For me there are two angles to the Trump issue for Poilievre. First, it’s the question of who can deal with Trump and the situation we find ourselves in. That’s tough for Poilievre, for me, because he’s never done anything. It took this guy a decade to finish his undergrad, and his time being elected has been short of actual initiatives and accomplishments. Comparatively, it’s tough to see how Poilievre would be better equipped to handle this.
But the other angle is far more of a problem for me. It’s the fact that this policies and things he’s said over the past few years are all so aligned with Trump. The attack on “wokeism”, crypto endorsements, “I’d fire the governor of the bank of Canada”, hanging out with the freedom convoy and the list goes on and on. It’s the entire conversation around Canada being broken, and the pandering to people espousing conspiracy theories.Seeing this kind of populist ideology being implemented in the United States doesn’t make me hope we see this here.
His economic policies are fine, arguable anyway, but it’s what he says at his rallies that turn me off. Anti-“woke”, “warrior mentality”, “defund the CBC”, etc. I fear it would be another CPC situation where they spend far too much time and energy on issues that most people don’t care about outside their base.
The only difference between O'Toole and PP is O'Toole had a much less aggressive nature, and I recall at the time he was campaigning we all wished for someone with more "fire in his belly". Well now, we have one. He's highly intelligent, has a well laid out plan, and is ready to move the country forward.
However, as fate would have it, the world has turned upside down with Trump, and Carney is able to cease the moment. Although the polls are suggesting otherwise, I still think they will get much closer as we approach the election date.
Pierre doesn't have a plan and he doesn't seem very intelligent to me.
21 years as an MP, not one bill passed. That's not a guy who's working hard for anyone. He's sitting there collecting a pension, and throwing out slogans.
He comes across as arrogant and rude with no actual solutions for anything. He's had easiest job to just sit there and criticize anything and everything without offering much of a plan on how to fix anything.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to AFireInside For This Useful Post:
The only difference between O'Toole and PP is O'Toole had a much less aggressive nature, and I recall at the time he was campaigning we all wished for someone with more "fire in his belly". Well now, we have one. He's highly intelligent, has a well laid out plan, and is ready to move the country forward.
Well that's just not true at all.
O'Toole was a moderate, and that's what got him replaced as quickly as they did. He wasn't crazy enough for the right wing of the party, which has taken over. PP, I don't believe is necessarily crazy, but like Danielle Smith he's just a charismatic mouthpiece for the crazies, and desperate enough for power to do what they say.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
If intelligence truly is a trait that you think would be important in a Prime Minister, then you should consider that Mark is a graduate of Harvard and Oxford, while Pierre dropped out of undergrad to start his political career (albeit he completed it online through Athabasca U courses several years later).
100 million people is really just the historical Canadian population growth rate.
It’s about 1.25% for 75 years. This equated 500k population growth. With 2.4 persons per household that’s 208,000 new houses required which is roughly what we build now. Which makes sense given how supply and demand work.
The average number of people per household in Canada has been trending down for decades. Smaller families, people getting married in their 30s rather than 20s, more childless couples, more single adults, more single seniors all add up to single-adult households making up a 29 per cent of Canadians households in 2023, up from 13 per cent in 1961.
With those demographic changes, it means we need more housing units to house 1,000 Canadians than we needed in the past. If supply and demand adapted the way we might expect, higher housing costs would mean fewer Canadians willing to pay to live alone. But we’ve seen the opposite. Which suggests those demographic trends and preferences are very powerful.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I just don't think plodding along on the default path to an unknown cliff is really where we want to go, but all our concerns and "solutions" are moving in that direction.
The measures required for a transition from a growth society to degrowth would involve a lot of pain. And politicians need to get re-elected.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Pollution comes from endless amounts of people being stuck in gridlock for over an hour each way getting to their single family home in low density far flung suburbs. It doesn’t come from well planned mid density with nearby services and good access to transit. There can be lots of options that get people into the marketplace.
I also reject the premise that this is universal across Canada, there are likley still quite a few places you can get a single family home if you want it. Vancouver and Toronto ,maybe not but there’s still affordable places to live.
There's also not any actual land to build more detached homes in Vancouver.
Even if they were $100,000 a house, where are you going to put it?
The only possible answer is higher density.
I teach in the same Area as PP’s high school. I’ve chatted with old time teachers who’ve taught him before and they said he was a total ###hole in high school.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751
The Oilers won't finish 14th in the West forever.
