[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

What riding in BC has four viable candidates?

Actually I found three - on Vancouver Island where the Greens do well:

Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke
Con 21% NDP 30% Lib 22% Green 25%

Nanaimo-Ladysmith
Con 25% NDP 27% Lib 17% Green 28%

Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
Con 27% NDP 30% Lib 19% Green 21%

https://www.calculatedpolitics.com/project/2019-canadian-federal-election-region-british-columbia/

Now obviously the idea that the Conservatives might win on Vancouver Island seems fanciful - but when you look at those vote splits it shows anything is possible.  Any of those parties would just need to see a swing of a few points in their favour to win.

[crazy canuck]

What riding in BC has four viable candidates?

Actually I found three - on Vancouver Island where the Greens do well:

Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke
Con 21% NDP 30% Lib 22% Green 25%

Nanaimo-Ladysmith
Con 25% NDP 27% Lib 17% Green 28%

Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
Con 27% NDP 30% Lib 19% Green 21%

https://www.calculatedpolitics.com/project/2019-canadian-federal-election-region-british-columbia/

Now obviously the idea that the Conservatives might win on Vancouver Island seems fanciful - but when you look at those vote splits it shows anything is possible.  Any of those parties would just need to see a swing of a few points in their favour to win.

Your comment at the bottom is really the point.  There is no way the Conservatives are viable on the Island ie that percentage is not going to grow.  Those ridings are a contest between the NDP and the Greens.  The Liberals blew any shot they had making inroads there by buying the pipeline and that vote is not going to the Conservatives.

However, the Conservatives do have something to fear from Bernier's party here.  That is going to have a dent on the ridings where the Conservatives do have a viable battle with the NDP.

[Barrister]

Your comment at the bottom is really the point.  There is no way the Conservatives are viable on the Island ie that percentage is not going to grow.  Those ridings are a contest between the NDP and the Greens.  The Liberals blew any shot they had making inroads there by buying the pipeline and that vote is not going to the Conservatives.

However, the Conservatives do have something to fear from Bernier's party here.  That is going to have a dent on the ridings where the Conservatives do have a viable battle with the NDP.

But that's just it - obviously in a 2 or 3-way race the Conservatives don't win those ridings.  But in a 4 way split?  They only need 3-5% more in each of those ridings.

Yes, Bernier's party is a bit of a wild card.  I tend to expect it will flame out in the heat of a writ period - except probably in Bernier's own riding.  But if I'm wrong then Yes the Conservatives are in trouble.

[crazy canuck]

I think you forgot to read the part of my post where I said the Liberals are not going to be competitive in those ridings in this election.  Purchasing the pipeline may have been popular in Alberta, but it lost them all those votes on the Island - votes that are certainly not going to the Conservatives.  It is a two way race between the Greens and NDP.

[PRC]

The move to buy the pipeline got some momentary applause in Alberta, but has largely been forgotten and possibly even tweaked as a "way to bury the pipeline forever" type conspiracy.   The Libs are as unpopular as ever in Alberta, with J. Kenney today railing against the "Notley - Trudeau Alliance" in his first campaign speech.

[crazy canuck]

The move to buy the pipeline got some momentary applause in Alberta, but has largely been forgotten and possibly even tweaked as a "way to bury the pipeline forever" type conspiracy.   The Libs are as unpopular as ever in Alberta, with J. Kenney today railing against the "Notley - Trudeau Alliance" in his first campaign speech.

I can see why the conspiracy theory would be viable, anyone with a passing knowledge of aboriginal law would have known that state ownership of the pipeline would  have made it much more difficult to build.

[Malthus]

The Conservatives are going to lose all the close seats in BC on that issue.  The only issue here is going to be whether the NDP can take the Liberal seats.  The wild card is Ontario.  They elected Ford after all.

Provincial politics says little about federal politics, though. Ford got in because Ontarians wanted to throw out the existing provincial Liberals (and had good reason for this), not because Ontarians wanted Ford; the Conservatives benefited by vote-splitting on the left, when much Liberal support went to the NDP and some went to the Conservatives.

Where do the Federal Liberals sit in Ontario?

Apparently, the fallout from the scandal has hurt them here (as elsewhere). From polls at the end of last month:

The Liberal Party has fallen out of favour in several regions that were important to garnering its majority in 2015. The Conservative Party holds a small advantage in B.C. and Ontario, provinces the Liberals won by five and nine percentage points, respectively, in 2015.

