Canadian Federal Election

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

I do caution reading too much into the results of a singular poll, especially from a polling agency that has never really participated in election polling before (they do quarterly polls of the ATL provinces but it rarely coincides with the end of an election campaign, so their track record is basically unknown as it's untested).

My weighted average right now, where weights are given to the last 30 polls released (weights are determined by sample size and date of last day of survey) is:

LPC: 54.8%
CPC: 34.2%
NDP: 6.2%

Which seems to be pretty close to 338's regional average of
LPC: 55%
CPC: 34%
NDP: 7%

Depending on how that vote is distributed it could be anywhere between a Liberal sweep or the Conservatives picking up a couple of extra seats. I think the only thing we can certainly say with those numbers is that the NDP are likely non-competitive in Halifax and St. John's.

Current polling does show many similarities to the 2015 election results across Canada but as far as Atlantic Canada I don't see a complete Liberal sweep. The reason is that the Liberals are the incumbents and there isn't the same drive to kick out the Conservatives that there was in 2015.

If it's a good election night for the LPC then the CPC will win only 2 or 3 seats in the region. If it's not a good night then the CPC will hold all of the 8 seats they currently have out of 32 in the region. I have a hard time seeing any current LPC seat going CPC unless there is some sort of local issue that I'm not aware of.

The two safest CPC seats are:

Tobique—Mactaquac (NB)

Fundy Royal (NB)

Current CPC ones that will likely go CPC if the party has a half-decent election night:

Saint John—St. Croix (NB)

Acadie—Annapolis (NS)

Cumberland—Colchester (NS)

South Shore—St. Margarets (NS)

Current CPC ones that will likely go CPC if the party has better than expected election night:

Miramichi—Grand Lake (NB)

Central Newfoundland (NL)

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by JakeLRS

My thoughts after watching the French Debate (with narrators)

Carney: He weathered the storm. He provided some good points referring to what he would do. He only got testy once. Not a fan of his immigration answers, as they were very broad. He did unfortunately throw a very below the waist punch at PP at the end suggesting he would use the NWC to eliminate abortion rights, right after PP said he would protect women rights.

Poilievre: Did fairly well. His answers regarding international aid got a bit turbulent. He did a good job announcing his plans regarding pipelines but fumbled the ball when it came to Indigenous and Provincial barriers to the pipelines. He didn't do much attacking and stayed relatively quiet when other leaders were engaged. Definitely an effective communicator.

Singh: Terrible performance. I thought Carney might blow up, but it was Singh who had a major meltdown on stage. He was constantly interrupting other leaders during the debate and was just not professional at all. He had the least speaking time, but I believe this is attributed to not being able to adequately deliver his policies and plans. He was more focused on social issues instead of workers issues.

Blanchet: Threw a couple good jabs here and there. Ill be honest, I did kind of tune him out a bit.

No clear winner, but definitely a clear loser.

Carney: I thought he did okay. He got across where he stands on the big issues and made it clear that he isn't like PP. He kept his cool and didn't talk over others. He was smart not to associate himself with Trudeau and he reminded viewers that he hasn't been in the job of PM very long and isn't taking the same path. Some of his choice of words in French made me cringe a bit or the way he pronounced some but then he would have amazingly good sentences that showed his knowledge and intelligence.

Poilievre: He communicated himself quite well. He was very candid about where he stands on oil production and pipelines. I think he knew that he had to control himself on attacks on Carney so he avoided extreme criticisms and stuck with the hot issues and Trudeau government decisions over personal attacks. He was also candid about how he feels that environmental regulations are too strict which I wasn't expecting him to bring up.

Singh: In my opinion he was annoying and awful to listen to. I honestly don't know what he was trying to accomplish unless he has some type of strategy thinking that voters have tired of the Trump issues. You would have thought it was the 2019 election with what he was saying. I found he acted as though he was in charge of the debate and didn't get any good points across that would make people want to vote for his party.

Blanchet: I also found that at times it seemed like he was still at the 2019 election debate. He pretty much said the same things that he has said in previous debates and didn't seem interesting or have any new ideas. It was interesting to hear him reject a pipeline through Quebec even though opinions in the province have changed since Trump was elected again. He had a hard time even mentioning Quebec independence and was obviously not happy about the recent patriotism and unity including in Quebec against Trump. He kept saying that the unity was a threat to Quebec's culture and language which I found very odd. Would being the 51st state be better?!?

