Canadian federal election - October 19, 2015 (Official Campaign Thread)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:45:35 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Canadian federal election - October 19, 2015 (Official Campaign Thread)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 60
Author Topic: Canadian federal election - October 19, 2015 (Official Campaign Thread)  (Read 233035 times)
King of Kensington
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,068


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #925 on: October 02, 2015, 01:14:28 AM »
« edited: October 02, 2015, 01:17:06 AM by King of Kensington »

What left wing? There really isn't one in the NDP. Sure at every convention you see half a dozen Trotskyists hogging microphones but the NDP really doesnt have any organized leftwing that is anything like factions of the UK Labour party or the Australian Labor Party.

There used to be about a one third or so "militant minority" that could sought to move it further to the left (the Waffle, the Left Caucus, the NPI etc.) that was powerful enough to influence the party.   But it pretty much disappeared after Layton became leader.

I mean, 84% of delegates voted in favor of removing the word "socialist" from the preamble of the party's constitution a few years ago.
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #926 on: October 02, 2015, 06:13:18 AM »

32/30/26. QC: 30/27/22/18 among Francophones, 28/24/22/21 topline. Grits lead in BC/ON.

[url=http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/suivson_can_2015210.pdf]Breguet projects 40-54 NPD seats here.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #927 on: October 02, 2015, 06:17:34 AM »
« Edited: October 02, 2015, 10:21:36 AM by Hash »

Dueling polls with Angus Reid and Forum.  Consistent numbers for NDP at 26-27%, but Liberals Conservatives at odds in polls.

Nanos Research Libs 33.5%, Cons 31.9%, NDP 25.9%
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/20151001%20Ballot%20TrackingE.pdf

Leger Marketing Libs: 32%, Cons: 30%, NDP: 26%
http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/suivson_can_2015210.pdf

Quebec is in Canada, they should speak English! Cheesy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Opinion_polls

Leger poll has B.Q at 24% in Quebec.  I said on a facebook post to a former NDP candidate a couple days ago that the Niqab demagoging had the chance to bite the Cons. Harper has always been proud that on his watch the seperatist threat has virtually disappeared.  Once that raised this issue, it was not a surprise that Francophone Quebecers (most aside from the Quebec City region) would take a look at the Con position and regard it as 'too moderate,' and say that 'if the Niqab is a problem, banning it only at citizenship ceremonies does nothing to address that problem' and cast aside the Cons for the more hardline position of the B.Q.

This is likely why Pierre Polievre, the unemployable Minister of Employment was musing yesterday that, if reelected, the Cons might extend the ban on the Niqab to federal jobs and the like.

Nevertheless, as most Francophone Quebecers outside of the Quebec City region don't care much for the Cons, I think those who are concerned about this issue are still far more likely to support the B.Q.

Once the B.Q are back in Ottawa, who knows what they can do to revive their Provincial cousins or do to raise seperatism again.

It would be bad for Canada to see this issue back, but it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #928 on: October 02, 2015, 06:28:37 AM »


The Liberals are all over the map in the polling here in B.C.  I have to say there is no way I can see the Liberals doing anything outside of parts of the Lower Mainland.  I doubt they even have much of an organization in the rest of the province.  I know the NDP won in Quebec in 2011, but that was a wave election.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #929 on: October 02, 2015, 06:46:29 AM »

My gift to Andrew Coyne.  My 17 member Canadian Federal cabinet and the Ministers I would choose from each party.

1.Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair
2.Finance/Treasury Board, Ralph Goodale, Tony Clement, Nathan Cullen
3.Industry and Trade, John McCallum, Ed Fast, Peggy Nash
4.Natural Resources, Kirsty Duncan, Gerry Ritz, Linda Duncan
5.Agriculture and Fisheries, Yvonne Jones, Gail Shea, Guy Caron
6.Environment and Parks, Stephane Dion, Leona Aglukuk, Megan Leslie
7.Transportation and Public Works, Scott Brison, Lisa Raitt, David Christopherson
8.Human Resources and Social Development, Chrystia Freeland, Kellie Leitch, Olivia Chow
9.Health, Carolyn Bennett, Rona Ambrose, Helene Le Blanc
10.Veterans Affairs, Kevin Lamoreux, Erin O'Toole, Peter Stoffer
11.Defense, Geoff Regan, Jason Kenney, Jack Harris
12.Foreign Affairs and International Development, Marc Garneau, Rob Nicholson, Paul Dewar
13.Citizenship and Immigration/Labour, Arnold Chan, Denis Lebel, Helene Laverdiere
14.Aboriginal and Intergovernmental Affairs, Joyce Murray, Bernard Valcourt, Niki Ashton
15.Solicitor General and Public Safety, David McGuinty, Steven Blaney, Randall Garrison
16.Attorney General, Sean Casey, Peter Van Loan, Francoise Boivin
17.Government House Leader, Dominic LeBlanc, Kerri Lynne Findley, Peter Julian
Chief Whip, Judy Foote, Diane Finley, Nycole Turmel

