[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

From Gary Mason's opinion piece today, the main reason the NDP might lose, they went from competence under Horgan to incompetence under Eby.

According to the statement, the province recorded a deficit of $5.035-billion, which was about $800-million more than had been projected when the 2023 budget was tabled last year. Ms. Conroy trotted out a string of excuses for the growing debt and deficit: wildfires, hiring nurses, floods. Ignored was the fact the treasury collected an additional $2-billion more in revenue than was expected in the past fiscal year, which was more than enough to cover most of the emergency spending.

The fact is, the NDP love spending money. Check that: NDP Premier David Eby's government loves spending money.

It was not this way under former premier John Horgan and his finance minister Carole James. They understood implicitly that the traditional knock against the NDP is that it's a party of spendthrifts, and poor stewards of the treasury. To stay in power, Mr. Horgan understood he had to combat that perception by making balanced budgets a priority – which he did until the pandemic hit.

Mr. Eby was gifted a projected budget surplus of $5.7-billion by Mr. Horgan when he departed government in November, 2022. Instead of using it to pay off debt, he decided to spend most of it. Ms. Conroy's budget update certainly indicates that there is no intent by her party to change course and become more fiscally responsible.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


The updated forecast for total taxpayer-supported debt for 2023-24 is $71.863-billion. Under the NDP plan, it will rise to $126.499-billion in three years. The province's debt-to-GDP ratio is 17.6 per cent for 2023-24 and is projected to rise to 27.5 per cent by 2026-27. Not a balanced budget in sight.

When Mr. Horgan took power in 2017, the province had one of the lowest debt-to-GDP percentages in the country at 14.4 per cent. That seems like a lifetime ago now.

Mr. Eby seems unconcerned by what the credit rating agencies think. Earlier this year, S&P lowered B.C.'s rating to AA- from AA and gave the province a negative outlook. Moody's Investors Service also downgraded B.C.'s economic outlook, highlighting the dire debt situation. Noted economist Trevor Tombe has also called out the province's finances, saying in a report released earlier this year that B.C.'s debt is "accumulating at a pace that cannot be sustained." He said the province's fiscal future was bleaker than Newfoundland and Labrador's.

Mr. Rustad's party might be an unknown quantity to many, but there is one thing that the Conservative brand has always stood for: strong fiscal management. The public doesn't like hearing they need to tighten their belts and live within their means while the government is doing exactly the opposite.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


In what most believe will be a close election, the Conservatives have been handed a winning issue. If the NDP loses because of it, they'll only have themselves to blame.

[Barrister]

Rustad (the leader of the BC Conservatives and potentially our next Premier) on carbon taxing and carbon pollution: "How is it we have convinced carbon based beings that carbon is the problem. We can't make a difference, we are a rounding error."

https://globalnews.ca/news/10730603/rustad-peterson-podcast-politics/

Climate change is kind of Rustad's signature issue though - it is why he was kicked out of the Liberals/BCU.  It'd be really, really hard to pivot on that issue, even if it would be politically smart if he could do it.

You see it in the US with Trump.  You know Donald Trump could care less about abortion policy (hell how many abortions do you think he's paid for), but evangelicals supported him when few others would so he came out as pro-life in 2016 and appointing justices who would overturn Roe v Wade was one of his signature accomplishments from his term in office.

But now he (rightly) sees a hard-core pro-life position is hurting him.  He's tried to pivot, saying he's against a 6 week ban, but nobody pro-choice believes him, and it just upset his pro-life supporters.

So I've been pro-nuclear and pro-do-something-about-climate-change for 25-30 years now, so to the extent he wants to talk about nuclear he's right.  Unfortunately even if BC wanted to build a new reactor I don't think it'd be pumping out power for, oh, 20 years or so.

[crazy canuck]

20 years isn't so bad in the context of our large Hydro projects. Cite C, or a version of it, was proposed when I was in law school.  And it's reservoir is just now starting to be filled.

[Jacob]

BC Hydro put out a Call for Power I  2024, increasing capacity by 5% (3000 GWh/y). Another call for power is anticipated in 2026.

[Jacob]

Re: nuclear - I'm in favour where it seems plausible economically.

[crazy canuck]

BC Hydro put out a Call for Power I  2024, increasing capacity by 5% (3000 GWh/y). Another call for power is anticipated in 2026.

What does a call for power mean?

[Barrister]

Re: nuclear - I'm in favour where it seems plausible economically.

The problem is "plausible economically" is almost entirely a political question.

Let's take the one tiny portion i have some first hand experience in.  Back in the mid-90s I was studying Environmental Science.  I was in the co-op program and I worked 5 months at an AECL research laboratory in Manitoba with a group studying the permanent underground disposal of nuclear waste.  Now to be clear the scientists were doing the studying - I was mostly taking their data and trying to present it in more understandable ways.  Shortly after I was finished they presented their giant door-stop of an Environmental Assessment - underground nuclear storage was safe.

30 years later we still have no permanent storage facility.