[Dengler Avenue]

And I was genuinely surprised that PP would be in favour of nuclear power too. I thought that he’d have been too beholden to the climate change denialists in his party.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

And I was genuinely surprised that PP would be in favour of nuclear power too. I thought that he’d have been too beholden to the climate change denialists in his party.

Supporting nuclear is seen as an obviously pro-climate policy on the right, in contrast to the left who are NIMBYs and only want renewables. This, of course, doesn't recognize the current reality of renewables, of how cheap they are and quick to deploy. It's the equivalent of thinking that laptops still cost several thousand dollars like they did in the 90s.

Either way, given that power generation is mostly provincial, I really don't see the point of questions like that. It's more relevant what Doug Ford thinks, than Pierre Poilievre or Mark Carney on this topic.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Supporting nuclear is seen as an obviously pro-climate policy on the right, in contrast to the left who are NIMBYs and only want renewables. This, of course, doesn't recognize the current reality of renewables, of how cheap they are and quick to deploy. It's the equivalent of thinking that laptops still cost several thousand dollars like they did in the 90s.

Either way, given that power generation is mostly provincial, I really don't see the point of questions like that. It's more relevant what Doug Ford thinks, than Pierre Poilievre or Mark Carney on this topic.

The domestic reactor design (CANDU) is owned by a federal crown corporation (AECL) and licensed to AtkinsRéalis (aka SNC Lavalin). The regulator that would need to permit the project is a federal agency.

If we are talking one of these small SMRs, it is likely a GE Hitachi design with AtkinsRéalis doing the balance of the plant. The regulator would again be a federal agency.

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

I do caution reading too much into the results of a singular poll, especially from a polling agency that has never really participated in election polling before (they do quarterly polls of the ATL provinces but it rarely coincides with the end of an election campaign, so their track record is basically unknown as it's untested).

My weighted average right now, where weights are given to the last 30 polls released (weights are determined by sample size and date of last day of survey) is:

LPC: 54.8%
CPC: 34.2%
NDP: 6.2%

Which seems to be pretty close to 338's regional average of
LPC: 55%
CPC: 34%
NDP: 7%

Depending on how that vote is distributed it could be anywhere between a Liberal sweep or the Conservatives picking up a couple of extra seats. I think the only thing we can certainly say with those numbers is that the NDP are likely non-competitive in Halifax and St. John's.

Ain't no way the CPC is picking up seats in Atlantic Canada. They won 8 seats in 2021 and the vote split was :

LPC= 43.5%
CPC= 31.5%
NDP= 16.9%

With NDP polling under 7% in all polls in Atlantic Canada that benefits the Libs.

There's a 12 point difference between LPC and CPC in the 2021 election results. Like you just pointed out, the average is now 20 points. The LPC will most definitely be picking up seats should the 20% average hold.

[travis3000]

At Issue did a panel last night on the debate. In their opinion Carney won the debate simply by not losing. When you are the front runner leading the province by 15 points, you have to leave unscathed and he succeeded at that. Singh was the worst, and PP/Blanchet both didn't do anything to move the needle in their favor.


https://x.com/ChantalHbert/status/1912813334711140662

[MolsonExport]

Neil Young endorses Mark Carney, says the United States wants Canada’s soul

Neil Young has endorsed Mark Carney to fight what the veteran rocker describes as a threat to Canada’s “very existence” from the United States.

The 79-year-old musician, who has dual Canadian-American citizenship, announced his pick for prime minister in an open letter to the Liberal Leader on his news site, NYA Times-Contrarian. “They want our resources, they want our land, they want our fisheries, they want our water, they want our Arctic, maybe they want our souls,” he wrote. “I know the U.S. President could use a soul. It takes more than bravado to fight this kind of a threat.”

..

“It takes brains, deep economic knowledge of how the world works, it takes strong, intelligent strategies, and the ability to recognize and seize opportunities both at home and on the world stage, opportunities that can bring a new level of prosperity and safety to people – people who right now may be paralyzed with fear as they look to the future of Canada and the world. Mr. Carney, I believe you are the person to do it.”

And for balance, here is the viewpoint of the Western Standard, aka birdcage liner:

Angry American millionaire hippie endorses Mark Carney

His ringing endorsement of fellow elite millionaire Carney may suggest Young’s Trump Derangement Syndrome and anger have clouded his judgment. Maybe he still thinks Canada’s political left is liberal — as it was in the 1960s. Maybe he thinks Carney represents liberty and freedom.

