Who did you vote for?

[thurmas]

Max is done he burnt all his bridges to the ground

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by theman23

I was looking at Kia Souls with a friend the other day, and the dealership had a few base models selling for $21K. All of their electric Kia Soul vehicles were $50K+. Even with the rebates, most people aren't going to drive enough to justify that cost premium.

But if you're comparing a $50K BMW 3 series to a $50K Tesla model 3, it makes a lot more sense.

If you’re in the price range for a Model 3, I don’t understand why people would buy anything else. I’ve considered the full EV Hyundai Kona but I think I’m gonna go with a Prius Prime plug-in. It’s decently priced plus gets a sizeable rebate. Based on my city commute and day-to-day driving I will have zero gasoline use other than a weekly ski season drive up to Whistler and a road trip here and there.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

It's never going to be politically acceptable for much economic pain though. They already had an investigation in BC on why gas prices were so why high. If people truly wanted carbon taxes then high gas prices would not be a concern at all.

The carbon tax will always be mostly symbolic and the market via technology will be the real catalyst.

The investigation into gas prices in BC was more about the fluxuation in price and not the price itself. I think people would be more tollerant if the price was stable. Having it jump $0.20 in a few hours is bloody absurd.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Max is done he burnt all his bridges to the ground

I wonder if that strip club needs another manager.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by theman23

I was looking at Kia Souls with a friend the other day, and the dealership had a few base models selling for $21K. All of their electric Kia Soul vehicles were $50K+. Even with the rebates, most people aren't going to drive enough to justify that cost premium.

But if you're comparing a $50K BMW 3 series to a $50K Tesla model 3, it makes a lot more sense.

Yes the lower end is a hard sell right now. But that $50k Kia is probably more comparable with a loaded gas version. Still only $30k I'm guessing.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cabotp

The investigation into gas prices in BC was more about the fluxuation in price and not the price itself. I think people would be more tollerant if the price was stable. Having it jump $0.20 in a few hours is bloody absurd.

Well it was trying to figure out what made up the price, which would answer both of those questions.

We've always had the highest prices in the country, and even accounting for tax differences, it's still the highest.

[SpongeG]

is there any information about voter turnout? was it higher or the same or less?

did the 18 years olds get out and vote? etc.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

is there any information about voter turnout? was it higher or the same or less?

did the 18 years olds get out and vote? etc.

Wikipedia and some other sources say turnout was 66% so a drop of around 2.5% from 2015. Seems most who turned out last time also turned out this time.

[misher]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

If you’re in the price range for a Model 3, I don’t understand why people would buy anything else. I’ve considered the full EV Hyundai Kona but I think I’m gonna go with a Prius Prime plug-in. It’s decently priced plus gets a sizeable rebate. Based on my city commute and day-to-day driving I will have zero gasoline use other than a weekly ski season drive up to Whistler and a road trip here and there.

I have my eye on the new RAV4 hybrid. Under 40k. Retains its value like crazy, 6L/100km or less mileage and it goes over 900km on a single tank. Honestly given that it takes 87 that’s about $70 or less in gas for me every month. The Prius is great but it doesn’t have the room or safety I want in a car. There coming out with a plug in rav4 that I’ll look at when it’s out. I plan to keep it close to forever.

The only competition was the new ford explorer plug in because it has 7 seats but honestly I'll just stuff them in the trunk if I need 7 ^^

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Wikipedia and some other sources say turnout was 66% so a drop of around 2.5% from 2015. Seems most who turned out last time also turned out this time.

ok thanks

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

is there any information about voter turnout? was it higher or the same or less?

did the 18 years olds get out and vote? etc.

elections.ca has the riding by riding breakdown and the national totals. Don't know that they have analyzed the demographics of the voter turnout yet though. Not all votes are counted yet unless they just haven't updated the page since Tuesday morning. 245 polls nationally still not reporting.

[Djeffery]

The Kia Soul EV was the one that CBC did a feature about last winter when they drove it to the Detroit auto show from Toronto. They had to stop 3 times to charge it and took about the double the time getting there. My employer is also a big time user of hybrids, and has been for last several years converting them back to gas only because they are such maintenance pigs.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thurmas

The key to Tory victory is West +Strong in Ontario and 12-15 Maritime seats. Quebec doesn't matter much to Tory success similar to the West not necessary for Liberal victory. The Liberal key to victory is strong in the Maritimes + Quebec and very strong in Ontario.

It is true that you don't need Quebec in order to win a majority government as Stephen Harper showed us, but one caveat is that a lot of ROCers (and this is very very true in Ontario) even if not francophones themselves, will consider a leader's French as one of the measures of his/her suitability to become PM.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by misher

This doesn't apply to most of the nation.

Then it's not a Canadian problem so much as a problem with the province you live in. The Federal carbon tax covers just under half of Canada's population. And does provide rural residents with a higher rebate.

Originally Posted by misher

And most workers are in work camps or just on site for the work. This includes all our tree planters. Its in our constitution that we have freedom of mobility and I think this goes against the spirit of that.

Freedom of Mobility means the government will not erect legal barriers to movement inside the country. It does not at all mean it will subsidize your travel.

