[kEiThZ]

A lot of people are upset about climate change and Israel-Gaza.

Again. Who are these people? What's relevant to our discussion are people who vote regularly in Canada.

millions of Canadian are worried about climate change.

Apparently not enough to actually a top 3 voter issue, let alone the primary driver of their vote:

Source: https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-17-abacus-data-polling-canada/

If Canadians sincerely cared about climate change that has "Axe the tax!" as a slogan wouldn't be leading in the polls.

 

[picard102]

Again. Who are these people? What's relevant to our discussion are people who vote regularly in Canada.



Apparently not enough to actually a top 3 voter issue, let alone the primary driver of their vote:

Source: https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-17-abacus-data-polling-canada/

If Canadians sincerely cared about climate change that has "Axe the tax!" as a slogan wouldn't be leading in the polls.

It's literally top 5 in your source, and is gaining. COL declined in that same source.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's literally top 5 in your source, and is gaining. COL declined in that same source.

Read the poll carefully. It's not ranking issues. It just asks whether it's a concern or not. So roughly 1 in 4 Canadians think it's a concern. Meanwhile 7 in 10 Canadians think cost of living is an issue and about half think housing affordability is a problem. That says that for the vast majority of Canadians if an election was held tomorrow, climate change wouldn't factor into how they vote, while cost of living would. Like I said, if climate change was important to voters (right now), the borderline climate denialist party wouldn't be 17 points ahead in the polls.

 

[Brands]

Climate Change can easily be the top concern of voters in fall 2025. Have you seen this winter? We had spring type weather in January and February.

 

[Northern Light]

Climate Change can easily be the top concern of voters in fall 2025. Have you seen this winter? We had spring type weather in January and February.

1) Anything is possible, but not all things are probable.

2) Did you see our record summer of wild fires last year, with smoky skies being a regular feature of Toronto more than any summer I can recall, ever.............yet....where does the issue of climate change rank only 8 months removed from the smoky air?

There is no argument being made as to the virtue of the issue; simply that voters are finding other issues more compelling just now.

 

[kEiThZ]

Climate Change can easily be the top concern of voters in fall 2025. Have you seen this winter? We had spring type weather in January and February.

I honestly wish voters cared more about climate change. Sadly, I know they don't. And most of those who do are already voting LPC, NDP, Green or BQ. That doesn't make it a swing issue.

 

[Brands]

1) Anything is possible, but not all things are probable.

2) Did you see our record summer of wild fires last year, with smoky skies being a regular feature of Toronto more than any summer I can recall, ever.............yet....where does the issue of climate change rank only 8 months removed from the smoky air?

There is no argument being made as to the virtue of the issue; simply that voters are finding other issues more compelling just now.

Right now the top issue is the cost of living. The thing is the election is a year of a half away. Most economists expect the Bank of Canada to cut 125bpc by the end of the year, and further cuts in 2025.

If the Liberals make gains in Housing, Climate change, and Dental care, things can look a lot different in fall 2025, especially if the economy is strong.

 

[Northern Light]

Right now the top issue is the cost of living. The thing is the election is a year of a half away. Most economists expect the Bank of Canada to cut 125bpc by the end of the year, and further cuts in 2025.

If the Liberals make gains in Housing, Climate change, and Dental care, things can look a lot different in fall 2025, especially if the economy is strong.

Sure, they could. They might.

However, all the people who have renewed mortgages at rates that have caused them to extend their amortization by 5 or 10 or 15 years, are unlikely to be impressed by a reduction that came too late for them; likewise those that had to walk away from homes/condos on which they had placed deposits.

Dental care for seniors hasn't even fully kicked in yet; and we have learned that households with a mere $70,000 in income have a 40% co-pay and those with over $80,000 have a 60% co-pay. Not all that impressive.

Don't get me wrong, I view the dental plan as a positive progress, incorrectly executed/phased from my perspective. But I don't see it as likely to swing a lot of people in 2025 unless the Conservatives squarely run on repealing it. Even then......

Also, housing is not just an 'interest rate' issue.

In Toronto, in an older rental building, with no central air or ensuite laundry, 2 bdrm apts are going for $2,750 a month, and 3 bdrm for over $3,000, + parking, + electricity........ for many people that's devastatingly expensive (over 50% of Torontonians rent).

I don't foresee a huge drop in rents or spike in incomes between now and mid-2025. I'd be happy to be wrong on either. But movement at the margins is unlikely to move more than a handful of votes.

 

[jje1000]

Folks, there is no pharmacare to dismantle. There isn’t even a deal on pharmacare to dismantle — or to walk away from, to abandon or to otherwise disrespect. Almost literally nothing has happened to underpin this news cycle.

What we have is Bill C-64, “An act respecting pharmacare.” Excluding preamble and title page, it is four-and-a-half pages long (two-and-a-quarter really, since it’s bilingual), and it most certainly does not bind the government to implementing a national pharmacare program — which it can’t do on its own anyway, health care being provincial jurisdiction and two of the country’s larger jurisdictions (Quebec, which already provides prescription drug coverage, and Alberta) having already indicated they’re not interested.

Paragraph three sets out the purpose of the bill, which is “to guide efforts to improve … the accessibility and affordability of prescription drugs … in collaboration with the provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples and other partners and stakeholders, with the aim of continuing to work toward the implementation of national universal pharmacare.”

