Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Eventually it will. Eventually Harper had to get in an election in 2015 knowing he would lose or at the best a small minority. There's a reason why we are not going to the polls in the short term, and it's not because the Liberals are doing well.

Do you seriously see a material change coming? It's not going to happen out of thin air. Do you see Canada be in a materially better place by October 2025? Do you see a major change that the Liberal party has enacted that sees us in a better state next year?

I don't know, and try not to predict what random event may change the tide of the world in the future. What I do know is things can change very quickly. Like when Trudeau called the pandemic election it was considered savy. Then, and I don't recall what exactly happened, but the tide turned pretty quick, and everyone was ready for the CPC to win(and I thought they might, too). And then they didn't.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by opendoor

And in fact, they're usually the opposite by design. Populism is generally based on playing to peoples fears and basest instincts while offering simplistic solutions.

Sounds a lot like "PP is going to be a fascist, so better stick with the Liberals"

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by opendoor

And in fact, they're usually the opposite by design. Populism is generally based on playing to peoples fears and basest instincts while offering simplistic solutions.

Are there any good examples of populism working well in the long term? Or do they all eventually fail badly?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Sounds a lot like "PP is going to be a fascist, so better stick with the Liberals"

Populism isn't inherently fascist or even extreme, so I'm not sure why that's your takeaway, unless you're just being stupid. Bernie Sanders is a populist. But when he says things like the US should import its drugs from Canada to make drugs more affordable, that's a stupid, simplistic solution that a) doesn't actually address the problem they're facing; and b) has no hope of success (Canada would either ban exports of our domestic supply or drug companies would raise prices on Canada).

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Sounds a lot like "PP is going to be a fascist, so better stick with the Liberals"

Is there anyone who isn't a nazi these days?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Firebot

It was only 2-3 years ago that some posters were boasting that the CPC needed to change its core values to ever be electable in Canada.

A common refrain was that the CPC only appealed to old people, so they had no future in this country. And yet today the CPC are leading among 18-29 and 30-44 voters.

This isn’t just a Canadian trend. You’re seeing right-wing parties leading with younger voters in many countries across the West. A lot of assumptions about the values and politics of younger demographics are proving unfounded. Young men, in particular, are moving sharply right.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Cycling76er

That doesn't make those views rational or intelligent.

No, but governments get elected based on what the majority of the population wishes and what a government or party promises.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gre...ct24-1.3286044

Trudeau is largely attributed as having won 2015 as a result of the ABC strategy benefiting the Liberals and promising "the end of the Harper decade" and real change. This change included decriminalizing pot, and eliminating FPTP election, something they conveniently decide to abandon once voted in. They also campaigned on cancelling the F-35 purchases.

In 2019 was all about climate change which was at its peak of popularity.

Trudeau ran in 2021 with the pandemic response and vaccines as a wedge issue (which was widely popular at the time) and hoping to take advantage of a crisis boost.

Populism can be anything that's popular. It just happens that what is popular has shifted and no longer meets what was popular 5 or 10 year ago, for better or worse.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't know, and try not to predict what random event may change the tide of the world in the future. What I do know is things can change very quickly. Like when Trudeau called the pandemic election it was considered savy. Then, and I don't recall what exactly happened, but the tide turned pretty quick, and everyone was ready for the CPC to win(and I thought they might, too). And then they didn't.

Canadians thought that an election in the middle of the pandemic was quite possibly the dumbest thing imaginable, and Trudeau ran quite a poor campaign while O'Toole ran a fantastic campaign promising some very centrist policies including a carbon tax policy, without resorting to attacks again Trudeau.

Then...Kenney and the Stampede happened...literally. Alberta was open for the summer despite the rising cases and alarming delta wave. The day after Alberta was forced to shut down hard, O'Toole was forced to answer for the CPC's poor pandemic response.

I visibly remember O'Toole's face as he was forced to answer questions that he had hoped to avoid. The polls shifted dramatically. Sep 3 2021 was the date, I remember it well because it impacted me significantly that weekend.

That was the wedge issue that finally stuck and broke the UCP, with Canadians being 80% vaccinated around that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio...deral_election

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...t-3-and-oct-14

You can pretty much see the timeline and the change of opinions.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Are there any good examples of populism working well in the long term? Or do they all eventually fail badly?

