Tuesday, June 22, 2010

New Harris-Decima Poll: 7-pt Conservative Lead

Harris-Decima has a new poll out today, showing that the Conservatives are down a little nationally but up in Ontario.Harris-Decima's last poll taken in mid-May had the Conservatives at 36%, so this is a drop of two points. The Liberals are steady at 27%, while the New Democrats are up one to 17%.

The Bloc Québécois is up three points to 11% and the Greens are down one to 10%.

In Ontario, the Conservatives have defied Fake Lake and the G20, and are up one point to 40%. The Liberals are down two to 32%. The NDP is up one to 15%.

In Quebec, the Bloc soars ten points to 45%. While such a jump would be strange, the Bloc has actually been polling very well lately. The Liberals are down four to 22%, as are the Conservatives to a woeful 11%. The NDP is down one to 11%. The Bloc is in full control.

In British Columbia, control is being hotly debated. The Conservatives are down six points to 33%, only one up on the NDP, who are up five to 32%. The Liberals are also up: two points to 19%. The Greens are down one to 14%.

The Conservatives lead in Atlantic Canada with 38%. The NDP has dropped seven points there. The Tories also lead in Alberta with 55%, and in the Prairies with 39%, though that is a drop of eight points. The Liberals are up six in the Prairies.

The Conservatives win 62 seats in the West, 58 in Ontario, 3 in Quebec, and 11 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 134 - a drop of 11 from their current caucus.

The Liberals win 14 seats in the North and West, 36 in Ontario, 15 in Quebec, and 18 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 83, a gain of six.

The Bloc wins 55 seats in Quebec, a gain of seven.

The NDP wins 19 seats in the West and North, 12 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 3 in Atlantic Canada.

While the gap is certainly good news for the Conservatives compared to some other polls we've seen, 34% is still low - and 11% in Quebec is catastrophic. However, the lead in Ontario is something they'd like to see.

We're heading into the summer without much of a story line. The Conservatives are down and the Liberals are stuck. Maybe the only big piece of news is that the Bloc is back. On the 20th anniversary of the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, perhaps that is fitting.

53 comments:

  1. The only numbers I think are off are Ontario's, I think the Conservatives and Liberals would be closer if an election was held today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. looks more like jitter than anything.

    Lets see what Ekos says on Thursday?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I notice that Allan Gregg says:

    "Gregg said the combined support for federalist parties is “so low that a Bloc sweep (of Quebec’s 75 seats) is not beyond the realm of possibility.”

    Sorry Mr. Gregg but that is 100% beyond the realm of possibility. The BQ could win 100% of the francophone vote in Quebec and they will still never, ever win Mount Royal or Westmount or NDP or Lac-St. Louis etc...there are about a dozen seats (at least) in Quebec that are totally unwinnable for the BQ unless we are looking 100 years into the future and there has been a mass exodus of all non-frnacophones from the province.

    ReplyDelete
  4. DL,

    Saw that, too. This is the second time, I think, that Gregg has said something like that. He's a good pundit, but bad with the numbers.

    My ceiling for the Bloc is 65 seats.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That is to say, the amount of seats the Bloc cannot win are 10 or less (in 2004, they won 54 seats and were within 10 points in another 11 seats).

    ReplyDelete
  6. "In Ontario, the Conservatives have defied Fake Lake and the G20, and are up one point to 40%."

    Greg weston talks about a HD poll today.... 25% of Canadians haven't even heard we are hosting either the G8 or the G20.

    3/4 of canadians think the meetings are atleast somewhat important (despite the aforementioned 25% that didn't know there was a meeting going on)

    Then they tell us that 85% of people think that not much will be produced from the meetings. (odd, but to me that is a complete 180 from the last question)


    It wasn't until the push polling at the end where they told people the cost of this particular event and asked if it was worth it. Even then only 60% said it wasn't.


    So defying the Fake lake?? given the polling, it doesn't seem like it was the issue that the opposition and media thought they could make it into.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Red tory, Pick the one number you don't like and call it fake....uh huh.

    It is not that far off the last HD poll. (tories up 1, liberals down 2). It seems completly plausible to me.


    Its the coastal numbers I am concerned about. A 5% swing from the tories to the NDP in BC?? And a Tory lead in Atlantic Canada?? I don't know what they have done that would have resulted in that, My gut says the Liberals still lead there.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Plus every seat the Bloc gets comes off the other parties. Thus it is conceivable should they win 65 seats that they would be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition !!