This is a similar cabinet to the U.S one
Obviously there is no Prime Minister in the U.S cabinet and the closest thing to a Government House Leader there is probably the Congressional Liason.  12 of the other 15 are basically the same:

1.Finance/Treasury Board = Treasury
2.Industry and Trade = Commerce
3.Natural Resources = Energy
4.Agriculture and Fisheries = Agriculture
5.Environment and Parks = Interior
6.Transportation and Public Works = Transportation
7.Health = Health and Human Services
8.Veterans Affairs = Veterans Affairs
9.Defense = Defense
10.Foreign Affairs and International Development = State
11.Solicitor General and Public Safety = Homeland Security
12.Attorney General = Attorney General

The only 3 cabinet positions in the U.S not here are
1.Labor
2.Housing and Urban Development
3.Education
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #930 on: October 02, 2015, 08:26:23 AM »

Come to think of it, the Bloc may well have a future after all. It's all the more shocking considering that everyone assumed they will have zero seats until this week.

Anything other than a Conservative majority will mean electoral reform, which will guarantee some Bloc presence for decades to come. And a Conservative majority may well revive Quebec separatism, which was written off for dead after 2011 and 2014.
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #931 on: October 02, 2015, 08:55:12 AM »

Forgetting that the Senate has a say too...
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #932 on: October 02, 2015, 09:02:29 AM »

Come to think of it, the Bloc may well have a future after all. It's all the more shocking considering that everyone assumed they will have zero seats until this week.

Anything other than a Conservative majority will mean electoral reform, which will guarantee some Bloc presence for decades to come. And a Conservative majority may well revive Quebec separatism, which was written off for dead after 2011 and 2014.

Liberal electoral reform would likely mean instant runoff elections which would likely destroy the B.Q.
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #933 on: October 02, 2015, 10:33:52 AM »

Come to think of it, the Bloc may well have a future after all. It's all the more shocking considering that everyone assumed they will have zero seats until this week.

Anything other than a Conservative majority will mean electoral reform, which will guarantee some Bloc presence for decades to come. And a Conservative majority may well revive Quebec separatism, which was written off for dead after 2011 and 2014.

Liberal electoral reform would likely mean instant runoff elections which would likely destroy the B.Q.

That's assuming the NDP remains competitive in every part of Quebec. Or, Trudeaumania 2.0 doesn't both take NDP votes *and* re-reinvigorate Quebec nationalism.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #934 on: October 02, 2015, 10:57:05 AM »

Come to think of it, the Bloc may well have a future after all. It's all the more shocking considering that everyone assumed they will have zero seats until this week.

Anything other than a Conservative majority will mean electoral reform, which will guarantee some Bloc presence for decades to come. And a Conservative majority may well revive Quebec separatism, which was written off for dead after 2011 and 2014.

Liberal electoral reform would likely mean instant runoff elections which would likely destroy the B.Q.

That's assuming the NDP remains competitive in every part of Quebec. Or, Trudeaumania 2.0 doesn't both take NDP votes *and* re-reinvigorate Quebec nationalism.

Well, that's a fair point. But, it's too many ifs:
1.I believe you are referring not to whether the NDP remains competitive or not, but where the NDP voters go if they aren't in the top two.  So, that's one if.

2.It assumes the Liberals come to power and reinvigorates Quebec nationalism or that another Conservative government would reinvigorate Quebec nationalism.  We don't know how the Liberals would govern, so you can't assume that dislike in French Quebec for the Trudeau name would bring back seperatist sentiment.  So, that's two ifs.

