I’ve cast my vote here in North Saanich-The Islands where Lizzie May is going to win in a walk. I voted for Ron Broda the PPc candidate. The objective being to add to Max’s popular vote.
Apparently, Jagmet Singh is surging which makes sense as he did very well in the debates and his policies are no crazier than the Libs, Greens, CPC or Bloc. Between Singh and the Bloc it is looking like Trudeau will be denied a majority. But it is not at all obvious that Scheer will win a majority.
Singh’s performance has done two things: ensured that he will remain leader of the NDP into the next election and, if the votes go his way, put paid to the stupid belief that Canadians could care less about “turbans”.
On October 22 we’re going to wake up to a politically very different Canada assuming that JT is unable to win a majority. The first thing which will change is Trudeau’s position. He could be Mr. Dressup with a majority but in a minority position – assuming he can form a government at all – his Teflon coating will have worn off. It is just possible that the bought and paid for Canadian media will rouse itself from its slumber and begin to ask slightly harder questions.
The second thing which will change is that third, fourth and even fifth parties will matter. For Trudeau to form a government he will need at least the NDP’s support and, perhaps, the Greens. To get that he is going to have to buy into a lot of nonsense which will be extremely bad for the country. The Liberals have plenty of idiotic policy but they don’t hold a candle to either the NDP or the Greens for economically useless virtue signalling.
Scheer would have an easier time of it in a minority position. His only possible ally would be the Bloc and while the Bloc wants to break up Canada they are financially sound and not nearly as eager as the NDP or the Greens for open borders and looney carbon taxes.
The key thing to remember is that regardless of who forms the government, that government is not going to last very long. In a sense, this election is about the next, more decisive, election. If Trudeau loses as big as he looks to be doing the Liberal Party will be looking for another leader. If Scheer ekes out a workable minority he will be looking to call an early election (in the face of the idiotic Fixed Terms act we have saddled ourselves with) to crush that new leader.
For Singh, especially if he picks up seats as well as popular vote, the election will cement his place as the NDP leader and silence the people who are talking about his unelectability. Lizzie May will be hailed as an emerging force in Canadian politics if she manages to pick up a couple more seats on Vancouver Island and, I suspect, that is exactly what she is going to do. (Old, white, retired, rich people just love a party committed to never changing anything.)
And what about Max? Obviously, he needs to hold his own seat. Which may be tough but I think he will pull through. I very much doubt he will win any other seats for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with Max or his policies. New parties take a while to gain traction. For Max, the biggest issue is how he does in the popular vote. Sitting at 1% is not going to cut it, but pop up over 4% and the table changes. Anything beyond that and Max will be the election night story.
The one thing this election has underscored is that there are four parties in Canada – Libs, CPC, NDP and Greens – who are committed to significant spending increases, looney climate emergency measures and endless, unlimited immigration. And there is one party which wants a balanced budget, better science on climate and hard caps on immigration.
A pal of mine tweeted that 70% of Canadians lean left. I think the number is lower but the fact is that the left and soft left vote is being split four ways. If Max continues to articulate his solidly right positions, next election he’ll pull lots of votes and win more than a few seats. He has a wide-open run at 30-40% of the electorate.
I give the PPC credit for at least stating their position in regards to climate change clearly. They are demonstrably wrong of course, but at least they have courage.
PPC won’t be an alternative in this household, unfortunately – largely because their Aboriginal policy is an even mealier-mouthed rewrite of the Flanagan-inspired Reform policies back in the day – the ones that framed the goal of downgrading self-governments to municipal status and asserting Federal supremacy over treaties and land claims agreements as gestures to save the poor natives.
But your reference to their commitment to “better science on climate” intrigued me. I went and read their online platform to see how they were going to strengthen the science – more research? More rigorous monitoring and impact assessment? Greater participation in international data collection and analysis? – but I guess I missed it. Can you point to the provisions that will lead us to the “better science”?
Begin with walking away from the flawed science which underpins the “climate emergency”. Once you stop relying on “not ready for policy” science you can, at least, avoid idiot moves like carbon taxes.
Better science will occur when the science is done in support of actually looking at observations rather than models and tested against refutable hypotheses rather than a thoroughly unscientific narrative.
So no actual plan or commitment to “improving the science” – simply drop existing agreements. programs, legislation, regulations and standards based on the findings you don’t like, with no plan for strengthening research. Thanks, that how I interpreted it as well.