    ReplyDelete
  9. How Gregg could say anything so naive is beyond me. He worked for Mulroney, when he racked up those huge victories in Quebec just in terms of popular support - and they still couldn't manage to win all 75. I think they were stopped in the low 60's. And what ridings were those? The West Island - aka the Bloc's desert.

    And for Christ's sake, the Bloc is at 45%, not 70!

    ReplyDelete
  10. "My ceiling for the Bloc is 65 seats."

    I doubt it is that high either.

    The Bloc won 49 in the last election. In 5 more they were closer than 5%. After that there was 1 that was 12%, and another that was 15%.

    That is requiring an 8 point direct swing from the party that won those seats to the Bloc. With an 8 point swing that gives them only 56. We are probably close to there now. But as for the rest of the seats... they aren't that competitive in any of them.


    The NDP too are in need of rather large swings to gain more than a couple seats only 6 were within 5% of winning.... And they would need to make up 10% for the next 5 seats.

    (all based on uniform swing from the national polling)

    I don't think alot of seats are going to change hands with the current polling.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The ceiling is not based on the party's current situation or the results of the last election.

    They are the absolute ceiling, i.e., in the realm of possibility, that is as good as they can do.

    Since the current format of four major parties and one minor party has only existed for the last three elections, the ceiling is derived by the best result from the last three elections, plus whatever the party was within 10 points of winning.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I guess the bloc did have 54 seats and +10%'s of about 10 back in 2004.

    But they also had 49% of the vote too. I guess 65 is plausible with the Tories competitive in a few seats rather than getting a goose egg.


    While I am on the topic of 2004-06 elections..... I remember John hailing the green advance from .81% to 4.29% under Jim Harris and predicting other big jumps for the Greens in the future.... .81% adjusted to 308 candidates from 111... is 2.25%. Add in an actual national campaign. 2% isn't that big of a jump even if you can call it a doubling of support. His second campaign added only another 0.2%. Followed by May adding another 2 1/4% in 08.

    While May's last campaign might be significant, the numbers he quotes before are just fluff.

    ReplyDelete
  13. An interesting point in Bryden's article on this survey is Greens hitting 15% in the 905 belt.

    This didn't appear in the Harris-Decima report and more critically, there are no older trends to compare this figure with. In the absence of other data it's safest to chalk it up to small sample sizes and jitter. (The EKOS city numbers bounce like basketballs.)

    However, if real, this is a very interesting data point. It's higher than the reported BC Green support and could signal an incubator for early Green seats.

    Definitely an area to keep an eye on in future.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Eric,

    You're no doubt right that the notion of a Bloc sweep of Quebec is unlikely. But I wonder if you had any thoughts on Gregg's suggestion/question about whether the Tories are ready to wage an English-Canada campaign strategy?

    My first thought is that it's not clear that writing off Quebec (other, perhaps, than the few bastions of Tory strength - the Beuce, for instance) would only be a Tory strategy. Given the reality of a dominant Bloc presence in Quebec, I'd have thought that it would make equal sense for the Grits to write-off ridings outside of the 15 or so Anglo/Allophone bastion of Montreal and focus on winning seats in the ROC. In fact, given the scarce resources of the Liberals, I'd have thought that strategy would make even more sense for the Grits than the Tories (given that the latter seem to have money to squander).

    While I think an explicit "ROC" strategy would be politically disastrous (both in and outside Quebec), I suspect that we will see a defacto ROC strategy, if we aren't seeing it already. Politicians worry, first and foremost, about the concerns of people who vote for them or who might vote for them. The dominance of the Bloc means that there's a lot more to be gained for Federalist politicians in addressing the concerns of Maritimers, Ontarians or (depending on the party) Albertans or Torontonians, than the concerns of voters from Joliette. Even in the absence of an explicit ROC strategy, Bloc dominance will cause the other parties to allign their policies to reflect the interests of those ridings which are winnable for them (i.e., in the ROC).