3.Finally, it assumes electoral reform is implemented.  I don't see how the NDP or the Liberals could do that without holding a national referendum.  So, that's three ifs (of course, the need to hold a referendum is also an assumption on my part, but one backed up by what happened in the provinces.)  

It's safer to simply assume that a revived Bloc Quebecois on the basis of the Niqab issue will once again try to parlay 'winning conditions' into support for their provincial cousins. On this basis it would be that either a Liberal government won't implement anti Niqab laws or that the Conservative government laws don't go far enough, or that the Supreme Court strikes the federal laws down.  To me at this point, it looks like Harper has brought up an issue for cynical electoral purposes that is going to threaten one of the few genuine major accomplishments that happened on his watch.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #935 on: October 02, 2015, 11:29:11 AM »

The niqab makes you a hidden non-entity and a citizenship ceremony is about confirming your new identity as a citizen.

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

Well, maybe the construction "hidden non-entity" doesn't work in English since you can not hide something that doesn't exist, but the point should be clear. There is nothing bizarre about it. You do not see a person in a niqab as a person - she is hidden and has no identity to the outside world, you then have a ceremony which is about confirming her identity as a citizen in her new country. Attending this ceremony hidden under a veil is an absurd contradiction and should not be allowed.

This remains a non sequitur. Unless you can demonstrate a connection between the way a person dresses and their citizenship I'll have to keep reading your bigotry as just that.

You may disagree, but it is not a "non sequitur". There is a clear logical argument here - a ceremony about confirming a new identity done while concealing your identity by not showing your face is a contradiction. Doing things openly and frankly are important Western cultural values. Showing your true colours etc. Symbols matter when we are talking about a symbolic ritual, such as a citizenship ceremony.

Using the word "bigotry" for defence of basic Western values (such as openness and gender equality) assumes that it is a result of prejudice or ignorance to consider certain cultural traits and customers unacceptable, which I fundamentally disagree with. If you just mean intolerance, then yes I think one should be intolerant towards certain cultural customs that contradict fundamental Western values. I believe its morally wrong not to be. So you would need to clarify how you define the ambiguous term "bigotry" in this context.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #936 on: October 02, 2015, 11:32:55 AM »

The niqab makes you a hidden non-entity and a citizenship ceremony is about confirming your new identity as a citizen.

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

Well, maybe the construction "hidden non-entity" doesn't work in English since you can not hide something that doesn't exist, but the point should be clear. There is nothing bizarre about it. You do not see a person in a niqab as a person - she is hidden and has no identity to the outside world, you then have a ceremony which is about confirming her identity as a citizen in her new country. Attending this ceremony hidden under a veil is an absurd contradiction and should not be allowed.

This remains a non sequitur. Unless you can demonstrate a connection between the way a person dresses and their citizenship I'll have to keep reading your bigotry as just that.

You may disagree, but it is not a "non sequitur". There is a clear logical argument here - a ceremony about confirming a new identity done while concealing your identity by not showing your face is a contradiction. Doing things openly and frankly are important Western cultural values. Showing your true colours etc. Symbols matter when we are talking about a symbolic ritual, such as a citizenship ceremony.

Using the word "bigotry" for defence of basic Western values (such as openness and gender equality) assumes that it is a result of prejudice or ignorance to consider certain cultural traits and customers unacceptable, which I fundamentally disagree with. If you just mean intolerance, then yes I think one should be intolerant towards certain cultural customs that contradict fundamental Western values. I believe its morally wrong not to be. So you would need to clarify how you define the ambiguous term "bigotry" in this context.

Since when has 'doing things openly and frankly' been part of Western Cultural Values?  They certainly aren't things most governments practice, and corporations, by practice, do the exact opposite as much as possible.  I honestly have no idea where the idea that this is a western cultural 'value' comes from.

Making up values to impose them on people you don't like is the definition of bigotry.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #937 on: October 02, 2015, 11:51:18 AM »
« Edited: October 02, 2015, 11:53:14 AM by politicus »

The niqab makes you a hidden non-entity and a citizenship ceremony is about confirming your new identity as a citizen.