Originally Posted by theman23

A 15% difference that could easily disappear purely based on your driving habits....
That's basically the point I'm trying to make - its close enough that your personal driving habits have a lot more to do with it than the vehicle itself.

And the same driving habits would have even lower consumption on a more fuel efficient vehicle. The difference in consumption remains between vehicle classes. Unless you somehow drive an SUV cautiously and a midsize sedan without abandon.

Originally Posted by theman23

If we want to reduce CO2 emissions, it makes far more sense to tax the gas. It encourages auto makers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles and also individuals to alter their driving/commuting habits to be more economical.

Taxing gas discourages consumption. Taxing a vehicle based on fuel economy encourages you to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle by making gas guzzlers more expensive at the point of sale. We'd have far fewer SUV and pickup sales if those costed more.

Originally Posted by theman23

I don't think you've gone shopping for a car recently or talked to anyone that has. Gas prices are a big factor in purchase decisions. Also, gas prices have been above a $1.50/L here for quite some time.

I don't think you've seen recent sales stats. SUVs and Pickup sales keep going up and growing in marketshare, negating so much of the work in improving fuel economy. The public seems to take every bump in fuel efficiency as making larger vehicles more affordable, rather than reducing consumption.

Originally Posted by theman23

...but why? Is the goal to get SUVs and pickup trucks off the streets, or reduce CO2 emissions? I don't like SUVs or pickup trucks either (they're generally driven by assholes, see my previous rants), but this seems more like social engineering than actually trying to protect the planet.

Because unfortunately SUVs and Pickups consume more fuel and we can't simply rely on the entire population to drive like grandmas to keep emissions down.

Note I'm not suggesting taxing vehicle class. I'm suggesting taxing fuel consumption. A hybrid or electric pickup or SUV world do just fine under my proposal, with zero tax attached.

[milomilo]

You don't need double taxation, it causes an(other) inefficiency in the policy. If the tax on carbon/gasoline isn't high enough to reduce people using gas inefficiently, then raise it. It's the fuel consumption that's the problem, not people buying SUVs.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by misher

I have my eye on the new RAV4 hybrid. Under 40k. Retains its value like crazy, 6L/100km or less mileage and it goes over 900km on a single tank. Honestly given that it takes 87 that’s about $70 or less in gas for me every month. ^

I have a hybrid. Sticker mileage was supposed to be 4.5 L/100 km.

I track my mileage with fuelly. Over 150 000 km, my mileage averages 6.4 L/100km. Neither me or my wife have lead feet. We drive the traffic speed. And we've driven that vehicle in California and Ontario. I only ever see the sticker mileage on the highway driving between cities.

This experience and requiring premium fuel has soured me on hybrids. Next vehicle has to be a plug-in or full electric for me. Hybrids do too little too cut fuel costs in my experience.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You don't need double taxation, it causes an(other) inefficiency in the policy. If the tax on carbon/gasoline isn't high enough to reduce people using gas inefficiently, then raise it. It's the fuel consumption that's the problem, not people buying SUVs.

Unfortunately to really discourage gas consumption you probably need sustained gas prices closer to $2/L. That would imply a carbon tax of $200/tonne. Obviously not politically feasible at all.

Absent that a fuel consumption surcharge would do well to shift the fleet mix and reduce discretionary purchases of larger vehicles, from lots of people who don't really need it.

Not some novel concept by the way. Lots of countries elsewhere have such charges and high fuel taxes.

[Truenorth00]

And if anybody thinks the way we purchase vehicles isn't an issue:

A recent report by the International Energy Agency shows that Canada’s vehicles have the highest average fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions per kilometre driven. They are also the largest and the second heaviest in the world.

https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/wh...r-fuel-economy

Given that most Canadians live in cities or suburbs, the only explanation for this statistic is prefernce for larger vehicles and utter disregard for fuel consumption when buying a vehicle.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I have a hybrid. Sticker mileage was supposed to be 4.5 L/100 km.

I track my mileage with fuelly. Over 150 000 km, my mileage averages 6.4 L/100km. Neither me or my wife have lead feet. We drive the traffic speed. And we've driven that vehicle in California and Ontario. I only ever see the sticker mileage on the highway driving between cities.

This experience and requiring premium fuel has soured me on hybrids. Next vehicle has to be a plug-in or full electric for me. Hybrids do too little too cut fuel costs in my experience.

But is there a non-hybrid version of the same model that can be used as a direct comparison? You'd want to compare that model with yours looking at both its sticker consumption rate and real world consumption as reported by actual users and see if the hybrid version is a significant improvement. If it is, then whether or not there's a discrepancy between real world usage figures and the sticker estimates isn't really relevant. In other words, your real world experience with the hybrid might be poorer than the estimates and similar to the non-hybrid estimate, but the non-hybrid might also have much poorer real world consumption that its estimate too.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Didn't he lose his girlfriend to an NHL enforcer (and the Liberals)? lol

I don't know how a non-Westerner as leader of the Cons plays in the west. I suspect Reform 2.0 comes out of that. I like McKay but I'm thinking Rona Ambrose is more successful. I don't think that eastern Canadians (outside of Quebec) care as much about where the party leaders are from as much.

It isn't about where someone comes from but how they act.

Harper/Scheer don't look like they can throw a punch.