Federal Government & Politics II

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

In Nova Scotia it's reportedly 40% of households which must include even some urban households or at least what qualifies as urban in Nova Scotia.

I don't know why Ontario changed perhaps lower hydro rates? 2% of Ontario uses it so that's still a big chunk of the rural population considering they are 17% of Ontario's population.

A good chunk of Dartmouth still use Oil Fired Forced hot air furnaces for primary heat.Dartmouth of course is across the Harbour from Halifax.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by thurmas

if you look at the swing in polling numbers in 1993 between the libs and pcs its absolutely wild. pcs went from 21% when Mulroney resigned to 50% during the spring leadership race then during the summer was a virtual tie in the 30s between pcs and libs. once the pcs put out their advertisement mocking Chretien's facial paralysis is when the roof caved in and their support very quickly evaporated. Its been said had the 93 pc leadership race lasted a week longer Charest likely would have won it. I also think he possibly could have saved the PCs Quebec base at the time as Chretien was so hated for not backing meech in Quebec and Charest probably would have run a much more competent campaign to that of Campbell and may have stopped reforms massive growth at the end of the campaign.

take a look at the numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio...deral_election

The other interesting thing I totally forgot was that the NDP led in the polls in last half of 1990 and first half of 1991 with anywhere from 30-41% The party ended up only winning 9 seats in 1993 and only 6.88% of total votes.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

In Nova Scotia it's reportedly 40% of households which must include even some urban households or at least what qualifies as urban in Nova Scotia.

I don't know why Ontario changed perhaps lower hydro rates? 2% of Ontario uses it so that's still a big chunk of the rural population considering they are 17% of Ontario's population.

I do remember that back in the 1980s the Ontario government had a big push to replace oil furnaces in homes with other methods of heating. I remember billboards and other advertisements but I was pretty young so I can't remember the reasons for the campaign. But it's obvious that it worked.

I wonder if the reason oil furnaces are still quite commons in the Atlantic provinces is Irving Oil? I wouldn't be surprised if the company had lots of success lobbying against change.

[Loco101]

And talking about electricity prices for 2023:



Source: https://www.energyhub.org/electricity-prices/

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

I think we are heading in that direction. The ability of Europe to transition off Russia to the extent they have in a short time was impressive.

Decades from now when the history books are being written, I think the Ukraine invasion is going to be a pivotal marker in the development of clean energy and the energy independence of Europe. Putin went way too early. And now Europe will both cut out Russia and reduce demand for fossil fuels, dampening global demand (somewhat) over time.

Originally Posted by casper

The analysis of the transition to solar and wind leaves out the sunk costs. Hydro and Nuclear have upfront costs. That money is already spent the operating costs are much lower. While we may hit the tipping point where it is not economically viable to build new facilities I the existing ones will still be in operation for years or decades. There is also a floor to how low solar and wind can go. Where exactly that is less clear.

Nobody suggested renewables are going to replace existing generation. But eventually as recapitalization is needed, a lot of conventional assets may face a poor business case for further investment. Hydro is in a category of its own. Because it provides clean, cheap (on marginal cost) dispatchable power 24/7. But as we see with natural gas peaker plants, sometimes the best option is not to double down on existing tech and simply to use the locations and gets connections for other purposes or types of generations.

I am bullish on nuclear. But Jigar Shah has absolutely been on the mark. The nuclear industry has talked more than they've delivered. Taking over a decade to build Vogtle 3 & 4 is not a scalable model. There's so few who would finance a build like that and even fewer who would insure it. If it can't be done in 3-5 years, it's not going to be competitive. This where SMRs might save the industry. Too bad it took them decades to understand this.

[ConundrumNL]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I do remember that back in the 1980s the Ontario government had a big push to replace oil furnaces in homes with other methods of heating. I remember billboards and other advertisements but I was pretty young so I can't remember the reasons for the campaign. But it's obvious that it worked.

I wonder if the reason oil furnaces are still quite commons in the Atlantic provinces is Irving Oil? I wouldn't be surprised if the company had lots of success lobbying against change.

Possible. I know up until recently (with in the past couple years) oil heat was considered (true or not) more economical compared to electric. It also possible the electrical infrastructure in many rural area's couldn't support everyone on electric heat.

