BC Lags Behind Other Provinces in Life Satisfaction

[CliffFletcher]

Canadian elections are typically just a referendum on the status quo. If people feel worse off than the last election, they vote the incumbents out. And once a government approaches 8 years in power, there’s a strong baseline impulse to change it up. For most voters, the platform of the opposition doesn’t factor into it all that much.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's just the ebbs and flows of politics. When people aren't happy they vote for change. This is all more of a reflection on the incumbents than anything else. The people that voted for the incumbent last election that are considering changing their vote didn't become dumb over a matter of years. They simply aren't happy with the current government and are looking at the grass on the other side of the fence. If a new party takes their place then they will be on the clock.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Canadian elections are typically just a referendum on the status quo. If people feel worse off than the last election, they vote the incumbents out. And once a government approaches 8 years in power, there’s a strong baseline impulse to change it up. For most voters, the platform of the opposition doesn’t factor into it all that much.

Sure, that is every election everywhere since the beginning of time. Do people want change or not. But that's not really getting to why populism has become so rampant. The question is, why have so many people clung angrily to facile solutions to complex issues. The kind of language and ideas that would've been completely disqualifying 10 years ago gets barely a mention now. Why?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Sure, that is every election everywhere since the beginning of time. Do people want change or not. But that's not really getting to why populism has become so rampant. The question is, why have so many people clung angrily to facile solutions to complex issues. The kind of language and ideas that would've been completely disqualifying 10 years ago gets barely a mention now. Why?

There's always been a large conservative voting base in democracies so I don't equate voting conservative to supporting right-wing populism.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Sure, that is every election everywhere since the beginning of time. Do people want change or not. But that's not really getting to why populism has become so rampant. The question is, why have so many people clung angrily to facile solutions to complex issues. The kind of language and ideas that would've been completely disqualifying 10 years ago gets barely a mention now. Why?

Only a tiny fraction of Canadians participate in politics at the party nomination level. The people who ran parties used to be institutional and moderate. But social media has enabled populists and activists of various stripes to organize and take over party apparatus. The average voter probably isn’t onboard with a party’s activist loons, but they’re not motivated to participate at the level of politics where they can be driven out.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Only a tiny fraction of Canadians participate in politics at the party nomination level. The people who ran parties used to be institutional and moderate. But social media has enabled populists and activists of various stripes to organize and take over party apparatus. The average voter probably isn’t onboard with a party’s activist loons, but they’re not motivated to participate at the level of politics where they can be driven out.

The noisy extremes also have avenues to be heard like never before thanks to the internet & social media.
Before every village had an idiot & now every idiot has a village.
People find community and belonging amongst the extremes and parties move towards the noise.

I do think this phenomenon is reaching its peak though and we'll see a movement back to the middle in politics soon. There's a growing number of people feeling completely missed by either side. I'm hopeful at least.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Sure, that is every election everywhere since the beginning of time. Do people want change or not. But that's not really getting to why populism has become so rampant. The question is, why have so many people clung angrily to facile solutions to complex issues. The kind of language and ideas that would've been completely disqualifying 10 years ago gets barely a mention now. Why?

Probably some combination of the following: A) no solution is even being seriously worked on or addressed by status quo governments because of inconvenient political tradoffs (See: Cost of Housing in Canada - only solution to high prices are policies aimed at lowering prices but since 70% of the public own real estate and many plan to use their unrealized real estate gains as their primary means or significant means of funding their retirements, no serious efforts are being made to de-financialize residential housing stock) B) the complex solutions aren't actually achieving tangible results that people can observe in their day to day lives or C) People's expectations that problems or challenges are actually 'solvable' or within the scope of control of the governments they elect

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

There's always been a large conservative voting base in democracies so I don't equate voting conservative to supporting right-wing populism.

I'm sorry, but "conservative" don't mean what it used to. That's just not true

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Probably some combination of the following: A) no solution is even being seriously worked on or addressed by status quo governments because of inconvenient political tradoffs (See: Cost of Housing in Canada - only solution to high prices are policies aimed at lowering prices but since 70% of the public own real estate and many plan to use their unrealized real estate gains as their primary means or significant means of funding their retirements, no serious efforts are being made to de-financialize residential housing stock) B) the complex solutions aren't actually achieving tangible results that people can observe in their day to day lives or C) People's expectations that problems or challenges are actually 'solvable' or within the scope of control of the governments they elect

The voting public seem to be increasingly unwilling to acknowledge difficult policy tradeoffs.

