Canadian Federal Election

[casper]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

Can we all agree Singh is absolutely butchering this debate too

Yes, he did.

On the good side, they cancelled the post debate Q&A with reporters. I guess rebel news did enough to damage the credibility of the media that it was just dropped.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

No post-debate scrums tonight because of a particular “news” agency

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

Given the current climate with the US I would give up on exporting power to the US. They are fixated on the trade deficit. There is only two ways of addressing that, we sell less to them or we buy more. I think we should stop selling electricity to them and save that for higher market goods.

No one is doing it but the physics and control system on a CANDU reactor can be setup to follow the demand on the grid. However economically no one is going to do it, given the operating costs are virtually the same if your running at 50% or 100%. I agree with your point, you should run nuclear full out.

Having Hydro follow demand makes a lot of sense.

The problem with natural gas is currently its cheap. After we have all of these LNG terminals will it still be cheap? Who knows. If your only running it a few hours to meet peek demand perhaps it does not matter that much.

LNG proponents want global prices. But never want to talk about what happens to domestic prices with more export capacity. This impact was actually alluded to during the debates.

I agree that solar will be a big part of the Ontario grid in the future. Especially if nuclear and gas are pushed. We're quickly getting to the point where users with a lot of roof space may simply find it cheaper to install behind the meter. I think of this every time I pass a big box store. The higher rates go, the more attractive this becomes. The only thing stopping such adoption now is the tariffs on Chinese solar panels and the shortage of skilled labour. When countries with crap grids and dysfunctional governments, with poor people, like Pakistan, can do it, the only thing holding back rich countries is local economics.

What utilities should be really worried about, is exactly what happened in Pakistan. They invested in a bunch of fossil generation capacity. A good chunk of the middle class started figuring out that reliability actually improved for them, with solar, and it came with a 1-2 yr payback period. Now a country with a 40 GW grid that was planning to add 3 GW of solar over a decade is adding that every year, and their grid demand actually declined last year causing a financial crisis for their utilities. If tariffs on Chinese solar were gone tomorrow, we could end up with the same here inside a decade. And even if the tariffs don't go, we'll eventually have trade compliant alternatives develop that will provide panels. And when they are cheap and available people will install them. And they won't give a damn about your grid stability concerns, because they'll be behind the meter.

All the talk and handwringing over whether gas or hydro or nuclear can load follow is going to seem cute and quaint when the solar glut hits us eventually and we see so much installed that even energy consumption patterns start shifting.

[JakeLRS]

My reaction to the English debate:

Carney won, and this is coming from someone who has been backing Poilievre. I am suspecting we'll see polls show this as well.

Carney: He looked like a prime minister, talked in a professional way, some very subtle jabs, and didn't really overtalk over others. The last quarter of the debate it started to get a little bit rocky. Whoever the advisor suggested to bring up "I'm not Justin" was a big saving grace for him. He did lose his footing a bit but balanced back (ie. China) except for on the softball question he threw to PP, where he should have known he would've had a very strong response. He also completely sidestepped on Brookfield and the tax loophole question.

Poilievre: A much different toned PP compared to yesterday where he was relatively laid back and was generally Prime Ministerial. Today, he decided to be more of the opposition head we're use to seeing but not to an extreme point as he did allow others to talk. He kind of shot himself in the foot during the first half of the debate where he constantly reiterated his phrases "10 years... liberal decade...". This got extremely tiring, yet he continued to bring it up throughout the debate. He seemed to gather his footing in the last 1/3 of the debate and actually finished relatively well.

Singh: A disrespectful disaster of a performance. He was constantly interrupting and really continued to overtalk Poilievre when he was trying to respond or bring up a point. He was the most unprofessional looking person on this stage. He had a small good stretch when it came to Mental Health, but he was acting extremely entitled and it got very very annoying when I was actually trying to listen to responses.

Blanchet: A fair debate. Threw some good jobs and held others to account. Stumbling on English was pretty hilarious.

Debate Format This was an amazing format, the direct question/answer between the moderator and candidate was very good and the questions were good across the board. The 1v1 was also a very good idea. Well done on that front and I hope to see it in the future.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by JakeLRS

My reaction to the English debate:

Carney won, and this is coming from someone who has been backing Poilievre. I am suspecting we'll see polls show this as well.

