[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

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

The article you linked is about taking on debt to spend.

Is your argument that the spending decisions are incompetent and that that is what's driving the BC Conservatives chance of success? Or do you have other examples of incompetence in mind, in addition to what's in the article about the debt rating downgrade?

[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.

The article you linked is about taking on debt to spend.

Is your argument that the spending decisions are incompetent and that that is what's driving the BC Conservatives chance of success? Or do you have other examples of incompetence in mind, in addition to what's in the article about the debt rating downgrade?

No, it's not about taking on debt to spend.  It's about taking a 5,000,000,000+ dollar surplus and in the space of a couple of years turning that into a huge deficit.

The NDP under Horgan, and particularly James as finance minister, were highly competent managers of the purse.  The same cannot be said of the current government, as the opinion piece points out.

[Jacob]

No, it's not about taking on debt to spend.  It's about taking a 5,000,000,000+ dollar surplus and in the space of a couple of years turning that into a huge deficit.

Ok.

The NDP under Horgan, and particularly James as finance minister, were highly competent managers of the purse.  The same cannot be said of the current government, as the opinion piece points out.

The opinion piece does indeed point that out.

My question to you is...

1) if your charge of incompetence is primarily based on management of the purse, or whether there are other significant elements of incompetence; and

2) whether you think the management of the purse situation is a significant driver in the current success of the BC Conservatives.

[Jacob]

Also BC related, the BC Government released free, standardized multiplex housing designs: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/construction-industry/building-codes-and-standards/guides/bc_std_des_catalogue_v1.pdf

[crazy canuck]

No, it's not about taking on debt to spend.  It's about taking a 5,000,000,000+ dollar surplus and in the space of a couple of years turning that into a huge deficit.

Ok.

The NDP under Horgan, and particularly James as finance minister, were highly competent managers of the purse.  The same cannot be said of the current government, as the opinion piece points out.

The opinion piece does indeed point that out.

My question to you is...

1) if your charge of incompetence is primarily based on management of the purse, or whether there are other significant elements of incompetence; and

2) whether you think the management of the purse situation is a significant driver in the current success of the BC Conservatives .

An answer to your first question the management of the purse is proxy for good management. It is, of course not in and of itself proof one way or the other.  For example, it makes no sense to run a balanced budget when there is a need to spend.

The remarkable thing about the NDP under the previous leadership and management is that through the toughest of times in this province and they were still able to not only balance the budget but produce surplus.

Much of that management team was gutted when the new premier took over.  He brought in different advisors, which of course is his right, but he also of course needs to take responsibility for the decisions he made.

In the course of two years, he was a $5 billion surplus into a $5 billion deficit.

Also, in the last two years economic circumstances in the province improved.  That is Objectively demonstrated by the fact that the government took in $2 billion more in revenue than they had budgeted for so really they spent 7 billion more than budget.

Eby is going to have to come up with a good explanation for why that happened.

in answer to your second question, I don't think this has much to do with the current popularity of the conservatives.  I don't think these numbers are well-known within the public discourse yet.  Mason is not exactly a right wing opinion writer.  He is more signalling to the NDP that they've got a real problem here that they're going to have to deal with if they want to get reelected.

[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.

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

BC Hydro has been in an Energy deficit for a couple of years.  It is one of the reasons why bringing Cite C online is so important.

It may be that smaller projects, That are mainly run of river, Can make up some cut part of the deficit, but that remains to be seen.   One of the policy moves the NDP made when they were first elected was to move away from those smaller projects.

It's one of the reasons why the wind turbine on grouse mountain continues to simply be a tourist attraction.

[Barrister]

Here's a fun little map - GDP per capita of US states and Canadian provinces.

https://twitter.com/trevortombe/status/1831705145857409472

I mean I think we know that Canada is poorer than the US, but this really brings it home.  The absolutely poorest jurisdiction in north America is Nova Scotia at 45.2 (thousands, USD per capita).  Ontario (59.7) is about on par with South Carolina (60).  Quebec (54.4) is on par with West Virginia (56.2).  My home province of Manitoba (52.3) is just ahead of Mississippi (49.8), with Mississippi being the poorest state in the union (West Virginia second poorest).

Highest in Canada is Alberta (82.2) which puts us on par with Texas (84).

But then of course no place in Canada comes close to Washington (102.6) or New York (110).

Oh and BC (63.1)? About on par with Montana (62.3) or Oklahoma (62.7).

[Grey Fox]

The USA does that to any other country.

UKs GDP per capita is like 49k USD, France 44K USD.

[Barrister]

So you can see a few different effects at work on this map.

Perhaps the most obvious one is oil and gas.  That's why places like Alaska, North Dakota, Alberta or Texas are so wealthy.

You can also see the effect of the tech sector in the US (Cali, Wash) or international finance (New York).

But then put those outliers to the side.

But then ask yourself - why is Ontario so much poorer than Minnesota, Wisconsin, or even Michigan - all across the border?  Why is New Brunswick so much poorer than Maine?

Why is Quebec poorer than Alabama?

[Valmy]

If you do median income and poverty rates Canada might fare better.

[HVC]

Do random billionaires people live in Minnesota or something?

[Valmy]

Do random billionaires people live in Minnesota or something?

Ten thousand lakes and billionaires.

[HVC]

Minnesota and Wisconsin also have a third of the population and Michigan 2/3s plus what left of the American auto industry.

[Barrister]

If you do median income and poverty rates Canada might fare better.

Let's see about that:

Median income per province:



Median income per state:




Doesn't look too bad.

BUT!

You have to account for currency.  Pretty sure the Canadian data is in Canadian dollars.

The purchasing power parity of the Canadian dollar is $0.84, google suggests.

So Alberta's USD median income is around $64k - which again puts it on par with Texas.

Ontario is $61.3 - on par with Georgia.

BC is $57.5 - maybe on par with Ohio.

Quebec is $51.5 - puts it around Louisiana.

So it pretty much tracks the per capita GDP - with the exception that it does smooth out the really high numbers for New York, Cali and Wash (although they're still high).  If you look at Canada's richest provinces and they track the US's decided middle-run states.


I may take a stab at poverty rates, but I suspect there may be real issues comparing data from the two countries.

[Barrister]

Minnesota and Wisconsin also have a third of the population and Michigan 2/3s plus what left of the American auto industry.

All numbers are "per capita".