[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

My thoughts:

• Kevin Falcon of BCUP is a direct line from the previous BC Liberal party and government, and that government is not that well thought of. The solution to polls saying "yeah the old BC Liberal brand is seriously tarnished" may not be to have the same old BC Liberal folks and infrastructure and power brokers with a new brand.
• Liberal vs Conservative is such an entrenched battle in the US and Federally. Plenty of folks prefer Conservative in that match-up (especially in these "Fuck Trudeau" times), so the Conservative brand has untapped strength here.
• Making a more populist right wing party to eat the established right wing party is a pretty common process these days in Canadian politics - and Western politics in general. I suppose that's what we're seeing here.

Given that the BC Liberals were a coalition of those who'd typically vote for either one of the federal Liberal and Conservative parties, it'll be interesting to see whether those inclined towards the federal Liberal party will follow along to the new BC Conservative party.

[Barrister]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxKI9zKhDNE

I find this video fascinating.  Narrated by Pierre Poilievre, it's a 15 minute deep dive into housing prices in Canada and was released over the weekend.

Given that it's 15 minutes long and actually makes substantive arguments I think you can find things to quibble with on both sides (the right wing complaint would be - so what about immigration) but I love efforts by politicians to try and deal with serious issues with facts and arguments (which of course is one of the many reasons I am so against Donald Trump).

[crazy canuck]

it'll be interesting to see whether those inclined towards the federal Liberal party will follow along to the new BC Conservative party.

Yeah, the whole reason the old Social Credit party became BC's version of the natural governing party back in the day, was because although the Liberals in that coalition were relatively small in number, they made all the difference in tight races throughout the Province. 

One way to interpret the polling results is that it is the people who vote Liberal federally who are sticking with the United party (ironic given their name change) and the right wing folks are more closely associating with the Conservatives.

With that split the NDP will certainly win the next election.  It was the fear of the NDP winning that kept the coalition together.  But now that we have had years of NDP rule, the fear factor may have decreased enough that the Conservatives no longer prioritize the need for a coalition in this province.

[crazy canuck]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxKI9zKhDNE

I find this video fascinating.  Narrated by Pierre Poilievre, it's a 15 minute deep dive into housing prices in Canada and was released over the weekend.

Given that it's 15 minutes long and actually makes substantive arguments I think you can find things to quibble with on both sides (the right wing complaint would be - so what about immigration) but I love efforts by politicians to try and deal with serious issues with facts and arguments (which of course is one of the many reasons I am so against Donald Trump).

This is a good reason why people should be concerned about PP.

The video starts with a good description of the problem, and properly identifies that prices started increasing 10 years ago, or at least by the time Trudeau was elected 8 years ago  - the video is inconsistent on those two time frames.

But then it blames the increase in housing prices to the inflation that has most recently occurred and the fiscal deficits.  Where is the explanation for the dramatic price increases in the low inflation environment we had through most of that time?

And then says there is a "common sense solution" of addressing the housing crises by bringing down government spending.  The explanation there is part conspiracy theory and part economic mombo jumpo.

He does make a valid point about the fact that we have not built near enough housing.  But his solution again is bringing down interest rates.  But that does not explain why housing was not built when interest rates were low.

He also descends into a ridiculous argument that the single greatest cost of building housing is government gate keeping costs.  The greatest cost is of course labour and materials.

And his solution?  a "common sense plan" have big cities build more housing.  Um, PP - cities don't build housing.

[Barrister]

This is a good reason why people should be concerned about PP.

See, I knew I could count on you to come and shit all over this video.

I could argue with several of the points you make and agree with some of them.

But you could write thousands of words about housing prices in Canada and still not be comprehensive.  It's a complicated topic.  And this video is still of course a piece of political advertising after all.

What impresses me though is that they're making a serious argument and treating voters like actual adults.

[Jacob]

Yeah, the whole reason the old Social Credit party became BC's version of the natural governing party back in the day, was because although the Liberals in that coalition were relatively small in number, they made all the difference in tight races throughout the Province. 

One way to interpret the polling results is that it is the people who vote Liberal federally who are sticking with the United party (ironic given their name change) and the right wing folks are more closely associating with the Conservatives.

Seems a reasonable interpretation, especially given how the BC Conservatives are positioning themselves.

With that split the NDP will certainly win the next election.  It was the fear of the NDP winning that kept the coalition together.  But now that we have had years of NDP rule, the fear factor may have decreased enough that the Conservatives no longer prioritize the need for a coalition in this province.

.

Yeah. Whether that's because they've decided the NDP isn't that bad, so it's not as important to get them out - or whether they've decided the political purity (and personal power for the politicians involved) is more important is an open question.

The CBC has an article on BC politics today

A few things re: the BC Conservatives from that article:

Leader John Rustad, MLA for Bulkley-Nechako Lakes, joined the B.C. Conservatives in February after being booted from B.C. United last year for boosting a tweet that cast doubt on climate science. The Conservatives gained official party status after former B.C. United MLA Bruce Banman crossed the floor to join Rustad in September.