Carney: He looked like a prime minister, talked in a professional way, some very subtle jabs, and didn't really overtalk over others. The last quarter of the debate it started to get a little bit rocky. Whoever the advisor suggested to bring up "I'm not Justin" was a big saving grace for him. He did lose his footing a bit but balanced back (ie. China) except for on the softball question he threw to PP, where he should have known he would've had a very strong response. He also completely sidestepped on Brookfield and the tax loophole question.

Poilievre: A much different toned PP compared to yesterday where he was relatively laid back and was generally Prime Ministerial. Today, he decided to be more of the opposition head we're use to seeing but not to an extreme point as he did allow others to talk. He kind of shot himself in the foot during the first half of the debate where he constantly reiterated his phrases "10 years... liberal decade...". This got extremely tiring, yet he continued to bring it up throughout the debate. He seemed to gather his footing in the last 1/3 of the debate and actually finished relatively well.

Singh: A disrespectful disaster of a performance. He was constantly interrupting and really continued to overtalk Poilievre when he was trying to respond or bring up a point. He was the most unprofessional looking person on this stage. He had a small good stretch when it came to Mental Health, but he was acting extremely entitled and it got very very annoying when I was actually trying to listen to responses.

Blanchet: A fair debate. Threw some good jobs and held others to account. Stumbling on English was pretty hilarious.

Debate Format This was an amazing format, the direct question/answer between the moderator and candidate was very good and the questions were good across the board. The 1v1 was also a very good idea. Well done on that front and I hope to see it in the future.

Good analysis. The 1v1 really showed how pointless a lot of the other format was. There are old debates on youtube from the 70s and they did long stretches of 1v1 with the other leader coming in later then all three. If Carney and Poilievre debated for 30 minutes I think Carney would be down for the count. He was flailing a bit even in the short segment and I though for a second we might have a I didn't have a choice moment but he got it back together. I don't think he would have lasted 30 minutes being grilled.

Only other comment I had was Polievre looked too smug and grandstanding a lot when he wasn't debating but playing to the camera. Now those might be good clips they can use in ads later but looked very disjointed live.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Good analysis. The 1v1 really showed how pointless a lot of the other format was. There are old debates on youtube from the 70s and they did long stretches of 1v1 with the other leader coming in later then all three. If Carney and Poilievre debated for 30 minutes I think Carney would be down for the count. He was flailing a bit even in the short segment and I though for a second we might have a I didn't have a choice moment but he got it back together. I don't think he would have lasted 30 minutes being grilled.

Only other comment I had was Polievre looked too smug and grandstanding a lot when he wasn't debating but playing to the camera. Now those might be good clips they can use in ads later but looked very disjointed live.

Poilievre also seemed over-rehearsed, I thought. The slogans and repetitiveness got tired, istm.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What utilities should be really worried about, is exactly what happened in Pakistan. Now a country with a 40 GW grid that was planning to add 3 GW of solar over a decade is adding that every year, and their grid demand actually declined last year causing a financial crisis for their utilities.

The difference is Pakistan is a mid-latitude desert climate with 3,000+ sunshine hours per year. Toronto is a high latitude cold weather climate with 2,000 sunshine hours per year. So Canada can't be fully BTM solar. We'll always need grid peakers during winter. The latitude cutoff for full BTM solar is about Colorado. Ish.

https://i.ibb.co/fY3MZH4f/image.png

You are right though, solar panels are already cheaper than shingles per sqft. So rooftop solar will be big.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Poilievre also seemed over-rehearsed, I thought. The slogans and repetitiveness got tired, istm.

Yes over-rehearsed is probably a good diagnosis of his problem.

If this was a tied election I'd probably say Poilievre was still a slight winner for some undecideds. But while he did link Carney to Trudeau a bit mostly Carney reminded us why we trust his steady competent leadership to deal with Trump. That's still the ballot issue for the NDP and Bloc voters who fled to Carney and the much smaller group of centrists who are back with Carney because we are on the fence with agreement on both sides on different issues and tariffs are the tipping point to vote Liberal.

[ssiguy]

My impressions from the English debate:

Blanchett was competent, articulate, and seemed quite relaxed.

Singh was beyond annoying with his endless interruptions and argumentative style. He looked like a 5 year old amongst the adults.