Now for very obvious reasons nuclear power needs to be a regulated industry in Canada.  You can't go all laissez-faire on nuclear power.  But in order to be economical you need to have a stable and predictable regulatory environment, and one not subject to a lot of NIMBY political interference.  If you have the political will to do that, then nuclear can be economical.

We don't, which is why no nuclear power plant has been built in Canada for 30 years.

[crazy canuck]

BC Hydro put out a Call for Power I  2024, increasing capacity by 5% (3000 GWh/y). Another call for power is anticipated in 2026.

What does a call for power mean?

Ah, just an open RFP in hopes someone can make up the current shorfall.

[Josephus]

Ndp kills deal that kept Libs in power. Election?

Stupid Singh

[crazy canuck]

Ndp kills deal that kept Libs in power. Election?

Stupid Singh

I don't think that was stupid at all.  It was the only thing he could do to keep the NDP relevant.

The conservatives are going to win the next election, no matter what.  Better for the NDP to avoid being completely destroyed by simply being viewed as liberal light.

[Barrister]

Ndp kills deal that kept Libs in power. Election?

Stupid Singh

No, "Stupid Singh" was signing the deal in the first place.  It then tied the NDP to every decision the Liberals made - after all the NDP was supporting them.  It left the NDP in a really awkward place - if you liked a policy from Ottawa then you'd support the Liberals.  If you disliked a policy from Ottawa you'd support the Conservatives.  What exactly was the argument in favour of voting NDP?*

Now at least the NDP can threaten not to support any Liberal bills they don't like.

That being said - will there be an election this year?  I wouldn't count on it.

First of all the Liberals simply don't need to bring any matters to a vote.

The Conservatives can try to force matters by using an opposition day to bring a specific "no confidence" motion to Parliament - but explicitly voting in order to force an election is different than voting against a specific bill, so I don't think the NDP would be really punished for not supporting the Conservatives in such a motion.

The only confidence vote the Liberals would have to bring is a budget, which can wait until 2025 anyways.




*Yes, the NDP will say the argument for voting NDP is "keeping the Liberals honest" and "we made them bring in dental care".  Dental care is relatively old news, and requires voters to have a fair bit of specific knowledge about how it was brought in.  Same with "keeping the Liberals honest" - it might work for political junkies, but not the average voter.

[crazy canuck]

Ndp kills deal that kept Libs in power. Election?

Stupid Singh

No, "Stupid Singh" was signing the deal in the first place.  It then tied the NDP to every decision the Liberals made - after all the NDP was supporting them.  It left the NDP in a really awkward place - if you liked a policy from Ottawa then you'd support the Liberals.  If you disliked a policy from Ottawa you'd support the Conservatives.  What exactly was the argument in favour of voting NDP?*

Now at least the NDP can threaten not to support any Liberal bills they don't like.

That being said - will there be an election this year?  I wouldn't count on it.

First of all the Liberals simply don't need to bring any matters to a vote.

The Conservatives can try to force matters by using an opposition day to bring a specific "no confidence" motion to Parliament - but explicitly voting in order to force an election is different than voting against a specific bill, so I don't think the NDP would be really punished for not supporting the Conservatives in such a motion.

The only confidence vote the Liberals would have to bring is a budget, which can wait until 2025 anyways.




*Yes, the NDP will say the argument for voting NDP is "keeping the Liberals honest" and "we made them bring in dental care".  Dental care is relatively old news, and requires voters to have a fair bit of specific knowledge about how it was brought in.  Same with "keeping the Liberals honest" - it might work for political junkies, but not the average voter.

I agree with all of that.

It will be interesting to see if the NDP recovers from doing the deal.

[Josephus]

It will be interesting to see if the NDP recovers from doing the deal.

They won't. Which is why I said "Stupid Singh".

The NDP won't gain anything and will be worse off after the next election then they are now.

[Jacob]

BC Hydro put out a Call for Power I  2024, increasing capacity by 5% (3000 GWh/y). Another call for power is anticipated in 2026.

What does a call for power mean?

Ah, just an open RFP in hopes someone can make up the current shorfall.

I was a conference earlier this year that touched on the topic directly. My impression is that it's not "a hope that someone makes up the current shortfall" type of situation, but rather a matter of picking which potential projects to pick and fund.

That said, I'm very far from an expert in the topic - but I left with the impression that the targets would be met. Whether the targets of the 2024 Call For Power (and those of the expected 2026 Call) is enough to keep up with projected demand, I don't know; but if projected demand growth is 15% by 2030 then +5% in 2024, +5% in 2026 (assuming that's the target) and another +5% in 2028 (speculative that they'll issue another call) would seem to get us pretty close.

More details on the BC Hydro 2024 Call for Power here: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024EMLI0018-000470

[Grey Fox]

It will be interesting to see if the NDP recovers from doing the deal.

They won't. Which is why I said "Stupid Singh".

The NDP won't gain anything and will be worse off after the next election then they are now.

They will have achieved something at least. Unlike the NDP of the Orange wave.