Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

Not really. The norm is that usually the party with the most seats gets the first shot at forming government, but it would be entirely legit and democratic.

Well no, that's just how people think it goes, but in practice it doesn't have to be.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

You are right that the crop is weak, and has been for 10+ years. The Liberal team is a bit of a joke. Where are the adults?

The adults are in the real world working on more productive things. Who in their right mind would be excited to wade into that cesspool?

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That only works if Pierre has anything in common with what Singh wants and Pierre is willing to compromise on. Does compromise sound like a word that exists to Pierre?

“Pierre offers compromise to liberal government over redacted We documents”

https://globalnews.ca/video/7465532/...d-we-documents

[driveway]

Considering the way Canadians treat their real-estate (as their primary retirement investment) does anyone seriously think that a Conservative government would do anything to reduce the value of the homes and properties that Baby Boomers are so dependent on for their sense of economic well-being?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by driveway

Considering the way Canadians treat their real-estate (as their primary retirement investment) does anyone seriously think that a Conservative government would do anything to reduce the value of the homes and properties that Baby Boomers are so dependent on for their sense of economic well-being?

There's zero percent chance anyone is doing anything, and it's not jus baby boomers. If you're 40 and just bought a house, how on board are you with a ~30% decline in value? Probably not at all.

No one is seriously happy to see their $500k home now valued at $350k so that other people can now afford houses better.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by GGG

How outraged are people going to be when the conservatives when a minority and the liberals are asked if they can form a government and then they do with the support of the NDP.

This would be completely democratic and follow all Canadian democratic norms but I suspect there would be a group that refuses to understand how a parliamentary system works.

An interesting and realistic scenario. I would not be in favor of such a coalition. It makes more sense in Europe where there are several viable parties. When you only have 2 realistic parties that could get enough seats to form a government, you shouldn't be able to use a third party as political training wheels. If poly-b is the winner, so be it.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

This guy must be stopped. We need someone in power who knows how to pull off a cool pair of socks.

Guy has about as much charisma as a mortician.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Slava

There's zero percent chance anyone is doing anything, and it's not jus baby boomers. If you're 40 and just bought a house, how on board are you with a ~30% decline in value? Probably not at all.

No one is seriously happy to see their $500k home now valued at $350k so that other people can now afford houses better.

That's an interesting sleight of hand. How about we just let home prices stagnate for a while? Or maybe increase at a very small rate? Why do home prices either have to stagnate by $150,000 or go up by that same amount?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well no, that's just how people think it goes, but in practice it doesn't have to be.

I thought the practice is you ask the previous governing party.

Without checking, didn't this recently happen in New Brunswick, the party with the 2nd most seats in a minority was asked to form government first because they were the governing party going into the election.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

There's zero percent chance anyone is doing anything, and it's not jus baby boomers. If you're 40 and just bought a house, how on board are you with a ~30% decline in value? Probably not at all.

No one is seriously happy to see their $500k home now valued at $350k so that other people can now afford houses better.

The real trick will be to dis-incentivize owning more than one home. If we want to blame boomers, that's the target. How many have rental houses? How many have cottages and condos that sit empty 90% of the year? With fewer people owning multiple homes, that opens a lot of housing for others. This way housing prices don't have to drop a lot to increase housing stock. And if some sort of tax existed on second homes where those dollars went directly to housing projects we might actually make some headway.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I thought the practice is you ask the previous governing party.

Without checking, didn't this recently happen in New Brunswick, the party with the 2nd most seats in a minority was asked to form government first because they were the governing party going into the election.

This is correct, according to this article from 2019:
https://globalnews.ca/news/6045084/h...s-work-canada/

Canada uses the Westminster parliamentary system, modelled on what’s in place in the U.K.
Not all of our rules are actually written down — a lot has to do with custom and tradition.
Who gets the first chance to form government is one of those questions without a written answer.
The tradition is that the incumbent government — which remains the government until any new one is formed — is allowed to seek the confidence of the House of Commons by attempting to form a coalition with other like-minded parties, or by getting their support case-by-case.
That remains the case even if the incumbent doesn’t hold the most seats.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The real trick will be to dis-incentivize owning more than one home. If we want to blame boomers, that's the target. How many have rental houses? How many have cottages and condos that sit empty 90% of the year? With fewer people owning multiple homes, that opens a lot of housing for others. This way housing prices don't have to drop a lot to increase housing stock. And if some sort of tax existed on second homes where those dollars went directly to housing projects we might actually make some headway.

I don’t know about that. There are people out there who want to rent a house, and have no intentions of buying one. Those people have a place to live, it’s not contributing to the shortage.

Cottages that sit empty, maybe some of them could be someone else’s primary residence. Maybe.

Condos, I can see your point. But guess it depends on their location.

[iggy_oi]

Rent control probably hits two birds with one stone.

[White Out 403]

it should be prohibitively expensive for people to own a home thats empty and simply an "investment property". The government should also be using the power of the purse to force cities to make building homes faster, cheaper, and make a lot more low cost housing available.

[Yoho]

This is hilarious how it’s unfolded for the Liberals.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1693660216523620770

[Monahammer]

I actually fully agree with you here Yoho, the federal government should absolutely be ridiculed for being angry at a company for abiding a policy that they themselves created.

But can't you see how this parallels the current struggle in Alberta with... oh let's pick... public labs?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

Not really. The norm is that usually the party with the most seats gets the first shot at forming government, but it would be entirely legit and democratic.

This isn’t true. The prime minister is the prime minister until they resign or oar a confidence motion.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5323836

Or if you don’t like the CBC

https://globalnews.ca/news/6045084/h...rk-canada/amp/

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Major Major

An interesting and realistic scenario. I would not be in favor of such a coalition. It makes more sense in Europe where there are several viable parties. When you only have 2 realistic parties that could get enough seats to form a government, you shouldn't be able to use a third party as political training wheels. If poly-b is the winner, so be it.

If he was the winner he would be the winner and be able to pass confiedemce motions and control government. If the party is unable to do that did they really win the election?

Even if you prefer him to get the first crack at government it could fall at the first confidence motion and whatever coalition would then take over. It’s the same end result.

I disagree with you about European coalitions. They form coalitions because there are no viable parties that can form governments on their own. Which as Canada becomes more regionalized is true here as well despite having a FTFP which lowered the popularity threshold to form a majority.

Also an NDP/Lib or a Bloc/UCP or a NDP/UCP volition would all likely represent a majority of the votes of Canadians so I don’t think you could say that a group representing 50% of Canadians is less representative than one representing 35%.

If you look at what PP claims to support he would find a lot of alignment with the Labour wing of the NDP. So there should be room to collaborate on the housing crisis.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

it should be prohibitively expensive for people to own a home thats empty and simply an "investment property". The government should also be using the power of the purse to force cities to make building homes faster, cheaper, and make a lot more low cost housing available.

There is an empty house tax and foreign buyers tax in BC.

Also there are cheaper options called condos and townhouses. People don’t need a fully detached home.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

But can't you see how this parallels the current struggle in Alberta with... oh let's pick... public labs?

Smith's UCP fully deserve all the flack they are getting with Dynalife which was an abject failure (one of many) and a definite credibility hit on attempting to privatize elements of healthcare.

Two wrongs don't make a right.