Why can’t the government just increase health care capacity without raising taxes? How hard can it be?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The voting public seem to be increasingly unwilling to acknowledge difficult policy tradeoffs.

Why can’t the government just increase health care capacity without raising taxes? How hard can it be?

Mostly because basic bitch politicians pretend they are able to solve your problems with simple slogans like "axe the tax". Pierre never says "these are complicated issues that will rely on a lot of different policy changes to improve them. We are working hard on these plans because it's important to know that every change we make affects something else." Nope, he's telling voters the housing crisis will be solved by selling CBC and turning the building into homes. Voters nod along and smile. Ya, this guy gets it.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Mostly because basic bitch politicians pretend they are able to solve your problems with simple slogans like "axe the tax". Pierre never says "these are complicated issues that will rely on a lot of different policy changes to improve them. We are working hard on these plans because it's important to know that every change we make affects something else." Nope, he's telling voters the housing crisis will be solved by selling CBC and turning the building into homes. Voters nod along and smile. Ya, this guy gets it.

It's not just one party. The Liberals housing 'solution' is to extend more credit by increasing the CMHC insurance to properties worth up to $1.5MM from $1.0MM and extending the amortization to 30 years from 25 years.

Giving people with no money the ability to borrow to buy million dollar plus homes isn't helping, but hurting.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Mostly because basic bitch politicians pretend they are able to solve your problems with simple slogans like "axe the tax". Pierre never says "these are complicated issues that will rely on a lot of different policy changes to improve them. We are working hard on these plans because it's important to know that every change we make affects something else." Nope, he's telling voters the housing crisis will be solved by selling CBC and turning the building into homes. Voters nod along and smile. Ya, this guy gets it.

Or the dreaded "Common Sense" phrase. It is like candy for idiots. The last thing I want out of people in charge is a common sense approach. I want experts with an expert sense of the problem and solution. There are so many things in complex systems that are inherently counter-intuitive (economics is full of them).

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It's not just one party. The Liberals housing 'solution' is to extend more credit by increasing the CMHC insurance to properties worth up to $1.5MM from $1.0MM and extending the amortization to 30 years from 25 years.

Giving people with no money the ability to borrow to buy million dollar plus homes isn't helping, but hurting.

But that's an actual policy plan. You can debate if it is good or not, but some actual thought was put into it, beyond CBC bad, home good.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

What is going on in Society?

Pre-Covid I identified as a Conservative. Simply because I wanted our Social Services and Social Programs to be solvent and remain able to serve people.

I was not, nor ever have been, 'Socially Conservative.' Merely fiscally.

People can do what they want.

But we're seeing the rise in demand of this kind of thing all over the world. America, South America, Brexit, Italy, France barely dodged it, Eastern Europe...

This is a very disturbing trend.

What's defined as conservative has also shifted significantly. The general philosophy of having smaller government and letting people do what they want, falls pretty squarely on the conservative side.

Various social issues, like gay marriage, abortion (at least in Canada), church and state, etc... have more or less been settled. These were the old fighting points. Now issues like government spending, housing, immigration, and restrictions on individual liberties are the primary points of contention between the left/right.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Or the dreaded "Common Sense" phrase. It is like candy for idiots. The last thing I want out of people in charge is a common sense approach. I want experts with an expert sense of the problem and solution. There are so many things in complex systems that are inherently counter-intuitive (economics is full of them).

I agree with what you and Fuzz are saying but I also agree with Cliff. Politicians are a product of the people, they don’t dictate the right way to think, speak, or act, the people do. And people are overwhelming unwilling to use their brains when it comes to anything “political.” Hell, it’s taboo to talk politics in a group setting with less familiar people and people will label something “political” as an excuse not to discuss it (ie “leave politics out of this”).

People don’t want to talk politics. And they certainly don’t want to talk policy. So what do politicians do? “Sunny ways,” “axe the tax,” “common sense,” make america great again.” Soundbites that are effectively meaningless. O’Toole wins the party nomination on policy and the willingness to have difficult conversations and within no time they have him making outhouse jokes.

Candy for idiots is right on the nose. But unfortunately there are a lot of idiots and they do love their candy. Politicians can bring smart policy and tough conversations all they want, but they’re increasingly getting fed to the dogs when they do.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Or the dreaded "Common Sense" phrase. It is like candy for idiots. The last thing I want out of people in charge is a common sense approach. I want experts with an expert sense of the problem and solution. There are so many things in complex systems that are inherently counter-intuitive (economics is full of them).