For Outport Newfoundland it may had held some additional advantages. I've been told Home Heat Heating Fuel and Marine Diesel are very similar, so maybe you could have burned the same fuel in your boat and furnace? HHF was often cheaper then MD. Also, during a power outage it's much easier run an oil fired furnace from a generator or even batteries. You just need enough power to light the burner and maybe run a fan. Of course, a lot of outport homes probably have a wood stove.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by ConundrumNL

Possible. I know up until recently (with in the past couple years) oil heat was considered (true or not) more economical compared to electric. It also possible the electrical infrastructure in many rural area's couldn't support everyone on electric heat.

For Outport Newfoundland it may had held some additional advantages. I've been told Home Heat Heating Fuel and Marine Diesel are very similar, so maybe you could have burned the same fuel in your boat and furnace? HHF was often cheaper then MD. Also, during a power outage it's much easier run an oil fired furnace from a generator or even batteries. You just need enough power to light the burner and maybe run a fan. Of course, a lot of outport homes probably have a wood stove.

I think it's only recently with high oil prices and high taxation that it's become more expensive than electric heat and hot water. Carbon tax is a small part of this tbh.

It's similar but different than diesel though I understand you could use diesel in an emergency and it won't harm anything it's just less efficient.

[whatnext]

No surprises here and the Trudeau Liberals have nobody but themselves to blame. And of course, the Century Initiative rears its ugly head.


Public support for immigration falls sharply amid affordability concerns
MATT LUNDY ECONOMICS REPORTER
PUBLISHED 7 HOURS AGO
FOR SUBSCRIBERS

Public support for immigration has fallen sharply over the past year as Canadians increasingly tie affordability and housing concerns to a historic influx of newcomers, according to survey results published on Monday.

Forty-four per cent of Canadians think immigration levels are too high, up from 27 per cent last year, according to a survey conducted by the Environics Institute for Survey Research, in partnership with the Century Initiative, an organization that advocates for Canada’s population to hit 100 million by 2100. This was the largest change in sentiment between surveys that Environics has observed in four-plus decades of polling on the topic.

Just a year ago, public support for immigration was stronger than ever, Environics found. But since then, Canadians have been consumed by a number of economic worries, including high inflation, rising interest payments and a worsening housing crisis, which is pushing up resale prices and rents across the country....

....At the same time, Canada is growing rapidly. Over the 12 months through June, the population expanded by around 1.2 million people, bringing the total number of residents to 40.1 million. At 3 per cent, this was the largest 12-month increase since 1957; international migration accounted for almost the entirety of the expansion.

This surge has led to a spirited debate about immigration and Canada’s ability to absorb so many people so quickly. The results from Environics are similar to other recent surveys, including a Nanos poll for The Globe and Mail that found more than half of Canadians want the country to accept fewer immigrants than Ottawa’s plan....

....“We see these results as a clarion call for action,” said Lisa Lalande, the chief executive officer of the Century Initiative. “You cannot address demographic decline through immigration without having these corresponding investments” in housing and other areas....

....The Century Initiative was co-founded by Mark Wiseman, chair of Alberta Investment Management Corp., and Dominic Barton, the former global managing partner of consulting giant McKinsey & Co. Mr. Barton also served as chair of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, which recommended to the Trudeau government in 2016 that it raise its annual intake of permanent residents by 50 per cent over five years.....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...affordability/

[Hawrylyshyn]

Liberals will probably just claim 44% of Canadians are racist/xenophobic

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

Liberals will probably just claim 44% of Canadians are racist/xenophobic

Well 80% are according to them.

Tactically this could work for them as a cleavage and a real backlash could end up delivering first and second generation voters to them should they be able to tar the Cons as anti-immigrant. They are really down to hail marys at this point.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well 80% are according to them.
.

I think 80% is probably too much as the actual % probably lines up with how people vote for certain political parties.

LPC+NDP+GRN = non-racist share of the Canadian population.

[WarrenC12]

CPC: not racist, but #1 with racists.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

CPC: not racist, but #1 with racists.

What does racism have to do with immigration? Does this mean Trudeau was a racists when he was only letting in 500,000 people a year a few years back or that he is a racist because he won't completely open the borders for anyone to come regardless of the tens of millions who may want to?

