The NDP win in Alberta has exactly nothing to do with federal politics. In fact, had Mulcair (the federal NDP leader) endorsed the Alberta NDP party it probably would have cost them a lot of votes. He is remembered for demonizing Alberta to cozy up to Quebec voters in the last federal election and remains wildly unpopular in Alberta.
Prentice and the Alberta PC's made a litany of key mistakes in rapid succession. Perhaps foremost was flouting their own legislation that "guaranteed" fixed election dates... again. Why was it too much this time? The PC's had just cut the head off the official opposition party by luring their leader (along with half it's MLA's) across the floor. While Prentice claimed he needed a new mandate for his budget, the true reason for this election's timing was obvious. They thought it would be a cakewalk because their opposition was in complete disarray. This is exactly the kind of election manipulation their own law was supposed to discourage.
The reason the NDP won the election is because voters had decided on "anyone but the PC's" and Rachel Notley was the only leader who didn't look like a clown in the leader's debate. Alberta isn't afraid of big-spending governments because that's precisely what the PC's were. They also expect the NDP to become a much more centrist, business friendly party now that they're in power. Mulcair might be walking with a bounce in his step right now, but he's going to be choking down a lot of sour news about what passes for NDP policy in the West soon enough.
As for federal politics... Harper has now been in power long enough that the West has gotten over feeling giddy about actually mattering in federal politics. A different party with a sound policy and a good leader could easily win a lot of ridings here if they took the province seriously. That means no nepotism, especially regarding the son of a leader famous for flipping the province the bird while riding right on through to the next province on the train. That means no parties that are too afraid to announce their platform. That means no parties that run garbage candidates. (In the last federal election, the NDP ran a grocery clerk from the other end of the province in my riding. She had never been to my city and refused to speak to media. She was nothing more than a name on a ballot.) No federal party that demonizes Alberta as a way of attacking Harper's background (even though he's from Toronto) is going to get a lot of votes here.
Finally, I'd just like to add that the liberals voted with the PC's to pass this bill. The NDP get no credit for opposing the bill because they'd oppose practically anything the other two parties were for.
You're right that the provincial NDP and federal NDP have very little to do with each other.
However, the winds of change are here in Alberta. Not saying we'll vote overwhelmingly NDP in the federal election, but you could see some change. Country-wide, support for the Cons is wavering. They lose a few here, in BC, lose a bunch in Ontario (this is pretty much a given), and they could be in trouble.
The NDP won because the conservative vote was split between two parties (PC and Wildrose) and the voting system is single-member-district plurality (FPTP).
Federally, there is only one conservative party and several viable opposition parties (mainly NDP and Liberal), so I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives win the next election, for exactly the same reason.
Unless the Libs and NDP are willing to join a coalition, I dont see how that would happen (or one party gains a majority). That's the problem with two opposition parties, both of whom are centre left/left (ish).
Even if Harper goes (and if he doesn't I call shenanigans) the bill has been passed. The damage has been done. If liberals win it is highly unlikely they would remove that bill, and if NDP wins still i doubt they will abolish the bill. At best you can hope for NDP to win and submit revisions to the bill for more oversight.
There's a whole gamut of options between current regulations and no regulations. But the corrupt regulators don't want to change anything because they like how the current regulations bring in $800K per year per medallion to license holders who are also their friends, partners and/or campaign donors (actual Vancouver numbers).
What kind of safety or convenience or other concerns require profits in excess of $800K per taxi cab per year? What's wrong with market pricing? Why should short rides subsidize long rides? Why can't one company offer no-frills service (at no-frills prices), and the other one premium service? Why can't taxis have optional ride pooling?
Uber, Lyft & co have already proved that they can work great alongside existing cabs. There is no reason why they wouldn't work if the regulations are updated from 1930 to 2015 and from protecting incumbents' profits to protecting users' interests. But the cities are unwilling to do that because they like their profitable taxi cartels.
5 years? More like 40-80. In Vancouver for example the 4 taxi companies comprising the taxi industry basically regulate themselves. Of course they will never approve another entrant. I wouldn't be surprised if Montreal is about the same.
Yes, because lots of people end up using software with default values. Can you blame them? Perhaps... in a way that you can blame a user who accidentally clicks a "delete account" button that doesn't have a confirmation step.
Good defaults are expected in quality software, and are just as important as any other part of software interface, CLI or GUI.
Yes it has special meaning that lawyers tend to forget confuses laypeople. A legal action is a term of art that means a legal proceeding such as a lawsuit or a petition at a gov't agency. From Black's Law Dictionary:
Lawful pursuit for justice or decision under the law, typically leading to proceeding within the jurisdiction’s court system. An entity accuses another for a unlawful action, to protect an entity’s rights from violation
I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction. For me it's easier to believe that this EO was signed deliberately to make every important security researcher guilty by default. It's hard to go against a government that can always punish you for what you have already done.