Or something as simple as "the budget will balance itself."

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Or something as simple as "the budget will balance itself."

Except this isn't an example... this is a perversion of a whole quote into an attack ad.

JT was trying to describe a more complex policy of how the CPC was focused on balancing the budget (I believe on selling GM shares at a loss just to make the budget balance) and his focus was to grow the economy which in turn would lead to the budget to balance itself.

The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy, and the budget will balance itself. This way [the way the Conservatives were doing it], they're artificially fixing a target of a balanced budget in an election year and they're going through all kinds of twists and bends to get it just right, and the timing just right in the announcement. And that's irresponsible. What you need to do is create an economy that works for Canadians, works for middle class Canadians, allows young people to find a job, allows seniors to feel secure in their retirement.

But it just leads back to people today want soundbites, not explanations and complexity.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Except this isn't an example... this is a perversion of a whole quote into an attack ad.

JT was trying to describe a more complex policy of how the CPC was focused on balancing the budget (I believe on selling GM shares at a loss just to make the budget balance) and his focus was to grow the economy which in turn would lead to the budget to balance itself.



But it just leads back to people today want soundbites, not explanations and complexity.

Ten years Trudeau made that comment and that was part of policy for the future of Canada. Since then, the economy has grown but the budget has not balanced itself, it has become increasingly difficult for young people to find jobs, the middle class is shrinking, the economy is not working for most Canadians who are seeing their budgets stretched thin due to inflation and taxes.

Trudeau made it seem so simple in that a growing economy would be all unicorns and rainbows.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Ten years Trudeau made that comment and that was part of policy for the future of Canada. Since then, the economy has grown but the budget has not balanced itself, it has become increasingly difficult for young people to find jobs, the middle class is shrinking, the economy is not working for most Canadians who are seeing their budgets stretched thin due to inflation and taxes.

Trudeau made it seem so simple in that a growing economy would be all unicorns and rainbows.

Except he didn’t make it seem simple. He was arguing against it being as simple as setting an arbitrary date and calling that approach irresponsible. He goes on to say that a “commitment to growing the economy” entails an economy that works for middle class Canadians, allows young people to find jobs, and makes people feel secure in their retirement. That’s very complex, and very difficult.

The economy grew, but the Liberals failed at creating one that meets the criteria THEY set out in order for the “budget to balance itself,” which is why it hasn’t. That’s worthy of conversation, but as belsarius pointed out, people instead resort to “lol the budget will balance itself” because they’re unable or unwilling to actually engage with more than a soundbite.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Or the dreaded "Common Sense" phrase. It is like candy for idiots. The last thing I want out of people in charge is a common sense approach. I want experts with an expert sense of the problem and solution. There are so many things in complex systems that are inherently counter-intuitive (economics is full of them).

Experts would be amazing, but right now we're not even at common sense.
We need to go from 1 to 2 before we can go to 10.

I don't think PP is the guy to do it, but I understand why "common sense" resonates with people when the bar is even lower then that right now.
You're talking about experts when we're not even in preschool yet.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Except he didn’t make it seem simple. He was arguing against it being as simple as setting an arbitrary date and calling that approach irresponsible. He goes on to say that a “commitment to growing the economy” entails an economy that works for middle class Canadians, allows young people to find jobs, and makes people feel secure in their retirement. That’s very complex, and very difficult.

The economy grew, but the Liberals failed at creating one that meets the criteria THEY set out in order for the “budget to balance itself,” which is why it hasn’t. That’s worthy of conversation, but as belsarius pointed out, people instead resort to “lol the budget will balance itself” because they’re unable or unwilling to actually engage with more than a soundbite.

I'm reminded of an interview by Evan Solomon on CBC's Power & Politics back in 2013 following the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

In the immediate aftermath of that attack before the suspect(s) were identified, one politician offered a nuanced response when questioned about it by Peter Mansbridge, stating, "We have to look at the root cause. Now we don't know now whether it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue… But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents, at war with a society."

On Solomon's show, a backbench MP (at the time) from another party responded only with a laughably simplistic and facile soundbite: "The root cause of terrorism is terrorists."

The former, of course, was Justin Trudeau. The latter was Pierre Poilievre. You may or may not agree with Trudeau's response, but at least he put some thought into the issue. Poilievre completely ignored any complexity and nuance to a very complicated issue while committing a textbook begging the question logical fallacy.