To guide efforts to improve access to prescription drugs … with the aim of continuing to work toward the implementation of national universal pharmacare.

Here’s what the bill says: “The Minister may, if the Minister has entered into an agreement with a province or territory to do so, make payments to the province or territory in order to increase any existing public pharmacare coverage … for specific prescription drugs and related products intended for contraception or the treatment of diabetes.”

If that sounds like something less than a done deal to you, your instincts are good. Anything predicated on an agreement between Ottawa and the provinces is very much worth doubting until the moment it demonstrably, verifiably exists. And yet provinces are already under at least implicit pressure from media to declare themselves in or out. “While Ontario is not ‘writing off anything’ in national pharmacare talks,” Global News reported, “the government is taking a wait and see approach before deciding to opt in.”

That’s a perfectly accurate description of what’s happening. But it also implies there’s actually something to opt into, and that opting into whatever it is now might be a reasonable thing to do. There isn’t, and it wouldn’t be. One of the health minister’s assigned tasks under Bill C-64 is to have the Canadian Drug Agency come up with “a list of essential prescription drugs and related products to inform the development of a national formulary.”

What kind of “national pharmacare plan” do you really have if you don’t yet even have a list of the drugs it would cover? I submit you have no national pharmacare plan at all — certainly not one anyone or any province would choose over the coverage the vast majority of Canadians already have without a whole lot more information.

On Tuesday, hilariously, federal Health Minister Mark Holland admonished Bloc Québécois parliamentary leader Alain Therien that it was much too early to talk about compensation for Quebec in lieu of signing up for national pharmacare. “It’s important not to criticize something that doesn’t exist,” said Holland.

Chris Selley: There is no 'pharmacare deal'

Ontario hasn't 'opted in' because there is literally nothing to 'opt into'

nationalpost.com

 

[evandyk]

A few years ago I thought we were reaching a point where suburban voters, which is where governments are elected these days, had climate change as a high priority. But then I realized that they are people who live in the suburbs, so will never likely elect anyone who will actually do anything about emissions/GHG.

Direct housing costs are a bit of a lumpy issue in that they often won't impact people if they don't have to renew their mortgage or move from their current rental. But it's getting so bad that everybody knows people who want to buy a house but can't, or are squeezed by crazy rents.

 

[christiesplits]

Fresh off a loss in the Durham by-election (albeit an expected defeat), some more bad polling numbers for the Liberals:

Source

 

[Richard White]

Fresh off a loss in the Durham by-election (albeit an expected defeat), some more bad polling numbers for the Liberals:

View attachment 545976
Source

Like I said before, if I was PP or Jagmeet I would call for a confidence vote like they did with Paul Martin.

They have the LPC on the ropes right now and while the NDP is not likely to gain much they are within striking distance of being the opposition. If an election were to be held today, Trudeau would be resigning tomorrow.

 

[kEiThZ]

Like I said before, if I was PP or Jagmeet I would call for a confidence vote like they did with Paul Martin.

They have the LPC on the ropes right now and while the NDP is not likely to gain much they are within striking distance of being the opposition. If an election were to be held today, Trudeau would be resigning tomorrow.

I doubt Singh wants to wear a Conservative majority that happens before his pharmacare and dental care deal is substantially implemented. He can claim credit for these things during a 2025 election and argue that the NDP should be the better choice for progressive voters. If he pulls the trigger now, he'll be seen as and remembered as opportunistic, while actually losing seats.

 

[kEiThZ]

A few years ago I thought we were reaching a point where suburban voters, which is where governments are elected these days, had climate change as a high priority. But then I realized that they are people who live in the suburbs, so will never likely elect anyone who will actually do anything about emissions/GHG.

It's not that people won't support climate policy. They will. But they will want it done in a way that doesn't involve much of a lifestyle change. As much as I agree with carbon pricing with rebates as the most economically efficient way to do it, the Liberals have lost the political argument on this one. Arguably the only policy that's really saleable is what the US is doing with the Inflation Reduction Act: large subsidies for consumers.

 

[lenaitch]

I doubt Singh wants to wear a Conservative majority that happens before his pharmacare and dental care deal is substantially implemented. He can claim credit for these things during a 2025 election and argue that the NDP should be the better choice for progressive voters. If he pulls the trigger now, he'll be seen as and remembered as opportunistic, while actually losing seats.

With respect to pharmacare, here's National Post's Chris Selley's take how far along this 'deal' is. The proposed Bill is simply a piece of enabling legislation that has very little substance, other than empowering to Minister to keep trying.


His take:

Chris Selley: There is no 'pharmacare deal'

Ontario hasn't 'opted in' because there is literally nothing to 'opt into'

nationalpost.com

The Bill:

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-64 (44-1) - First Reading - Pharmacare Act - Parliament of Canada

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-64 (44-1) - First Reading - Pharmacare Act - Parliament of Canada

www.parl.ca

Purpose of the Bill (Section 3):

3 The purpose of this Act is to guide efforts to improve, for all Canadians, the accessibility and affordability of prescription drugs and related products, and to support their appropriate use, in collaboration with the provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples and other partners and stakeholders, with the aim of continuing to work toward the implementation of national universal pharmacare. Its purpose is also to support the development of a national formulary of essential prescription drugs and related products and to provide for the development a national bulk purchasing strategy.​