Federal Government & Politics II

[whatnext]

The puppy mill colleges must be shitting bricks over where they're going to get "students" now. This came in as admail last week.

[IMG]college2 by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]

[Build.It]

Thats a lot of Independents!

https://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDi...ed=2237&lang=e

[kwoldtimer]

Results are slow coming in. Voter shift from Liberal to Conservative being partly offset by shift from NDP to Liberal?

[1overcosc]

I imagine it's quite a slow process to scrutinize ballots that are literally a metre long.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Results are slow coming in. Voter shift from Liberal to Conservative being partly offset by shift from NDP to Liberal?

NDP also lost votes. It's pretty much as 2011 results which is still a blowout in Ontario

[acottawa]

As of right now the NDP may be the biggest story, it is their worst result since 2000 in a riding they hold provincially. Also the worst green showing in a long time.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There is a climate crisis. It's just not as acute as Covid. That's why we struggle with the response. If we got a few degrees of global warming next year and the amount of floods and wildfires starting looking like the end times in the Book of Revelations, you can bet that we'd be going all out to solve it, like the early days of Covid. But just like how vaccine diplomacy and information warfare became a thing as Covid lost its acuteness, we have the same kind of going on with cleantech.

China's excess capacity in cleantech is not just a threat to domestic industry, it has the potential to remake geopolitics. Helping a bunch of the global south get off the oil price cycle with PV panels and EVs doesn't just reduce their dependence on oil, it increases their dependency on China. American politicians are finally beginning to understand what is at stake.

I don't understand how you can on one hand argue how big of a problem climate change is and how important it is that action be taken to fight it, and then on the other hand be against making it possible for anyone to afford an EV.

If the goal is to cut emissions from cars, then one would expect you to be supportive of large-scale adoption happening ASAP (by letting capitalism drive the cost down rapidly).

Yet you want policy that does the exact opposite - a protectionist policy that will actually slow down EV adoption.

I recall you also being for the 100% EV sales by 2035 law, yet you are against letting capitalism make EVs cheap so people can actually buy them. You'd rather have government intervention so we are forced to pay more for EVs, thus slowing down adoption.

How much do you really care about fighting climate change?

It makes zero sense for you to have contradicting beliefs like that - even an average intelligence person can see that. My guess is that fighting climate change isn't nearly as important to you as you like to say it is - since the types of policies you yearn for don't line up with that goal.

You do seem to enjoy spreading fear about climate change though. I have a hunch the true motivation is more about convincing us that we need to give the government more power, which would make sense for a higher ranking military personnel who rubs shoulders with policy-makers in downtown Ottawa.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I imagine it's quite a slow process to scrutinize ballots that are literally a metre long.

But no John C. Turmel this time!

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Build.It

I don't understand how you can on one hand argue how big of a problem climate change is and how important it is that action be taken to fight it, and then on the other hand be against making it possible for anyone to afford an EV.

If the goal is to cut emissions from cars, then one would expect you to be supportive of large-scale adoption happening ASAP (by letting capitalism drive the cost down rapidly).

Yet you want policy that does the exact opposite - a protectionist policy that will actually slow down EV adoption.

I recall you also being for the 100% EV sales by 2035 law, yet you are against letting capitalism make EVs cheap so people can actually buy them. You'd rather have government intervention so we are forced to pay more for EVs, thus slowing down adoption.

How much do you really care about fighting climate change?

It makes zero sense for you to have contradicting beliefs like that - even an average intelligence person can see that. My guess is that fighting climate change isn't nearly as important to you as you like to say it is - since the types of policies you yearn for don't line up with that goal.

You do seem to enjoy spreading fear about climate change though. I have a hunch the true motivation is more about convincing us that we need to give the government more power, which would make sense for a higher ranking military personnel who rubs shoulders with policy-makers in downtown Ottawa.

Jesus. This is a highly inflammatory accusation. I'm not a mod but c'mon man..

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Build.It

I don't understand how you can on one hand argue how big of a problem climate change is and how important it is that action be taken to fight it, and then on the other hand be against making it possible for anyone to afford an EV.

If the goal is to cut emissions from cars, then one would expect you to be supportive of large-scale adoption happening ASAP (by letting capitalism drive the cost down rapidly).

Yet you want policy that does the exact opposite - a protectionist policy that will actually slow down EV adoption.

I recall you also being for the 100% EV sales by 2035 law, yet you are against letting capitalism make EVs cheap so people can actually buy them. You'd rather have government intervention so we are forced to pay more for EVs, thus slowing down adoption.

How much do you really care about fighting climate change?

It makes zero sense for you to have contradicting beliefs like that - even an average intelligence person can see that. My guess is that fighting climate change isn't nearly as important to you as you like to say it is - since the types of policies you yearn for don't line up with that goal.