I mean, if you have a competent leader who is a populist, it's not inherently an issue. Some long-serving Premiers in Canada had pretty good runs while being populists. W.A.C. Bennett in BC being a good example; while he was a populist Christian conservative with some pretty wacky ideas, he also did things you'd normally associate with the left, like nationalizing some industries (BC Hydro, BC Ferries, etc.) and initiating huge taxpayer funded public works projects. So he wasn't an ideologue.

But when policies mirror the populist rhetoric, it's usually a terrible way to run a complex thing that has to meet the needs of a diverse population like a government does. But more often than not, it's just a cynical way to gain power.

[Ozy_Flame]

Pierre thrown out like a bad habit, Calgary Conservative MP Rachael Thomas also got the boot.

In previous years, this kind of behavior would have damaged the careers of wannabe PMs. I doubt this even registers with the general electorate.

CBC: Speaker kicks Poilievre out of the Commons after he calls PM a 'wacko' in tense question period exchange

Speaker Greg Fergus kicked Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre out of question period Tuesday after a particularly nasty exchange with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Poilievre's day-long removal from the House of Commons came after he called Trudeau a "wacko" for supporting B.C.'s past policy of decriminalizing some hard drugs in an attempt to reduce the number of overdose-related deaths.

Poilievre said it was a "wacko policy" backed by "this wacko prime minister." Fergus asked him to withdraw the "unparliamentary language."

Poilievre refused, saying only that he agreed to replace "wacko" with "extremist" or "radical." Poilievre's refusal prompted Fergus to remove him.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

While I'm sure that would drive opinions polls, that has little to do with decriminalization. People used drugs in public before and they still do it in places where it was never decriminalized. Increasing public drug use is primarily a housing issue where addicts are less likely to have stable housing than in the past, leaving them to use drugs on the street more often.

I mean, Alberta's overdose deaths in 2023 increased at about 3x the rate that BC's did, so if decriminalization led to big increases in vulnerable people using hard drugs, wouldn't that show up in that metric?

Hard drugs are increasingly being used out in the open at public transit stations and parks rather than in alleys and behind bushes. This is because many municipalities changed their policies and stopped enforcing the laws around public nuisances during the pandemic. Their reasoning is it’s better from a public health perspective to have people OD in open, public spaces.

But while the public may have been tolerant of this as a temporary measure, they’re not onboard with the prospect of people using hard drugs and laying passed out in public spaces as the new normal. Many people simply do not feel comfortable or safe on public transit or parks when that sort of behaviour is common. Advocates of densification and public transit need to recognize that open drug use and public disorder in urban spaces hamstring those efforts.

[PepsiFree]

Why is the CBC fear mongering about PP?? Why is the pro-Liberal speaker kicking PP out?? (didn’t read the fear mongering article from the CBC so I can’t tell).

And most importantly, WHEN will we #defundtheCBC and give the money to Manitoba like the definitely intelligent people we are?? WHEN?? This is an outrage!

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why is the CBC fear mongering about PP?? Why is the pro-Liberal speaker kicking PP out?? (didn’t read the fear mongering article from the CBC so I can’t tell).

And most importantly, WHEN will we #defundtheCBC and give the money to Manitoba like the definitely intelligent people we are?? WHEN?? This is an outrage!

Thanks for paging me on this!

It's nice that we agree for once!

[ComixZone]

Calling this Prime Minister a Wakko is insulting to The Animianics.



PP also withdrew Wakko (whacko, wacko) and replaced it with extremist and/or radical and the chair refused to accept that.

It'll be a nice day when this wakko PM and his wacko policies get whacked out of his position thanks to an election.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Sounds a lot like "PP is going to be a fascist, so better stick with the Liberals"

PP isn't going to be a fascist. His politics ARE fascist in nature. If you can't see that, you're either not paying attention to his politics or do not know enough about fascism.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Canadians thought that an election in the middle of the pandemic was quite possibly the dumbest thing imaginable, and Trudeau ran quite a poor campaign while O'Toole ran a fantastic campaign promising some very centrist policies including a carbon tax policy, without resorting to attacks again Trudeau.

Then...Kenney and the Stampede happened...literally. Alberta was open for the summer despite the rising cases and alarming delta wave. The day after Alberta was forced to shut down hard, O'Toole was forced to answer for the CPC's poor pandemic response.