Carney was decent. He was composed and relaxed most of the time but his answering of Brooksfield and his properties/taxes looked very shaky. He was clearly not comfortable with those questions. I don't think he lost any support in English Canada but I'm sure he didn't gain any.

As for Poilievre, I think he did the best of the 4. He was straight forward in his questioning and his rebuttals concise and clear. He looked comfortable and Prime Ministerial and generally communicated his views the most effectively and strongly without coming across as offensive or brash.

Whether this debate will change anything remains to be seen but if it does help anyone it will be Pierre. Although I will still be voting for Carney with my nose plugged, I was surprisingly impressed with PP's performance.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by JakeLRS

My reaction to the English debate:

Carney won, and this is coming from someone who has been backing Poilievre. I am suspecting we'll see polls show this as well.

I agree with most of your analysis except for the victor. Poilievre won.

For those who aren't partisans like us here, he made the best points. Yes, he did the catchphrases and TV schtick which was obvious to us who are intensely following this, but to Joe Public I think it would be far less noticeable.

As for Pierre looking "pasty" Carney seriously looked like a made up corpse.

Post debate, Rosie (who must be in her glory got another debate mention) was in full Carney defense mode. But I saw it as did all three members of the At Issue panel (Hebert/Coyne/Raj) Poilievre won and made some inroads.

Singh was just an ahole with the non stop interruptions. Poilievre did as well at the start, but stopped. Singh was far more effective when he wasn't interrupting but I think a lot of what he said was crap (not that I really remember).

I like Blanchet but he has a style of speaking that for me was difficult to understand. I think he made some good points.

I come out of this believing less and less that Carney will do anything for pipelines. I said it before and this isn't my Conservative bias (I have no problem admitting that) I think when the Trump shit is done the love affair will be over and the people will really turn on Carney like they did Biden in the US. Now that Trump has been relatively quiet re Canada the Carney support has been softening a bit.

[Doady]

I decided on my vote after Poilievre said that consecutive life sentences against mass murderers are needed to stop carjackings and home invasions in the GTA.

[janbe74]

I am voting for Mark Carney. Saying Mark Carney is just like Justin Trudeau is more offensive than calling Pierre Poilievre a Donald Trump clone.

This debate proved one thing. Pierre Poilievre is the best opposition leader Canada has ever had.

[Takeoff]

Originally Posted by elly63

I agree with most of your analysis except for the victor. Poilievre won.

For those who aren't partisans like us here, he made the best points. Yes, he did the catchphrases and TV schtick which was obvious to us who are intensely following this, but to Joe Public I think it would be far less noticeable.

As for Pierre looking "pasty" Carney seriously looked like a made up corpse.

Post debate, Rosie (who must be in her glory got another debate mention) was in full Carney defense mode. But I saw it as did all three members of the At Issue panel (Hebert/Coyne/Raj) Poilievre won and made some inroads.

Singh was just an ahole with the non stop interruptions. Poilievre did as well at the start, but stopped. Singh was far more effective when he wasn't interrupting but I think a lot of what he said was crap (not that I really remember).

I like Blanchet but he has a style of speaking that for me was difficult to understand. I think he made some good points.

I come out of this believing less and less that Carney will do anything for pipelines. I said it before and this isn't my Conservative bias (I have no problem admitting that) I think when the Trump shit is done the love affair will be over and the people will really turn on Carney like they did Biden in the US. Now that Trump has been relatively quiet re Canada the Carney support has been softening a bit.

They all also said, that the debate didn’t do anything to change the fortunes for any of the parties, and in that case Carney won. Pp showed that he could be a prime minister today, but the polls open tomorrow, way to late to change momentum in a meaningful way.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Doady

I decided on my vote after Poilievre said that consecutive life sentences against mass murderers are needed to stop carjackings and home invasions in the GTA.

Yeah i would have found that off-putting as well. There maybe the odd rare exception, but but for most major crimes, idea that you can meaningfully reduce them by increasing already severe sentences is just silly. People who commit these things either don't think at all, or believe they won't get caught. They don't think, "Well, I only set aside a decade for prison time. Now that it's much longer that's too hard to fit in my schedule"

[savevp]

Overall, I think both these debates were far superior in format, structure, and content to the last election. Both hosts did a very good job in my opinion. The bitter taste of Shachi Kurl struggling to moderate the gongshow 2021 English debate is forgotten.