Meanwhile, in Quebec, the home of Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin, residents are divided evenly between the CPC and Liberals, each of which is statistically tied with the Bloc Quebecois

http://angusreid.org/snc-lavalin/

Whether this will remain true come election time, I have no idea.

[crazy canuck]

new budget is in.  Lots of new spending, including this gem

CMHC would put up 10 per cent of the price of a newly constructed home and 5 per cent of an existing home, and share in the homeowner's equity.

The more generous incentive for new properties is meant to encourage home construction, particularly in Canada's largest cities like Toronto and Vancouver, where supply shortages are inflating home prices.

The problem in Vancouver is there is not enough supply to meet demand.  How is increasing demand going to increase supply and reduce prices?

edit: however the change to how stock options are taxed is a good move.

[Malthus]

new budget is in.  Lots of new spending, including this gem

CMHC would put up 10 per cent of the price of a newly constructed home and 5 per cent of an existing home, and share in the homeowner's equity.

The more generous incentive for new properties is meant to encourage home construction, particularly in Canada's largest cities like Toronto and Vancouver, where supply shortages are inflating home prices.

The problem in Vancouver is there is not enough supply to meet demand.  How is increasing demand going to increase supply and reduce prices?

I guess the thinking is that subsidizing specifically new properties will encourage construction thus increase supply - though it is hard to see where new constrictions are supposed to go in Vancouver.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, there is no shortage of new home construction in Vancouver - especially in the condo market.  Adding some new home buyers to the market is just going to inflate the market for what is available.  The bottleneck is the length of time to get building permits and that delay adds a lot of cost for developers.  This tax money is window dressing to allow the government to say that have done something.  But it makes no economic sense. They should just earmarked that money for funding the construction of affordable housing - but that is a administered provincially and so not a big boost politically for the Liberals.

[viper37]

Ok, we will see how much Canadians care about climate change.  I suspect, outside Alberta, quite a lot.

Lots of people care about climate change.  And then, they go and vote for people who talk a lot about climate change but never do anything.

Let's see, in Quebec's last election, 3 major political parties out 4 had some kind of environmental plan.  The CAQ won 37% of the vote, the Liberal Party 24%, the last two about equal each and they talked the most about the environment.  The CAQ never even had a plan to reduce GHG emissions. They have 74 out of 125 seats.

So, yeah, sure, environment is super important.  I agree we must take sensible actions to reduce our carbon footprint.  Signing a pro-environment manifesto in Montreal and then using a private plane for Val D'Or with your wife ain't gonna do squat about protecting our planet.  Riding from Montreal downtown to the aiport by helicopter isn't greener than the average worker using a 25 000$ gaz car instead of a 35k$ electric car because there's no public transit available for the hours he's working in.

I tried using Montreal's public transit multiple times myself.  Managed to do it just once by staying downtown for the week-end.  Couldn't see my friends without driving.

It's all about practical gesture, not grandstanding.

[viper37]

And Quebec is even more confusing, with the Libs at 35%, Conservatives at 22%, Bloc at 17%, NDP at 12%, and Greens at 8%.  Unlike other provinces Quebec has shown a willingness to make large shifts in voting intentions.  WIll the NDP regain some of its magic there, or will its votes collapse further?  What about the Bloc vote?  Will the Conservatives be able to take much of the right-leaning, soft-nationalist vote that elected the CAQ?

The Bloc has generated a bit more interest lately due to a new (uncontested) leadership.  It seems to be polling down now.  A month ago, I think they were equal to the Conservatives.  The new leader has a promised a new platform closer to the younger generation's desires (read: greener).  Will it attract voter's attention?  I doubt it.  I don't like the new leader.  At all.  But I don't feel like I'm letting my personal judgement interfere by saying the Bloc is marginal, at best.

[viper37]

edit: however the change to how stock options are taxed is a good move.

I haven't followed anything about it.  Please expand on the subject

[crazy canuck]

edit: however the change to how stock options are taxed is a good move.

I haven't followed anything about it.  Please expand on the subject

The basic idea is that favourable tax treatment of options will only apply to startups and will not apply to mature established companies.  The logic is that start ups don't have the cash to burn and so need the tax incentives associated with options to provide and incentive for people to work for the start up with the hope the options will be valuable down the road.  Options have become a standard way for all executives to be paid and it is a big tax dodge for those who work for established corporations that give a strike price for the options lower than what the stock trades at.

But the devil is in the details. How they define what the cut off looks like is going to generate a lot of angst. 

[viper37]

I know what are options and how they are taxed. I was just inquiring about the changes.