I visibly remember O'Toole's face as he was forced to answer questions that he had hoped to avoid. The polls shifted dramatically. Sep 3 2021 was the date, I remember it well because it impacted me significantly that weekend.

That was the wedge issue that finally stuck and broke the UCP, with Canadians being 80% vaccinated around that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio...deral_election

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...t-3-and-oct-14

You can pretty much see the timeline and the change of opinions.

Perhaps there is some truth to this timeline in the sense that it allowed O'Toole to trip over his own feet, but it's a little funny to claim something like 'Alberta pandemic response debacle tanks the Conservatives'...but said Conservatives won 30/34 seats in Alberta in that election - you know, the province most affected by said debacle.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Hard drugs are increasingly being used out in the open at public transit stations and parks rather than in alleys and behind bushes. This is because many municipalities changed their policies and stopped enforcing the laws around public nuisances during the pandemic. Their reasoning is it’s better from a public health perspective to have people OD in open, public spaces.

But while the public may have been tolerant of this as a temporary measure, they’re not onboard with the prospect of people using hard drugs and laying passed out in public spaces as the new normal. Many people simply do not feel comfortable or safe on public transit or parks when that sort of behaviour is common. Advocates of densification and public transit need to recognize that open drug use and public disorder in urban spaces hamstring those efforts.

That's not my understanding based on the data I've seen. There was a cohort study among drug users in Vancouver, and police drug seizure rates in 2019-2021 were essentially identical to what they were a decade before. So I don't think there was a simple pandemic-related policy change that has led to the increasing public drug use we've seen, particularly since it's something that has been building over the last decade or so.

Drugs are used more in public now for 2 real reasons:

1) Housing crisis means fewer private spaces are available for people on the margins of society.

2) Increased toxicity of drugs has led people with addictions to use more around other people (including the public) in order to increase their safety.

And while it is absolutely a problem that needs to be addressed, some of the hysterics also need to be put within the context of a long-term reduction in crime and violence that we're seeing. Property crime in Vancouver is down 25% compared to 20 years ago and violent crime is down 50%, and both are currently at their lowest level since probably the 1950s. Yet by the way some people talk, you'd think cities are crime-ridden hellholes that aren't safe for people to walk around in.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

#### me, you can't be that dumb. You really, really think CBC dollars will end up somewhere like that? Come on man.

Well obviously I'm speaking in jest, but I do find it pathetic that we keep funding CBC to the tune of billions when a LOT of what they do is literally worthless programming.

Run a balanced budget or at least don't spend like a maniac and I could be convinced that it has a place in society. But since our government is spending like a bunch of drunken sailors, and seemingly has no interest in actually tackling our real problems, I would burn it all to the ground.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's not my understanding based on the data I've seen. There was a cohort study among drug users in Vancouver, and police drug seizure rates in 2019-2021 were essentially identical to what they were a decade before. So I don't think there was a simple pandemic-related policy change that has led to the increasing public drug use we've seen, particularly since it's something that has been building over the last decade or so.

Drugs are used more in public now for 2 real reasons:

1) Housing crisis means fewer private spaces are available for people on the margins of society.

2) Increased toxicity of drugs has led people with addictions to use more around other people (including the public) in order to increase their safety.

And while it is absolutely a problem that needs to be addressed, some of the hysterics also need to be put within the context of a long-term reduction in crime and violence that we're seeing. Property crime in Vancouver is down 25% compared to 20 years ago and violent crime is down 50%, and both are currently at their lowest level since probably the 1950s. Yet by the way some people talk, you'd think cities are crime-ridden hellholes that aren't safe for people to walk around in.

We've seen this in the U.S. though, too. The actual stats don't matter when put up against people's own anecdotal experience or what they see on the news.

People are dumb.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by opendoor

You're forgetting about the genius part of the plan though:

1) Take a building in downtown Toronto with a 10-storey atrium in the middle of it that's worth hundreds of millions of dollars that was designed as a broadcast center, and thus has few windows relative to its square footage (the building is square, with most of the broadcast areas are in the center of the building, away from street noise).

2) Spend probably half a billion dollars renovating it so it's suitable for housing.

3) Assuming these units will actually all have windows, produce maybe 750 units of "affordable" housing for about $1M each.

This literally sounds like a typical government housing plan.

I don't see what the problem is. I thought we wanted more low income housing? But now we want it for cheaper?