Jay, I asked this before and I never got an answer. What science do you think is ready for policy implementation?
As an example, John, the general theory and practice of vaccination would pass muster. Vaccination theory has been tested in hundreds of applications. It holds up. As well, you can run a pretty good cost-benefit analysis on various types of vaccines and come to conclusions more than good enough to formulate policy.
But Jay, what about the side effects 30 years down the road? Yes there have been some vaccines given for more than 30 years, are these all from the same batch manufactured at the same facility at the same time? How are you positive that some of the new stuff isn’t going to cause problems?
Also, how do you predict what new diseases will come along and how can you predict the percent infected when you don’t know what the disease is, how it will spread or the infection rate! So what is the cost benefit analysis for this disease when you don’t know what the disease is or the cost is! So in that case what is your policy for future diseases! Are you just going to tax people now on speculation that we MAY need a new vaccine at some point in the future?
And if vaccines were really that effective, how come we don’t have one for the common cold! Or HIV or any of a number of diseases. Why do the vaccine makers want people to suffer.
Of course the big question is while vaccinations may have worked in the past, how can you be 100% sure that they can in the future! How can you be sure that the previous times weren’t just statistical phenomena.
But the most irrefutable piece of evidence was that Andrew Wakefield’s paper was retracted. This is a clear case of the scientific establishment trying to squelch dissent. Just like Galileo! Think of all the scientists who would lose research grants if it was known that there was no point in researching vaccines.
And I am not even going to get into the whole ethical area of using human guinea pigs to test these vaccines.
Sounds like the wheels are coming off that bus Jay! I’ll stick with physics myself.
As with “climate science” x 10 there are plenty of open questions with vaccines. The difference being that, in general, vaccines pretty much live up to the theory. Of course, there are issues at the margins and a new vaccine needs to prove itself out over time.
As to new diseases, vaccine theory gives you a way forward. Is it right, no idea. But it is testable and it does not depend upon a pre-determined narrative. Either a vaccine works or it doesn’t.
Ha, I knew it! Here is proof! the following article shows that there has been a recent increase in deaths from flu! According to your theory, if vaccines were effective then we should see a steady decrease in deaths from flu! That is a pretty big hole in your so called “theory” (unsubstantiated speculation if you ask me).
An observation which suggests that flu vaccines are less than perfectly effective. It says nothing about polio or yellow fever or any of the many vaccines which have worked over time. As to vaccine theory, failed vaccines are just that, failures. Refutations of the specific. If all vaccines failed to work you would have a refutation of the theory. If one or three don’t you have bad vaccines and it is back to the drawing board.
What you would not do is adjust the results to fit the theory. Unlike climate science.
“Of course, there are issues at the margins ” Well said Jay and that has been my point about the science behind climate change. There are (and will always be) questions at the margins, but the basic physics are known and solid. The results are testable and verified. Everything from outgoing longwave radiation to surface temperature has been measured and confirms the theory.
There have been opposing theories developed and examined but it is interesting how they are treated in climate science is interesting. The Wakefield paper was shown to be based on suspect data and described by one medical journal as an “elaborate fraud”. Thus it is considered discredited. There have been a dozen similar instances of papers that purport to show problems with the theory of global warming. The science presented in these papers is shown as faulty, yet this is either ignored or taken as proof of how valid the papers are (but are being censored by the climate establishment).
You yourself have a history of ignoring the flaws in papers you promote!
Its time to come clean Jay and drop the whole “not mature enough for policy” argument. Do you think economic theory is mature enough for policy implementation (shall we compare how the evidence holds up for global warming when compared to supply side economics)? That should be an easy win for you since I have no education in economics whatsoever!
This is all reminiscent of the “debate” over tobacco safety, in which a handful of industry-subsidized studies and paid lobbyists insisted for years that the science linking cancer and tobacco consumption was, initially, “flawed”, then “inadequate”, then “inconclusive”, before shifting the focusing of their market to less informed and regulated countries. We’re seeing exactly the same strategies here, albeit more aggressively deployed, probably because the petroleum industry has more and better industrial and political allies.
The argument at this point is not about science. There is NO level of evidence that will satisfy Jay.
[…] Jay Currie has already wasted his vote at the advanced polls (the same way I’m going to waste mine come election day), and now he’s considering what our parliament will look like on October 22nd (here’s a hint … we both know our guy isn’t going to be PM): […]