...

The B.C. Conservatives have come out swinging on a number of issues, speaking out against sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) resources in schools and mandatory vaccinations for health-care workers, and claiming that climate change does not pose a major threat to people in B.C.

If elected in the next provincial election expected for October 2024, the Conservatives would eliminate the carbon tax, roll back climate-friendly building codes and consider nuclear power as an energy option, Rustad said.

I don't know how practical nuclear power is, but I don't object to it in principle. The rest is pretty bad from my perspective. I'm also not convinced that it will play particularly well with the BC electorate.

I guess their game plan is to become the official opposition next time around, build their brand, and be in position to capitalize when the NDP government becomes long in the tooth. At which time our right of centre government in BC will be more to the right than our current offering.

[crazy canuck]

This is a good reason why people should be concerned about PP.

See, I knew I could count on you to come and shit all over this video.

I could argue with several of the points you make and agree with some of them.

But you could write thousands of words about housing prices in Canada and still not be comprehensive.  It's a complicated topic.  And this video is still of course a piece of political advertising after all.

What impresses me though is that they're making a serious argument and treating voters like actual adults.

Tell me, did you accept what he was saying, or did you see any of the holes in his gate keeper rhetoric?

[crazy canuck]

I don't know how practical nuclear power is, but I don't object to it in principle. The rest is pretty bad from my perspective. I'm also not convinced that it will play particularly well with the BC electorate.

I guess their game plan is to become the official opposition next time around, build their brand, and be in position to capitalize when the NDP government becomes long in the tooth. At which time our right of centre government in BC will be more to the right than our current offering.

Site C is about to come on line, so I am not sure why there would be a need for nuclear power, or anything other than hydro for the next while.  And if more power is needed, the solution would seem to be developing more hydro generation along with wind and solar so that there is a constant supply when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

It seems a weird political platform for BC.

I think your observation about their game plan is likely accurate.  If it pans out that way, they would become the new home for the anti-NDP vote.

[Barrister]

This is a good reason why people should be concerned about PP.

See, I knew I could count on you to come and shit all over this video.

I could argue with several of the points you make and agree with some of them.

But you could write thousands of words about housing prices in Canada and still not be comprehensive.  It's a complicated topic.  And this video is still of course a piece of political advertising after all.

What impresses me though is that they're making a serious argument and treating voters like actual adults.

Tell me, did you accept what he was saying, or did you see any of the holes in his gate keeper rhetoric?

I swear CC, it's as if you don't read what I'm writing.

Once more, with feeling:

I could argue with several of the points you make and agree with some of them.

But you could write thousands of words about housing prices in Canada and still not be comprehensive.  It's a complicated topic.  And this video is still of course a piece of political advertising after all.

What impresses me though is that they're making a serious argument and treating voters like actual adults.

[Jacob]

This is a good reason why people should be concerned about PP.

The video starts with a good description of the problem, and properly identifies that prices started increasing 10 years ago, or at least by the time Trudeau was elected 8 years ago  - the video is inconsistent on those two time frames.

But then it blames the increase in housing prices to the inflation that has most recently occurred and the fiscal deficits.  Where is the explanation for the dramatic price increases in the low inflation environment we had through most of that time?

And then says there is a "common sense solution" of addressing the housing crises by bringing down government spending.  The explanation there is part conspiracy theory and part economic mombo jumpo.

He does make a valid point about the fact that we have not built near enough housing.  But his solution again is bringing down interest rates.  But that does not explain why housing was not built when interest rates were low.

He also descends into a ridiculous argument that the single greatest cost of building housing is government gate keeping costs.  The greatest cost is of course labour and materials.

And his solution?  a "common sense plan" have big cities build more housing.  Um, PP - cities don't build housing.

Are there any problems the Conservatives don't aim to solve by cutting government spending and lowering taxes?

That said, I do agree with Poillievre that building much more housing in big cities is a significant part of the solution - I don't think anyone disagrees, to be honest. The question is how he intends to facilitate that if his party is in government. I have my own assumptions, but I'd be happy to have them validated or disproven.

[crazy canuck]

This is a good reason why people should be concerned about PP.

See, I knew I could count on you to come and shit all over this video.

I could argue with several of the points you make and agree with some of them.

But you could write thousands of words about housing prices in Canada and still not be comprehensive.  It's a complicated topic.  And this video is still of course a piece of political advertising after all.

What impresses me though is that they're making a serious argument and treating voters like actual adults.

Tell me, did you accept what he was saying, or did you see any of the holes in his gate keeper rhetoric?

I swear CC, it's as if you don't read what I'm writing.

Once more, with feeling:

I could argue with several of the points you make and agree with some of them.