    Take the Liberal proposal to continue a military presence in Afghanistan past 2011 in a "training" role (As an aside, the suggestion that this is a "non-combat" role is highly duplicitous, since the Taliban doesn't distinguish between the ANA soldiers and the Canadians who train them, and there's no such thing as the "front line" in Afghanistan). Since opposition to ANY presence Afghanistan has always been strongest in Quebec, that the Liberals are floating this proposal (which, for what its worth, is a good idea) gives some indication of the weight the Liberals are giving to Quebec sentiment on the issue (i.e., not much). If the Grits thought that they had any chance of winning 30 or 40 seats in Quebec, they wouldn't be going down this road. But given the reality that they probably have little to gain or lose in Quebec (at least from the Bloc - they dearly want to win back Outremont from the NDP), it seems they're willing to ignore the rather strong feelings of Quebequers on the subject.

    There's a perverse irony in all this. A strong Bloc performance means that Quebec's interest have a loud and dedicated proponent in Ottawa. But it also means that Quebec's interest are given less and less weight by the parties who actually govern the country.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Barcs,

    all I'm saying is that most polls we've seen lately show a much closer race in Ontario. Atlantic Canada always changes because of the small sample size and whatever happens there the Liberals will still win a majority of the seats. The BC numbers aren't all that surprising.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Up in the 905, up in Quebec, up in BC...... but national support is the same.

    John wouldn't being up in 3 of the more populus regions without raising the national numbers... mean the greens are struggling across most of Canada?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Barcs: "It is not that far off the last HD poll. (tories up 1, liberals down 2). It seems completly plausible to me."

    It's also consistent with the last Nanos and Environics polls (although those are getting stale by now). The Ekos polls have been all over the map over the last month (with some showing large Tory leads other with small Liberal leads), so I'm not sure what to make of them (other than to suggest that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle). Still, I would be somewhat surprised if the Federal Liberals, who have been utterly hapless, were doing as well as their provincial cousins (who despite their own problems have benefited from a weak opposition), so I'm inclined to discount the latest Ekos numbers on that basis. In any event, the HD numbers in Ontario are certainly plausible.

    ReplyDelete
  18. John:

    Votes % Votes %
    Juan Manuel Santos – Party of the U (Partido de «la U») 6,802,043 46.68 9,004,221 69.1
    Antanas Mockus – Green Party (Partido Verde) 3,134,222 21.51 3,588,819 27.5

    Afraid the Green trajectory is down !! Mockus is the highest they have ever tried for and the public simply rejected him. Greens In Europe only exist in coalitions where the public knows they have no chance of REAL power.

    Forget it John. It's a lost cause.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Barcs: .81% adjusted to 308 candidates from 111... is 2.25%. Add in an actual national campaign. 2% isn't that big of a jump even if you can call it a doubling of support.

    Good point on the effect of the number of contested ridings. I still believe any doubling is a big and real jump, but that's a matter of opinion.

    While May's last campaign might be significant...

    It's interesting that Greens, by and large, were disappointed in the 2008 results. The Greens were the only party to increase their actual number of votes over 2006 and the Green vote share increased by 50%, yet that fell short of most expectations.

    Either hopes were too high or there will be an added Green boost in the next election due to the artificially low result in the last one. Regular commenters obviously have their views on this. Come the fall, we're likely to know a bit more.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm not too surprised by that 905 figure. Suburbanites are often "terribly concerned" about the state of an environment they never see. It's a sort of NIMBY-ism in reverse.

    Really, if they care about the environment so much, why do they live in suburban neigbourhoods? They're grossly inefficient compared to denser urban areas, and they're farther from nature than rural areas.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Even 65 seats for the Bloc is too high a ceiling. A more realistic figure would put it at ±60 (Mulroney got 61 in 1984 in the context of René Lévesque's "Beau risque").

    Here's a list of the 15 least likely ridings for the Bloc. Eleven of them on the Island of Montreal, one in Laval, two in the Outaouais region and Beauce, where the old Créditiste spirit still lives:

    Beauce
    Bourassa
    Honoré-Mercier
    Hull—Aylmer
    Lac-Saint-Louis
    LaSalle—Émard
    Laval—Les Îles
    Mont-Royal
    Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine
    Outremont
    Pierrefonds—Dollard
    Pontiac
    Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
    Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel
    Westmount—Ville-Marie

    ReplyDelete
  22. ClaudeB,

    You're thinking too much of the current situation, rather than ultimate potential.

    Consider the Beauce. Sure, Bernier has it locked up, but he won't be around forever. His election is very much a personal one. When he goes, the Beauce becomes a possibility. Remember, in 2004, the Bloc had 36% there.

    Then in Honore-Mercier, the Bloc was less than four points behind the Liberals in 2006.

    For Outremont, the Bloc was within seven points in 2006.