It is Trudeau that is from the very traditional white family not PP who married a Venezuelan immigrant, has mixed race kids, and has a close relationship to his gay father. It is PP that has an open lesbian as his Deputy Prime Minister in waiting. PP maybe a lot of things but racist & homophobic are definitely not two of them. This why the biggest support age cohort that PP has is young people.

The Liberal's tried and true election campaign of labelling all Tories {and especially their leaders} as a bunch of cowboy xenophobic rednecks may have worked in the past but it certainly won't this time.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well 80% are according to them.

Tactically this could work for them as a cleavage and a real backlash could end up delivering first and second generation voters to them should they be able to tar the Cons as anti-immigrant. They are really down to hail marys at this point.

I seriously doubt the Libs can use this wedge issue to win many second generation voters. One of the most vocal block of voters calling for decreased immigration targets are the second generation voters who are forced to compete for resources (e.g. housing, rent, COL) with new immigrants. Their anger is pushing them into the Conservative fold.

[theman23]

The CPC hasn't touch the immigration issue likely for that exact reason, but I also suspect that public sentiment has shifted enough that they could start broaching the issue without doing too much harm.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

CPC: not racist, but #1 with racists.

Also #1 with non-racists, young people, people with post-secondary education attainment, men, women, children, puppies and kittens. But unfortunately only #2 with women above the age of 65 and goldfish.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

CPC: not racist, but #1 with racists.

Have the CPC even broached the issue? They're just as anxious to whore themselves out for diaspora votes as the Libs.

Really only the PPC or Bloc could raise the issue without fear of it costing them votes, Has either party commented? Does the PPC even exist at this point?

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

CPC: not racist, but #1 with racists.

Here we go.

All we need is the ‘Deplorables’ line to be uttered by the right face on Team Red, and there it is hook, line, and sinker. I seem to recall this not working out well for the previous political leader that tried this bold strategy.

Yet, some just can’t help nipping at the bait.

Note to Team Red strategy folks: Avoid with this tactic with extreme prejudice. There is another path that - even if it does not produce victory - will prevent completely losing. A CPC minority can quickly start tripping on its own dick when actually forced to enact policies that appeal to its constituents or have to respond to events. And then people will suddenly remember that Team Red wasn’t so bad after all.

[WarrenC12]

LOL people really taking offense to my simple joke. The lady doth protest too much.

FWIW I'd love to see PP comment on immigration. It isn't sustainable. He's too much of a chicken though.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

LOL people really taking offense to my simple joke. The lady doth protest too much.

FWIW I'd love to see PP comment on immigration. It isn't sustainable. He's too much of a chicken though.

All those clever people sneering Trump jokes during the 2016 election got 4 years of it, because the ‘smart people party’ who were obviously too smart to fall for such obvious bait sure ate that self-inflicted tasty pile.

Which mostly means to me that the edgy takes of ‘smart people’ are people that might not be as clever as they think they are.

Team Red might want to play the game smarter if they just want a short break from power, instead of a longer one.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

CPC: not racist, but #1 with racists.

Not wrong but doesn't prove much. NDP #1 with communists. Most of whom claim NDP is right of Center and there are no true leftist parties in Canada and Trudeau is a neo-Con.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

What does racism have to do with immigration? Does this mean Trudeau was a racists when he was only letting in 500,000 people a year a few years back or that he is a racist because he won't completely open the borders for anyone to come regardless of the tens of millions who may want to?

It is Trudeau that is from the very traditional white family not PP who married a Venezuelan immigrant, has mixed race kids, and has a close relationship to his gay father. It is PP that has an open lesbian as his Deputy Prime Minister in waiting. PP maybe a lot of things but racist & homophobic are definitely not two of them. This why the biggest support age cohort that PP has is young people.

The Liberal's tried and true election campaign of labelling all Tories {and especially their leaders} as a bunch of cowboy xenophobic rednecks may have worked in the past but it certainly won't this time.

Along the same lines as above being against more immigration or even calling for a complete freeze on immigration which I would agree with doesn't mean you are racist but the racists are also calling for the above so politically it's risky. I wouldn't say having a relationship with your dad or marrying a Venezuelan is proof of much. Certainly not to the woke mob who define the words differently.