they very strongly oppose the idea. The NDP has a history of taking these ideas up and running with them. While many mainstream voters are willing to bend on Pipelines, those who are not are going to be concentrated in the resource-rich provinces of Western Canada.
There are a few other ideas the NDP has had, past and present, that strike this same horror into the minds of voters. They include but are not limited to...
As you can see, while some of these issues can be classified as economic, or foreign affairs related, all 5 have a similar theme in common of 'culture'
The NDP is culturally left. Not just socially left and economically left. This is the key difference between the NDP and the Liberals, and the key reason why the NDP fails when it fails.
Economic ideas like a basic income, helping the working class, and taxing the 1% are all popular with Canadians and could easily win elections. Social ideas like entrenching Trans rights, Refugees, and Immigration are also places the NDP can easily win.
The problem comes when you get into cultural issues; issues that rely on the worldview of the voter. while most voters do want to do something about climate change, it is not a top priority - most people are more worried about if their Trans child will get beat up today, or if they'll be able to put enough food on the table that evening. The NDP's position on climate change is not problematic, their focus on it is. The NDP has reached a point where they make more noise about climate change than the Green party does. Indigenous rights is another similar issue, most Canadians do think something needs to be done, but have their priorities elsewhere.
Governments campaign and govern in different ways. An NDP government that focuses on climate change and indigenous rights is not something that will turn off voters; an NDP campaign that focuses on these things, will.
It gets worse.
The NDP opposes pipelines, something that most Canadians understand is the safest way to transport oil. The NDP consistently supports public sector unions; in particular ones whose workers provide support to the most needy. People who make $25,000 a year are not going to take your side when you argue the people providing their services shouldn't make $75,000 a year, they should make $85,000 a year; no matter how hard you try to tell them that this is to their benefit. Some NDP parties have even pushed hard for herbicides over pesticides, and debated policy that would see the latter banned outright; farmers like to use what is cheap and effective and don't like others telling them how to do their jobs, no matter how much you tell them the environment will be better off for it.
It gets even worse.
http://xfer.ndp.ca/2017/Documents/2016_POLICY-EN.pdf
Take a look at the NDP's own policy documents.
Almost all of these issues, and related issues, are in section 1, or the upper half of section 2. Fighting poverty is section 3.4
Seniors is 3.7
Refugees is 4.4
Ethics is 5.8
Trans Rights is 6.3
The NDP's problem is they have everything backwards. Rather than going out every day and saying that people need economic help in these hard times; that Trans people need protection; that Refugees need our help - they are going out every day and saying that the Climate is changing; they are going out every day and saying that Native peoples need help; they are going out every day saying that Proportional Representation needs to happen.
I think you'll find that while a good 70% of Canadians, if not more, think all 6 of these thing either need to happen, or, they wouldn't mind if they did happen, you'll also find that within that 70%, a good 80% think the first 3 need to happen before the second 3.
Trudeau won because he was Left in the proper way. Mulcair was Left in the wrong way. The things you say, and the order you say them in, matter. If you are talking to someone about serious issues, you are generally going to pick the things most important to you to discuss first. The NDP's problem is these things are all issues Canadians just frankly don't care that much about. Sure they want them to happen, sure they support them, but they are other, bigger issues that need to be faced in the here and now.
The NDP has not failed because they are Left.
They've failed because they are Left in the wrong way.
It wasn't until reading this great article in the Toronto Star that I was finally able to put to words the reason the NDP has charged headlong into failure so many times at so many levels. The NDP is Left in the wrong way.
To quote the article
Mulcair was heading into an Edmonton convention after expressing an open mind on ...(being)... anti-oil sands...
There are a number of positions on issues that horrify mainstream voters. Not simply that they oppose the idea, but that they very strongly oppose the idea. The NDP has a history of taking these ideas up and running with them. While many mainstream voters are willing to bend on Pipelines, those who are not are going to be concentrated in the resource-rich provinces of Western Canada.
There are a few other ideas the NDP has had, past and present, that strike this same horror into the minds of voters. They include but are not limited to...
- Withdrawing from NATO
- Withdrawing from NORAD
- Opposition to a Jewish State in the Middle East
- Nationalization of Industry
- Repeal of NAFTA
As you can see, while some of these issues can be classified as economic, or foreign affairs related, all 5 have a similar theme in common of 'culture'
The NDP is culturally left. Not just socially left and economically left. This is the key difference between the NDP and the Liberals, and the key reason why the NDP fails when it fails.
Economic ideas like a basic income, helping the working class, and taxing the 1% are all popular with Canadians and could easily win elections. Social ideas like entrenching Trans rights, Refugees, and Immigration are also places the NDP can easily win.
The problem comes when you get into cultural issues; issues that rely on the worldview of the voter. while most voters do want to do something about climate change, it is not a top priority - most people are more worried about if their Trans child will get beat up today, or if they'll be able to put enough food on the table that evening. The NDP's position on climate change is not problematic, their focus on it is. The NDP has reached a point where they make more noise about climate change than the Green party does. Indigenous rights is another similar issue, most Canadians do think something needs to be done, but have their priorities elsewhere.
Governments campaign and govern in different ways. An NDP government that focuses on climate change and indigenous rights is not something that will turn off voters; an NDP campaign that focuses on these things, will.
It gets worse.
The NDP opposes pipelines, something that most Canadians understand is the safest way to transport oil. The NDP consistently supports public sector unions; in particular ones whose workers provide support to the most needy. People who make $25,000 a year are not going to take your side when you argue the people providing their services shouldn't make $75,000 a year, they should make $85,000 a year; no matter how hard you try to tell them that this is to their benefit. Some NDP parties have even pushed hard for herbicides over pesticides, and debated policy that would see the latter banned outright; farmers like to use what is cheap and effective and don't like others telling them how to do their jobs, no matter how much you tell them the environment will be better off for it.
It gets even worse.
http://xfer.ndp.ca/2017/Documents/2016_POLICY-EN.pdf
Take a look at the NDP's own policy documents.
Almost all of these issues, and related issues, are in section 1, or the upper half of section 2. Fighting poverty is section 3.4
Seniors is 3.7
Refugees is 4.4
Ethics is 5.8
Trans Rights is 6.3
The NDP's problem is they have everything backwards. Rather than going out every day and saying that people need economic help in these hard times; that Trans people need protection; that Refugees need our help - they are going out every day and saying that the Climate is changing; they are going out every day and saying that Native peoples need help; they are going out every day saying that Proportional Representation needs to happen.
I think you'll find that while a good 70% of Canadians, if not more, think all 6 of these thing either need to happen, or, they wouldn't mind if they did happen, you'll also find that within that 70%, a good 80% think the first 3 need to happen before the second 3.
Trudeau won because he was Left in the proper way. Mulcair was Left in the wrong way. The things you say, and the order you say them in, matter. If you are talking to someone about serious issues, you are generally going to pick the things most important to you to discuss first. The NDP's problem is these things are all issues Canadians just frankly don't care that much about. Sure they want them to happen, sure they support them, but they are other, bigger issues that need to be faced in the here and now.
The NDP has not failed because they are Left.
They've failed because they are Left in the wrong way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)