    Laval-les-Iles, 6.2 points behind in 2006.

    In Pontiac, the Bloc has been within 10 points for the last three elections.

    In Hull-Aylmer, the gap was 3.4 points in 2006.

    Right there, I've reduced your list of 15 to 9, leaving 66 seats open to the Bloc.

    Do I think that is what they'll get in the next election, or could get? No, but that is not what the ceiling represents.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Barcs: John wouldn't being up in 3 of the more populus regions without raising the national numbers... mean the greens are struggling across most of Canada?

    I wouldn't say "struggling"; I'd say "not moving", either up or down. There don't appear to be any changes beyond margin of error in the poll. Also note all the cautious words around the 905 number. The reported ups and downs are all non-events from the Green perspective.

    But good try.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ira: I'm not too surprised by that 905 figure.

    I'm not surprised, but I am skeptical until I see more evidence.

    Really, if they care about the environment so much, why do they live in suburban neigbourhoods? They're grossly inefficient compared to denser urban areas, and they're farther from nature than rural areas.

    Without disagreeing in any way, we've noted locally that exurban polls are disproportionately Green. Yes, we find it amusing and bemusing.

    The line for contradiction-free voters of any party forms on the left. Don't be bashful now, step right up...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Éric,

    Agreed. Pablo had better do some long distance training before the next one...it won't be an easy ride by any stretch of the imagination.

    My best guess is the Bloc will come in at around 55, particularly if the Conservatives sink (probable) and the Liberals don't do much in the way of seat gains (also probable) while the NDP sputters with a bit more water.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Éric, you may be right on most of these seats, but I have a few quibbles.

    Beauce has traditionally been very hostile to the sovereigntist movement. 42-44% YES in 1995, with only 1 2-term PQ MNA in Beauce-Nord (1976-1981) and none in Beauce-Sud in modern history. A federalist MP will serve there until Quebec's independence.

    Outremont is another one where I think you're stretching a bit. Looking at the last results, I assume quite a bit of second-choice voting to stiff the liberals and get a less harmful (former provincial) liberal. Without Mulcair, Outremont will return to their liberal roots.

    ReplyDelete
  27. John - I'd like someone to tell those voters how inconsistent their positions. Inconsistency bothers me.

    Plus, it annoys me when people who live like that tell me to conserve. I live in Vancouver, so I barely have to heat or cool my home, and I walk to work every day. I already have a smaller environmental footprint than most Green voters, and never would I vote Green.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Once they have seen the fake lake as shown by CBC you can figure the next election is ABC !

    ReplyDelete
  29. John

    Watched an interview with Prentice tonight. Ostensibly about the replacement of coal fired power plants wit cleaner natural gas fired plants. OK fine but he let slip something in that interview which dramatically changes the picture.

    He said that the Govt has identified 75,000 Mw of hydro power. Hello??

    Why would we not develop that carbon neutral source rather than an NG source ??

    Then on P&P May is interviewed about the NG idea and she thinks it's great ?? Hello??

    Where is the 75,000 Mw of hydro power. Obviously the Greens as usual are out of the loop !!

    ReplyDelete
  30. He said that the Govt has identified 75,000 Mw of hydro power. Hello??
    That would more than double Canada's entire installed hydro capacity of 67,000 MW

    Still, there is a lot more capacity possible.

    I often wonder, if it was economical to develop power in James Bay and then transmit it all the way south, why not put the giant wind farms nobody wants near their homes in a remote location?

    ReplyDelete
  31. So defying the Fake lake?? given the polling, it doesn't seem like it was the issue that the opposition and media thought they could make it into.
    It lost a lot of steam when it turned out the $2 million was for the entire media centre, not just the lake.

    Still, the issue remains the fact that the government cost estimate just a few months ago was nearly an order of magnitude lower.

    It looks mostly like a renovation project that gets out of hand. You can't stop, and you don't want to skip things that would cost much more later.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Note that The Economist mentioned "Fake Lake", in addition to the huge amount of spending for the G8 and G20 summits. Was a little scathing, too.

    This next to a not-good-but-not-completely-bad article about the Conservatives in general.

    ReplyDelete
  33. why not put the giant wind farms nobody wants near their homes in a remote location?


    You are equating to distinctly different things. Forget wind, we don't,if Prentice is right, need it.

    If 67,00 is our current total output we certainly don't need nukes and definitely NOT NG plants.