I think the tone was mostly cordial and there was substantive policy discussion, as well as enough open debate to be interesting. Only Jagmeet Singh seemed to be out of order, tonight with the interruptions and last night by moaning about speaking time. And even then, he was mostly engaged in substantive debate.

Other than the obvious gaffes around extreme quasi-journalists at the French press conference, I thought these debates were done very well.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Takeoff

They all also said, that the debate didn’t do anything to change the fortunes for any of the parties, and in that case Carney won. Pp showed that he could be a prime minister today, but the polls open tomorrow, way to late to change momentum in a meaningful way.

I may be cherry picking quotes but I don't think anyone said Carney won although it may be inferred he did enough to not lose but this ever present bar of low expectations for him seems to be slowly disappearing.

Coyne: I think Pierre Poilievre made some yards
Hebert: And I do agree with Andrew that Pierre Poilieve had a good night
Raj: I agree that Pierre Poilievre did a lot better tonight than he did last night
Coyne: Just that first tinge of nervousness, if I was a Liberal
Raj: The Liberals should not be too comfortable

That, to me sounds like the Liberals are losing some momentum.

I still think they'll win because I don't think Pierre has a path to winning and his campaign will run out of time before the Carney honeymoon will be over.

[janbe74]

This debate changes nothing. Pierre Poilievre is at his best as an attacked dog.

He is the best opposition leader in Canada's history, the king of question

period.

[manny_santos]

The debate didn’t really change anything for me - I’m still undecided. I like Mark Carney the most out of the leaders, but in my riding I like the incumbent NDP candidate the most, and our Liberal candidate is a paper candidate who doesn’t live in the riding. But I was also not impressed with Singh’s constant interrupting in the debate.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Doady

I decided on my vote after Poilievre said that consecutive life sentences against mass murderers are needed to stop carjackings and home invasions in the GTA.

I had to read that a couple of times, because, of course car jackers and home invaders do go on to become mass murderers, it's just a natural progression.

I think our Canadian debates are much better and more informative than the American ones.

And I think the poll gap may narrow somewhat after this, let's see.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by JakeLRS

My reaction to the English debate:

Carney won, and this is coming from someone who has been backing Poilievre. I am suspecting we'll see polls show this as well.

Carney: He looked like a prime minister, talked in a professional way, some very subtle jabs, and didn't really overtalk over others. The last quarter of the debate it started to get a little bit rocky. Whoever the advisor suggested to bring up "I'm not Justin" was a big saving grace for him. He did lose his footing a bit but balanced back (ie. China) except for on the softball question he threw to PP, where he should have known he would've had a very strong response. He also completely sidestepped on Brookfield and the tax loophole question.

Poilievre: A much different toned PP compared to yesterday where he was relatively laid back and was generally Prime Ministerial. Today, he decided to be more of the opposition head we're use to seeing but not to an extreme point as he did allow others to talk. He kind of shot himself in the foot during the first half of the debate where he constantly reiterated his phrases "10 years... liberal decade...". This got extremely tiring, yet he continued to bring it up throughout the debate. He seemed to gather his footing in the last 1/3 of the debate and actually finished relatively well.

Singh: A disrespectful disaster of a performance. He was constantly interrupting and really continued to overtalk Poilievre when he was trying to respond or bring up a point. He was the most unprofessional looking person on this stage. He had a small good stretch when it came to Mental Health, but he was acting extremely entitled and it got very very annoying when I was actually trying to listen to responses.

Blanchet: A fair debate. Threw some good jobs and held others to account. Stumbling on English was pretty hilarious.

Debate Format This was an amazing format, the direct question/answer between the moderator and candidate was very good and the questions were good across the board. The 1v1 was also a very good idea. Well done on that front and I hope to see it in the future.

I agree with almost everything. I don't think that either Carney or Poilievre won the debate but both did well enough that it won't shift the results much at all. It was clear that Carney is the front runner the way the other leaders talked.

Singh was pretty much as bad as he was in the French language debate. It seems obvious that he won't be in federal politics much longer and that he will probably lose his seat.

Blanchet didn't really matter as much tonight as last night. This will likely be his last election campaign as BQ leader.