Eventually a couple of expansion teams will be added which will nestle the Oilers into 16th.
I teach in the same Area as PP’s high school. I’ve chatted with old time teachers who’ve taught him before and they said he was a total ###hole in high school.
I went on a tour that school with my oldest a few months back and we found his graduation photo. He had the same smug, insufferable expression as a teenager that he does as an adult.
__________________
"If Javex is your muse…then dive in buddy"
This surprised me quite a bit, as the usual idea is that older people are more conservative. But apparently polling bears this out - Liberals are by far the strongest among seniors, while Conservatives are strongedt among 35-49 year olds. https://www.ekospolitics.com/index.p...d-stable-lead/
The National Post has an interview with a young BC conservative MLA (she owns a tattoo shop in Kitimat, so not the stereotypical conservative style of appearance, but rural business owners probably vote CPC in droves). Interestingly (to me anyway) she's a former drug addict from the lower mainland who went through a treatment program.
The line that jumped out at me was this one: "We can’t afford the things our parents or grandparents could afford, and so we want to see people that are passionate, that are speaking up."
Not hard to see how hopelessness about your future drives an interest in changing policies and/or populism.
I knew that NP article was about Claire Rattee before I opened it up. I don't fully agree with her politics, but she's a very impressive MLA and a terrific advocate for her riding.
If the BC Conservatives had more reasonable candidates like her, instead of a bunch of nut jobs, they might have actually won the provincial election here.
The average number of people per household in Canada has been trending down for decades. Smaller families, people getting married in their 30s rather than 20s, more childless couples, more single adults, more single seniors all add up to single-adult households making up a 29 per cent of Canadians households in 2023, up from 13 per cent in 1961.
With those demographic changes, it means we need more housing units to house 1,000 Canadians than we needed in the past. If supply and demand adapted the way we might expect, higher housing costs would mean fewer Canadians willing to pay to live alone. But we’ve seen the opposite. Which suggests those demographic trends and preferences are very powerful.
That’s exactly the point housing price being high is not going to be fixed by lowering construction cost or taxation on housing. Demand is inelastic so prices just goes up to what people can pay. You need to create excess supply if you want to fix it. The market is not incentivized to create a solution.
Immigration isn’t the issue here when it comes to housing.
Pierre doesn't have a plan and he doesn't seem very intelligent to me.
21 years as an MP, not one bill passed. That's not a guy who's working hard for anyone. He's sitting there collecting a pension, and throwing out slogans.
He comes across as arrogant and rude with no actual solutions for anything. He's had easiest job to just sit there and criticize anything and everything without offering much of a plan on how to fix anything.
Hey that's incorrect, he passed one bill!
It wasn't a bill that improved the lives of Canadians in any way, shape, or form, but he's not completely useless. That's pretty solid work for 20 years and a pension.
That’s exactly the point housing price being high is not going to be fixed by lowering construction cost or taxation on housing. Demand is inelastic so prices just goes up to what people can pay. You need to create excess supply if you want to fix it. The market is not incentivized to create a solution.
Immigration isn’t the issue here when it comes to housing.
It’s clearly part of the issue. If over the next decade Canada had A) 200k immigrants a year B) 500k immigrants a years, or C) 1 million immigrants a year, you wouldn’t expect to see different home prices in Canada in 2035 depending on which scenario we went with?
It’s no surprise that the regions of the country that have seen the most immigration have the highest housing costs. We simply don’t have the capacity to build housing at the rate of population growth under today’s regulatory and material environment.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
That’s exactly the point housing price being high is not going to be fixed by lowering construction cost or taxation on housing. Demand is inelastic so prices just goes up to what people can pay. You need to create excess supply if you want to fix it. The market is not incentivized to create a solution.
Immigration isn’t the issue here when it comes to housing.
I don't think you understand economics the way you think you do. Demand isn't inelastic when you are increasing immigration rates - your demand curve shifts right and price equilibrium is increased.
Not arguing whether immigration is the issue or not, just saying your theory is not correct at all.
The Following User Says Thank You to ThePrince For This Useful Post:
It wasn't a bill that improved the lives of Canadians in any way, shape, or form, but he's not completely useless. That's pretty solid work for 20 years and a pension.
I stand corrected. Thank god he passed a bill to allow more money into politics.