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

Well, maybe the construction "hidden non-entity" doesn't work in English since you can not hide something that doesn't exist, but the point should be clear. There is nothing bizarre about it. You do not see a person in a niqab as a person - she is hidden and has no identity to the outside world, you then have a ceremony which is about confirming her identity as a citizen in her new country. Attending this ceremony hidden under a veil is an absurd contradiction and should not be allowed.

This remains a non sequitur. Unless you can demonstrate a connection between the way a person dresses and their citizenship I'll have to keep reading your bigotry as just that.

You may disagree, but it is not a "non sequitur". There is a clear logical argument here - a ceremony about confirming a new identity done while concealing your identity by not showing your face is a contradiction. Doing things openly and frankly are important Western cultural values. Showing your true colours etc. Symbols matter when we are talking about a symbolic ritual, such as a citizenship ceremony.

Using the word "bigotry" for defence of basic Western values (such as openness and gender equality) assumes that it is a result of prejudice or ignorance to consider certain cultural traits and customers unacceptable, which I fundamentally disagree with. If you just mean intolerance, then yes I think one should be intolerant towards certain cultural customs that contradict fundamental Western values. I believe its morally wrong not to be. So you would need to clarify how you define the ambiguous term "bigotry" in this context.

Since when has 'doing things openly and frankly' been part of Western Cultural Values?  They certainly aren't things most governments practice, and corporations, by practice, do the exact opposite as much as possible.  I honestly have no idea where the idea that this is a western cultural 'value' comes from.

Making up values to impose them on people you don't like is the definition of bigotry.

That something isn't followed by powerful institutions in a society doesn't mean it isn't a value, just that such institutions aren't behaving in accordance with said value. Fairness doesn't stop being a cultural value just because someone are being treated unfairly. Doing things in the open, not being deceitful etc. can be found as an ideal long time back, it was part of the ideal of chivalry, but also of Germanic tribal law (swearing before your fellow man etc.) There is an old difference in Nordic law between murder (killing a man during sleep, by poison or from ambush) and killing them openly after stating your intent. Dunno whether that existed in English common law, but I think so.
Transparency in government has been an ideal since rationalism, with Sweden implementing free public access to public documents in the late 18th century as the first - based on the belief nothing the government does should be hidden (with national security an exception, but functioning as an ideal). Other countries have since enacted similar laws. The US Freedom of Information Act is an expression of this ideal.

tl;dr: openness and transparency are old Western ideals, even if not always followed.
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #938 on: October 02, 2015, 12:53:12 PM »

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-barbaric-cultural-practices-law-1.3254118

Why do I have the feeling this will end badly?
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #939 on: October 02, 2015, 01:28:07 PM »

Well that's Canadian voters for you, I guess. Another Conservative victory would be funny to me here in California.
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #940 on: October 02, 2015, 01:57:34 PM »
« Edited: October 02, 2015, 02:56:30 PM by RogueBeaver »

CTV: 50/50 odds TPP signed tomorrow.

Lapierre previews tonight's debate.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #941 on: October 02, 2015, 04:17:36 PM »

A surprisingly (dare I hope, tellingly) sympathetic take on Trudeau from The Economist
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #942 on: October 02, 2015, 05:14:21 PM »

The niqab makes you a hidden non-entity and a citizenship ceremony is about confirming your new identity as a citizen.

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

Well, maybe the construction "hidden non-entity" doesn't work in English since you can not hide something that doesn't exist, but the point should be clear. There is nothing bizarre about it. You do not see a person in a niqab as a person - she is hidden and has no identity to the outside world, you then have a ceremony which is about confirming her identity as a citizen in her new country. Attending this ceremony hidden under a veil is an absurd contradiction and should not be allowed.

This remains a non sequitur. Unless you can demonstrate a connection between the way a person dresses and their citizenship I'll have to keep reading your bigotry as just that.

You may disagree, but it is not a "non sequitur". There is a clear logical argument here - a ceremony about confirming a new identity done while concealing your identity by not showing your face is a contradiction. Doing things openly and frankly are important Western cultural values. Showing your true colours etc. Symbols matter when we are talking about a symbolic ritual, such as a citizenship ceremony.

Using the word "bigotry" for defence of basic Western values (such as openness and gender equality) assumes that it is a result of prejudice or ignorance to consider certain cultural traits and customers unacceptable, which I fundamentally disagree with. If you just mean intolerance, then yes I think one should be intolerant towards certain cultural customs that contradict fundamental Western values. I believe its morally wrong not to be. So you would need to clarify how you define the ambiguous term "bigotry" in this context.