    Just shows the tiein between the Tories and fossil fuels !!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Where "Fake Lake" has legs is simply in the name. Unlike "detainee scandal" which, while a much more serious matter, doesn't have that catchy name. Think of how "Adscam" rhymes and rolls off the tongue and has become a code word that can be cited without further comment. "Cadscam" came close but looked like a ripoff of Adscam.

    I don't know if Fake Lake will have near the power that "You had an option sir!" did, but it is in the same ballpark.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "not-good-but-not-completely-bad"

    That's pretty much how I would describe the performance of Stephen Harper's government.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "why not put the giant wind farms nobody wants near their homes in a remote location?"

    Because to power just saskatchewan you would need a wind farm 4 miles wide by the 195 miles from Regina to Prince Albert.

    Which of course assumes that it is just as windy along that entire line as it is in the sunbridge wind farm by Gull Lake.

    Oh... and so long as the wind never stops blowing.



    "It lost a lot of steam when it turned out the $2 million was for the entire media centre, not just the lake."

    ... It lost alot of steam when people found out that the opposition and the media were misrepresenting the truth. Canadian journalism in action. Its a good thing a few of them do do some research.

    Not to mention the poll that Weston was talking about yesterday.... where 25% of Canadians didn't know we were even hosting the summit....



    "if 67,000 is our current total output we certainly don't need nukes and definitely NOT NG plants."

    It isn't... That is the Hydro output. 1/2 of it is Quebec who use more power then they produce. It is supplemented by purchases from Labrador, and the excess from that is exported to the US. Most of the rest of the hydro power produced is in Ontario, Manitoba, and BC neither of which has much excess.

    Which brings us to Coal fired generation. Which is the major source in every other province (the other 1/2 of them) except for the north.

    And most of those reactors are nearing replacement requirements. It being cheaper to build near the user rather than criss-cross the country with the big big transmission lines they need to be replace with something abundant and cheap... ie coal and natural gas. Large high flow year round rivers are not so abundant on say the Prairies.

    I think it is about 40-45,000Mw that Canada needs to build/replace in the next decade.

    Some of that can come from Hydro, and a small amount from wind,but we will have to develop nuke, coal or gas as baseload for a bunch of it.... And I don't think we need/want another ecological disaster like James Bay.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Peter: [Prentice] said that the Govt has identified 75,000 Mw of hydro power. Hello??

    Why would we not develop that carbon neutral source rather than an NG source ??

    Then on P&P May is interviewed about the NG idea and she thinks it's great ?? Hello??

    Where is the 75,000 Mw of hydro power. Obviously the Greens as usual are out of the loop !!


    "Where?" is certainly the question. If you review May's critique, she's all for power lines to bring Manitoba and Quebec hydro power to Ontario as replacements for coal. She proposed high-efficiency natural gas for Alberta because it's not next door to Quebec.

    The power lines are necessary to use some of that untapped hydro power. Obviously the Greens as usual are thinking two moves ahead. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

    ReplyDelete
  38. ""not-good-but-not-completely-bad"

    That's pretty much how I would describe the performance of Stephen Harper's government."


    That's pretty much what I think too Ira. Would like to see better.... But when I go to vote it won't be comparing the government to my mythical perfect decision making group as graded by me. It will be comparing it to the other 2 parties. And even a Grade of C-.... is probably better than Iggy is managing to produce.

    ReplyDelete
  39. liberal supporter: ...why not put the giant wind farms nobody wants near their homes in a remote location?

    Well, this might give some hints. It's why the Pincher Creek area is full of windmills and why, if you're in Ontario, Georgian Bay is a preferred location, local cottagers notwithstanding.

    Plus, long-distance transmission losses are substantial.

    Simplest answer: use less power.

    ReplyDelete
  40. liberal supporter: Where "Fake Lake" has legs is simply in the name.

    "Fake Lake" has legs because it directly challenges the belief that Conservatives are the most responsible managers of our money. That's central to the Tory message. It's the equivalent of Elizabeth May arriving at her Power & Politics appearance in a Hummer H1. And then leaving it idling while she spoke.

    Fake Lake will taper off soon, but expect it back with a vengence during the fall election.

    Oh, and for the record, Elizabeth went to the P&P session in a Toyota Echo.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ira: I'd like someone to tell those [exurban Green] voters how inconsistent their positions. Inconsistency bothers me.