But you could write thousands of words about housing prices in Canada and still not be comprehensive.  It's a complicated topic.  And this video is still of course a piece of political advertising after all.

What impresses me though is that they're making a serious argument and treating voters like actual adults.

I don't understand your point.  My post indicated the opposite.  They are treating Canadians like they do not udnerstand economics or basic logic.

How is it that the cause of housing prices which increased mainly during periods of ultra low inflation and interest rates, was caused by high  rates?

One might reasonably argue (and most economists accept) that it was the low interest rate environment which contributed to the run up in prices.  But the Conservatives role out common sense solutions that adhere to their gatekeeper rhetoric.  These are not serious people.   

[crazy canuck]

This is a good reason why people should be concerned about PP.

The video starts with a good description of the problem, and properly identifies that prices started increasing 10 years ago, or at least by the time Trudeau was elected 8 years ago  - the video is inconsistent on those two time frames.

But then it blames the increase in housing prices to the inflation that has most recently occurred and the fiscal deficits.  Where is the explanation for the dramatic price increases in the low inflation environment we had through most of that time?

And then says there is a "common sense solution" of addressing the housing crises by bringing down government spending.  The explanation there is part conspiracy theory and part economic mombo jumpo.

He does make a valid point about the fact that we have not built near enough housing.  But his solution again is bringing down interest rates.  But that does not explain why housing was not built when interest rates were low.

He also descends into a ridiculous argument that the single greatest cost of building housing is government gate keeping costs.  The greatest cost is of course labour and materials.

And his solution?  a "common sense plan" have big cities build more housing.  Um, PP - cities don't build housing.

Are there any problems the Conservatives don't aim to solve by cutting government spending and lowering taxes?

That said, I do agree with Poillievre that building much more housing in big cities is a significant part of the solution - I don't think anyone disagrees, to be honest. The question is how he intends to facilitate that if his party is in government. I have my own assumptions, but I'd be happy to have them validated or disproven.

No one disputes that more housing needs to be built.  How it is that large cities are supposed to miraculously make that so is a bit of a mystery in the Conservative plan.

They assume that a cabal of gatekeepers are stopping construction.

[Barrister]

Site C is about to come on line, so I am not sure why there would be a need for nuclear power, or anything other than hydro for the next while.  And if more power is needed, the solution would seem to be developing more hydro generation along with wind and solar so that there is a constant supply when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

So BC politics have always seemed weird to me and I really can't comment on the BC Conservatives.  As a general rule of course I prefer to NOT split the right-of-centre vote, but given how BC United is the former Liberal party it always seemed far more centrist then right wing, I can't speak to whether it's worthwhile to risk an NDP victory in order to try to ensure a further right-wing victory in the next election cycle.

Reading the CBC article I'm quite dismayed to see them characterized as opposition to climate change, vaccinations and sexual orientation education in schools as being their defining issues, but can only hope that this is just the CBC being the CBC.

But I do want to speak up in favour of nuclear power.  I'm not a full-time professional like The Brain, but I did work at AECL's Whiteshell Labs in a job placement back in the 90s.  I had to wear a dosimeter and everything, even though I went nowhere near the reactor itself.

Hydro power is great.  I love hydro.  We should build more of it.  But it does come with lots of environmental damage (albeit not climate-change-related).  We should also build lots of wind and solar - but that requires a base load, which nuclear is perfect for.

Now we have to be honest - new nuclear reactors haven't been built in Canada in decades (there have been some international sales), so any new plant is probably a decade or more away from actually generating power.  But the same timeline also would apply to hydro.

[Barrister]

Are there any problems the Conservatives don't aim to solve by cutting government spending and lowering taxes?

That said, I do agree with Poillievre that building much more housing in big cities is a significant part of the solution - I don't think anyone disagrees, to be honest. The question is how he intends to facilitate that if his party is in government. I have my own assumptions, but I'd be happy to have them validated or disproven.

So the first point is fair - but that doesn't mean that "cutting government spending and lowering taxes" is never the solution either.  I mean you can make the same argument about the NDP/Liberals - that their solution is always to increase spending and increase taxes "on the rich".

So I watched the video yesterday, but I thought it answered that question (I mean in as much detail as you can in a youtube video) - to link federal housing spending to actually increasing number of housing starts.  I've certainly read from more non-partisan sources that even though municipal governments are taking some limited steps to try and open up for denser housing, there are still a lot of zoning obstacles which is why we still haven't seen an increase in housing starts.

[Jacob]

Yeah the "large cities should build more housing", what does that mean?

Are they going to provide massive amounts of funding to the CMHC to facilitate the building of affordable housing in cities?

Are they going to go all in on providing federal funding for urban transportation and infrastructure upgrades to lower the cost for cities to densify?

Are they going to set housing targets for cities and withhold existing funding if those targets are not met?

Are they simply going to say "cities should build more housing" and consider that good enough?

EDIT: that was @CC