Since when has 'doing things openly and frankly' been part of Western Cultural Values?  They certainly aren't things most governments practice, and corporations, by practice, do the exact opposite as much as possible.  I honestly have no idea where the idea that this is a western cultural 'value' comes from.

Making up values to impose them on people you don't like is the definition of bigotry.

That something isn't followed by powerful institutions in a society doesn't mean it isn't a value, just that such institutions aren't behaving in accordance with said value. Fairness doesn't stop being a cultural value just because someone are being treated unfairly. Doing things in the open, not being deceitful etc. can be found as an ideal long time back, it was part of the ideal of chivalry, but also of Germanic tribal law (swearing before your fellow man etc.) There is an old difference in Nordic law between murder (killing a man during sleep, by poison or from ambush) and killing them openly after stating your intent. Dunno whether that existed in English common law, but I think so.
Transparency in government has been an ideal since rationalism, with Sweden implementing free public access to public documents in the late 18th century as the first - based on the belief nothing the government does should be hidden (with national security an exception, but functioning as an ideal). Other countries have since enacted similar laws. The US Freedom of Information Act is an expression of this ideal.

tl;dr: openness and transparency are old Western ideals, even if not always followed.

If something is truly a value then it follows that it would be frequently followed. An ideal is much more than just a value.  Even if it is a value, then it stands to reason we should start with having greater transparency in things that actually effect people's lives, like open government and, as much as possible, open business.

That said, privacy is also a Western Value.  I.E the right to be forgotten court ruling in Europe as well as the basic notion that privacy, far more than transparency, is a basic right.

Finally, their is also a Western Value that people should be free to do what they like as long as they don't directly harm anybody else. In this regard, it seems that Canada is actually finally starting to realize this value with court rulings striking down marijuana laws (at least against medical marijuana), striking down the prostitution law (though not on the basis of lack of harm, but on the basis that the law creates an even greater harm), and finally striking down laws on assisted death.

If you can show me cases where transparency has been a concern of anybody except at election time, you might start to make a case that this is truly a Western Value.  Even most laws on open government came in after a government was newly elected after making a promise to bring them in and, which you neglected to mention, ever since then, the elected governments have been trying to find ways to get around these laws (at least in Canada and the U.S) through either declaring practically everything as 'a state secret' making the cost to access documents freedom of information requests so onerous that practically nobody can afford them or by simply keeping meetings strictly verbal, which seems to be a hallmark of the Christy Clark government here in B.C.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #943 on: October 02, 2015, 05:16:02 PM »
« Edited: October 02, 2015, 05:20:19 PM by politicus »

@Adam: We can set up a thread on IP if you want to discuss it, but I won't answer you here to avoid a derail. PM me if you want to discuss it further. Same goes for Xahar.
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #944 on: October 02, 2015, 05:49:34 PM »
« Edited: October 02, 2015, 05:52:28 PM by Thoughtful Cynic »

For the past week, all the comment sections of news websites have been high-fiving Harper for his Muslim-baiting. Today is the first day where these comments, even on CTV and National Post, slam his latest gambit. The only thing low information voters will remember from today, instead of "Harper wants to stand up for our values", is "Harper wants your neighbour to snitch on you like in East Germany". This wasn't what they intended.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #945 on: October 02, 2015, 05:53:24 PM »

NDP seems to be panicking for its Quebec seats:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-offers-quebec-right-to-opt-out-of-federally-funded-programs/article26637085/
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #946 on: October 02, 2015, 06:22:28 PM »

Wow, that's desperate. What a great response from Wynne/Trudeau.
Logged
Krago
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #947 on: October 02, 2015, 06:23:37 PM »

New Innovative Research Group Poll:

Lib 31, NDP 29, Cons 29, Grn 6, BQ 5 , Oth 1
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #948 on: October 02, 2015, 06:33:18 PM »

EKOS: 33.4/26.7/25.6.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #949 on: October 02, 2015, 06:43:51 PM »


That's not as strange as I thought it would be. The way Graves was talking, I thought he'd have the Tories at 40% Tongue
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 60  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.083 seconds with 12 queries.