You do seem to enjoy spreading fear about climate change though. I have a hunch the true motivation is more about convincing us that we need to give the government more power, which would make sense for a higher ranking military personnel who rubs shoulders with policy-makers in downtown Ottawa.

As I said in an earlier post, your assumption is based on Chinese spec EVs being sold in Canada at domestic Chinese prices. This is unlikely. Even beyond the regulatory barriers, we don’t get Chinese spec anything else sold here at domestic Chinese prices.

Secondly, China gets most of its power from coal. The carbon footprint of Chinese EVs is enormous and probably exceeds any reduced emissions you might get from slightly cheaper cars.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Build.It

I don't understand how you can on one hand argue how big of a problem climate change is and how important it is that action be taken to fight it, and then on the other hand be against making it possible for anyone to afford an EV.

Partly because that is a muffin of an accusation. The goal is to have local production of green technology so that people have a reliable source of parts, repairs, and units. That was a big strategic reveal during Covid. Price = efficiency is a huge fallacy and is comes from a massive neutering of metrics we use to make decisions that happened in the latter half of the 20th century. It's okay now, we have the capability to weigh multiple metrics, instead of being myopic on a single metric.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Leslie Church and the Liberals won. Was never in doubt. Tories are not winning inner city ridings, period

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Leslie Church and the Liberals won. Was never in doubt. Tories are not winning inner city ridings, period

Church has a reasonable lead (42.4% vs 37.8% for the CPC's Stewart), but it doesn't seem to have been called yet; 62% of polls reporting (as of this post) and per the CBC:

....The Liberal candidate, Leslie Church, has maintained a narrow lead over closest competitor, Conservative candidate Don Stewart, throughout the evening but thousands of advance poll ballots have yet to be counted.

There are enough votes still outstanding to possibly change the result of this race....

CTV Toronto says there are over 9 000 advance poll votes.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Church has a reasonable lead (42.4% vs 37.8% for the CPC's Stewart), but it doesn't seem to have been called yet; 62% of polls reporting (as of this post) and per the CBC:

CTV Toronto says there are over 9 000 advance poll votes.

As of 2:14 AM Eastern (11:14 PM Pacific), with 83.3% of polls reporting, the race has become much tighter:

• Church (Liberal) - 11 206 (41.4%)
• Stewart (Conservative) 10 806 (39.9%)

Parhar (NDP) has 3 247 votes (12%). Counting is reportedly slower due to the lengthy ballot.

[1overcosc]

Voter turnout is also trending up as the count continues: when the first 20% of polls had been counted, turnout was only 5% on that first 20%, suggesting a total turnout of only about 25%, now with 85% counted, turnout is at 32%, suggesting a total turnout of close to 40%. This makes sense: given that each poll probably has a similar amount of counting resources, and the slow count, the polls with higher turnout are reporting later.

The Conservative candidate has improved his results considerably as these higher turnout polls have returned. So the implication: some polls in the riding had strong CPC vote on a strong turnout.

This would be consistent with Jewish voters turning out (relatively) strongly for the CPC over the Israel issue, as some polls have much larger Jewish populations than others.

[1overcosc]

Conservative Party has taken the lead!

The CPC reached first place after the 189th poll out of 192 total released polls.

A total of 34,374 votes have been counted, 40.5% of registered voters. Pretty high turnout for a summer by-election in a safe seat!

[shreddog]

CPC Stewart 14,352 41.8 %
LPC Church 13,861 40.3 %
NDP Parhar 3,876 11.3 %
GRN Cullis 1,011 2.9 %

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by shreddog

CPC Stewart 14,352 41.8 %
LPC Church 13,861 40.3 %
NDP Parhar 3,876 11.3 %
GRN Cullis 1,011 2.9 %

FWIW, 2021 results:

LPC - 49.51%
CPC - 26.51%
NDP - 15.89%
GRN - 5.99%

And way back in 2011 ...

LPC - 40.60%
CPC - 32.37%
NDP - 21.97%
GRN - 4.52%

[acottawa]

At almost the crack of dawn, elections Canada is reporting 100% of polls are in

Don Stewart 42.1 %
Leslie Church 40.5 %
Amrit Parhar 10.9 %
Christian Cullis 2.9 %

Not sure if this includes absentee, etc.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by acottawa

At almost the crack of dawn, elections Canada is reporting 100% of polls are in

Don Stewart 42.1 %
Leslie Church 40.5 %
Amrit Parhar 10.9 %
Christian Cullis 2.9 %

Not sure if this includes absentee, etc.

While much has been said about this being a referendum on JT and the Gang, what about Singh??
Will he also wear some of this as it is most likely that the NDP (and GRN) lost votes to the LPC.

If CPC is up by 10, we are likely seeing votes go: LPC --> CPC and NDP+GRN --> LPC, since the overall LPC vote share is the same from 2021.
Can't read too much into this (it is a byelection), but it seems like more than one leader should be looking over their shoulder.