[Marshsparrow]

My opinion on the debate - the moderator did great and I really like the time tracker.

There was little opportunity for an exchange - perhaps it will be different tonight.

Carney did well - perhaps a bit too rehearsed but he came across as a statesman.

Poilievre did well - it was a more PM look which I think bodes better for him, the same version needs to show up for the English debate or we could be confused more.

Singh was a disaster - NDP probably looking for convention space for leadership convention.

Blanchet is a good speaker but I can see perhaps why Quebeckers are tired of him.

The media scrum was a mess - how did the misinformation crew get so much presence compared to mainstream media?

[Truenorth00]

...

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

The domestic reactor design (CANDU) is owned by a federal crown corporation (AECL) and licensed to AtkinsRéalis (aka SNC Lavalin). The regulator that would need to permit the project is a federal agency.

If we are talking one of these small SMRs, it is likely a GE Hitachi design with AtkinsRéalis doing the balance of the plant. The regulator would again be a federal agency.

Nobody was talking about regulation. They were talking about building nuclear reactors. So yes, broadly federal decision-making on this is less relevant when it's the Premiers who decide.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nobody was talking about regulation. They were talking about building nuclear reactors. So yes, broadly federal decision-making on this is less relevant when it's the Premiers who decide.

There's a lot of sophisticated lobbying on this file. The Feds could reduce regulation and thus costs in the nuclear sector but there isn't a lot of appetite for that. What they really want is federal subsidies. They dangle the potential to then export this new tech that will be subsidized in Canada. It's probably a pipe dream as most markets are looking for much cheaper and not over engineered options from Russia/China or if they need to make nice with the EU or US and want that model go with US of France. Our niche is pretty limited. But if we are subsidizing things that lower our carbon output why not nuclear. Renewables still need a baseload. Cheap kilowatts aren't worth much without that (or batteries or other storage which are also very costly for now at least)

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

And I was genuinely surprised that PP would be in favour of nuclear power too. I thought that he’d have been too beholden to the climate change denialists in his party.

It suits the O&G lobby since they’ve been trying to push to deploy portable reactors for the oilsands. Nimbyism here has seemed to get in the way of that. But given the choice between passive renewables and something that produces toxic waste it’s completely on brand for Poilievere to prefer the latter.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

It suits the O&G lobby since they’ve been trying to push to deploy portable reactors for the oilsands. Nimbyism here has seemed to get in the way of that. But given the choice between passive renewables and something that produces toxic waste it’s completely on brand for Poilievere to prefer the latter.

You think solar panels don’t produce toxic waste??? Typical liberal, how’s the plastic bag ban coming along…

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Hecate

You think solar panels don’t produce toxic waste??? Typical liberal, how’s the plastic bag ban coming along…

I agree. The nuclear waste issue is overblown (you just need to bury it deeply in a hard rock mineshaft). Nuclear reactors are very good for producing carbon free energy, especially for certain high intensity usage industries (like the tar sands).

Don't confuse this endorsement however as an endorsement for the tar sands per se . We still need to wean ourself off of the carbon economy. I am just enough of a realist to recognize that it will take time for this transition, and, we will always require some petroleum products for certain uses.

And, I agree that wind turbine and solar panel construction is not entirely "clean." They are also a form of visual pollution.

Despite this, I am a supporter of clean energy, especially for personal usage (rooftop solar panels), and for rural and remote areas (a lot better than diesel generators).

As for plastic bags, now that there is a ban, instead of using my grocery bags around the house for waste receptacles, I have to buy garbage bags instead. How much further ahead are we???

[Taeolas]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I agree. The nuclear waste issue is overblown (you just need to bury it deeply in a hard rock mineshaft). Nuclear reactors are very good for producing carbon free energy, especially for certain high intensity usage industries (like the tar sands).

Don't confuse this endorsement however as an endorsement for the tar sands per se . We still need to wean ourself off of the carbon economy. I am just enough of a realist to recognize that it will take time for this transition, and, we will always require some petroleum products for certain uses.

And, I agree that wind turbine and solar panel construction is not entirely "clean." They are also a form of visual pollution.

Despite this, I am a supporter of clean energy, especially for personal usage (rooftop solar panels), and for rural and remote areas (a lot better than diesel generators).

As for plastic bags, now that there is a ban, instead of using my grocery bags around the house for waste receptacles, I have to buy garbage bags instead. How much further ahead are we???