    We apparently agree that exurbia is a Bad Idea. But your statement seems to imply that exurban voters must vote Tory, because Tories destroy the environment with no qualms.

    I strongly doubt you meant that. But that's where the logic leads.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Obviously the Greens as usual are thinking two moves ahead.

    Actually two steps back is more like it John. At no point in her interview does she ever mention the 75K Mw of hydro. In other words she doesn't know !! But she can babble on about "high efficiency NG". Looks to me the Greens, or at least May, have been bought by the NG industry.

    Gotta give the Gas/Oil boys credit, they really are good at buying off the opposition, eh?

    Plus this just reinforces my position that the power grids need to be nationalised ! Let's face it Quebec is a real problem in power transmission. Ask Danny !!

    Remember ABC

    ReplyDelete
  43. New Ekos out

    Tories slip

    Liberals gain

    ReplyDelete
  44. Peter: At no point in her interview does she ever mention the 75K Mw of hydro. In other words she doesn't know !! But she can babble on about "high efficiency NG".

    Remember, the reference to "high efficiency natural gas" was in the context of Alberta, not eastern Canada. Check out the distribution of that untapped power. (For extra marks, investigate the environmental impacts of developing it.) Elizabeth covered hydro potential in her discussion of solutions for Ontario. She didn't wave a magic number in the air but she drove straight to the limiting constraint.

    The challenge of a brief response isn't to display encyclopedic knowledge; it's to keep the viewers on track. Ideally, Elizabeth would have mentioned the Pincher Creek wind potential in Alberta instead of natural gas. In her sound-bite situation that would have totally confused viewers. Restricting the range of discussion to high-efficiency natural gas was a tough call, but the right one. The NG context had been introduced by Prentice.

    Looks to me the Greens, or at least May, have been bought by the NG industry.

    Ah... but can you type that with a straight face?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yes, John, my logic does lead there. If their lifestyle pays no heed to the environment, then their voting pattern should as well.

    I'm not saying they should vote Conservative, but I am saying they should choose a party based entirely on the parts of their platforms that don't condern the environment.

    For example, if some party wants to require all gasoline be 10% ethanol (for some environmental reason), those voters should look at what impact 10% ethanol gasoline will have on their lives (it will make them buy more gas, as ethanol has a lower heating value than octane, so you need more of it to power your car).

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ah... but can you type that with a straight face?

    No problem at all. Piece of cake.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Remember, the reference to "high efficiency natural gas" was in the context of Alberta, not eastern Canada.

    This whole reply from you is one of the biggest loads of bumpf I've seen from you. She acknowledged in the interview that she had seen the Prentice interview. Thus the opening re 75 Mw existed. Didn't fit her "talking points" though so it disappeared.

    As to the NG issue the whole thing is aimed at Eastern Canada, not Alberta. Ont. alone has at least five coal plants nearing the end of their useful life. The obvious thrust for NG is here not Alberta, so drop that smokescreen.

    I still think the gas boys have bought her which figures for the Canadian version of Ann Coulter.

    ReplyDelete
  48. If I recall correctly, Pincher Creek is too windy for wind power generation.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Peter: She acknowledged in the interview that she had seen the Prentice interview.

    Elizabeth had indeed seen the interview; she was listening in the studio while he was speaking.

    Thus the opening re 75 Mw existed. Didn't fit her "talking points" though so it disappeared.

    Elizabeth presumably didn't see any magic in that number. The issue is getting the power to the consumers, not how many dams could be built.

    As to the NG issue the whole thing is aimed at Eastern Canada, not Alberta.

    Listen to Elizabeth May again and specifically what she said at 6:34 PM EDT. She said words close to, "What Ontario needs is power lines to deliver hydro power from Quebec and Manitoba. What Alberta needs is generation using high-efficiency natural gas." The two sentences were together, making clear that there's no universal power generation solution for the whole country.

    The obvious thrust for NG is here not Alberta, so drop that smokescreen.

    It may be in Jim Prentice's book, but not the Green Party's. Elizabeth May was completely clear and utterly unambiguous.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ira: If I recall correctly, Pincher Creek is too windy for wind power generation.

    Then I'm bemused by all the turbines I saw near there a few years ago.

    Lots of wind isn't a problem; you just need to properly size the components.

    ReplyDelete

  51. Lots of wind isn't a problem; you just need to properly size the components.


    Yep John, lots of wind is your problem for sure.

    Components?? You haven't got any !!

    ReplyDelete

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.