As far as Nuclear waste goes, isn't it the case we could probably recycle it a lot more than we actually do to both cut down on the total waste and to make it more efficient?

While it is dangerous, I do think the overall danger is a bit overexaggerated. We do need to treat it carefully, but it isn't the radioactive boogeyman that detractors protray it as either.

As for the plastic bag bans, I'm for that. The difference I've seen both in litter and in general is certainly significant. So you actually need to buy garbage bags now instead of Second using bags; that feels like a good thing; it puts the cost where you can notice it and maybe be more willing to look to cut back on it.

Granted I'm a bachelor living alone; but my weekly garbage is usually 1 white kitchen bag worth of trash, so that cost is pretty minimal (granted I know I'm probably not as normal a case as some families). Weekly shopping before reusable bags, I'd probably have a good dozen+ bags, most of which I'd never actually reuse. (Hell I still have 2 or 3 bags worth of plastic bags in my closet waiting to be reused for other things).

Plastic straws, I do agree might have been a step too far. Though since that ban happened, I find I just skip straws altogether when I can. And I do love the new "sippy cup" style lids some places (CostCo and Wendys) are using so you don't need straws.

[niwell]

One of the few things I'm happy with Doug Ford is that he's seemingly taking expansion of Ontario's nuclear capacity seriously. I agree that the waste issue is largely overblown, and there are actually some municipalities in Northern Ontario vying for selection as storage sites. The only real downside is the whole process can be fiendishly expensive.

On the whole I'm fine with the bag ban as it's not much of an annoyance and has cut down a fair bit on visual littering. The "garbage bag tree" is a pretty rare site these days. That being said most small takeout places and convenience stores/greengrocers near me use them which I then repurpose for our green bin. No longer have a cupboard that's completely overflowing with bags anymore though.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

We can't afford to elect carney only to find he is as just anti-natural resource as Trudeau.

Just say "yes, I am an oil and gas shill" next time.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

As far as Nuclear waste goes, isn't it the case we could probably recycle it a lot more than we actually do to both cut down on the total waste and to make it more efficient?

While it is dangerous, I do think the overall danger is a bit overexaggerated. We do need to treat it carefully, but it isn't the radioactive boogeyman that detractors protray it as either.

As for the plastic bag bans, I'm for that. The difference I've seen both in litter and in general is certainly significant. So you actually need to buy garbage bags now instead of Second using bags; that feels like a good thing; it puts the cost where you can notice it and maybe be more willing to look to cut back on it.

Granted I'm a bachelor living alone; but my weekly garbage is usually 1 white kitchen bag worth of trash, so that cost is pretty minimal (granted I know I'm probably not as normal a case as some families). Weekly shopping before reusable bags, I'd probably have a good dozen+ bags, most of which I'd never actually reuse. (Hell I still have 2 or 3 bags worth of plastic bags in my closet waiting to be reused for other things).

Plastic straws, I do agree might have been a step too far. Though since that ban happened, I find I just skip straws altogether when I can. And I do love the new "sippy cup" style lids some places (CostCo and Wendys) are using so you don't need straws.

The bag bans have dramatically increased plastic waste and at the same time increased corporate profits. California has gone back to the drawing board. Making more ridiculous amendments.

They could just offer a deposit. Then every bag would be recycled. But no, that makes too much sense and would reduce corporate profits.

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/25/nx-s1-5123535/california-passes-new-plastic-bag-ban

We used to get bags for free remember.

And I’ve never seen more garbage lining our ditches and fields in my life. I know in manitoba articles are saying littering is getting worse in winnipeg.

I’ve already got a garbage bag full just from shit blown into my yard over winter. Head out Friday to collect more from the ditches around the area. It’s so gross seeing the garbage everywhere in spring.

[O-tacular]

The reasoning for deploying portable nuclear reactors to the tarsands is to cut down the cost of importing energy infrastructure for in situ mining while reducing emissions. But hearing our Premier talk about it it’s also to basically power mining indefinitely. The industry doesn’t want to admit it’s in sunset mode. And there are still risks.

My perspective is that O&G has already left so much half assed environmental damage and baggage on our landscape that I don’t trust them one bit to deal with waste properly. There’s tailings leaching into the Athabasca river, berms that could easily breach in the event of a flood event, 10’s of thousands of orphaned wells across the province and a regulator that seems more interested in protecting the companies than the environment or Albertans.