The past few elections the Cons have arguably ran candidates that were worse options than Trudeau. Holding him accountable makes perfect sense if there are good candidates from other parties, but voting for someone you believe is even worse doesn't make a lot of sense (if you're a Liberal voter that feels that way). PP does not look like a very good candidate at all, in fact he may be even worse than Scheer or O'Toole. Voting for PP to teach Trudeau or the Libs a 'lesson' seems like taking one step forward and 3 steps back. At this point anyways, and IMHO.
If even one party in this country ran a solid candidate on a decent platform they'd probably run away with an election. But as it is we will have to try to vote for the best out of the worst.
The Following User Says Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
PP is very obviously worse than Scheer or O'Toole. Scheer and O'Toole weren't particularly bad potential PMs, other than being pretty mediocre politicians. I'm confident both would have been, at worst, adequate had they won. I have no such confidence in PP.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
PP is very obviously worse than Scheer or O'Toole. Scheer and O'Toole weren't particularly bad potential PMs, other than being pretty mediocre politicians. I'm confident both would have been, at worst, adequate had they won. I have no such confidence in PP.
As we have seen with Trudeau, being competent at the job has little correlation to do with being electable.
__________________
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
PP is very obviously worse than Scheer or O'Toole. Scheer and O'Toole weren't particularly bad potential PMs, other than being pretty mediocre politicians. I'm confident both would have been, at worst, adequate had they won. I have no such confidence in PP.
Not really perfect for this thread, but seems like the best fit given political policies could impact this video. I found it interesting so maybe others do as well
Apparently of the world's advance economies, we are projects to do the WORSE for each of the next 5 decades. Cool.
Aside from housing (which is being discussed to death), any political polices being promoted to help mitigate these issues? The author didn't give any solutions, just laid out the problems. Maybe there isn't much to do?
I don't like PP either, but I think he has a real chance at being elected, and it is sad that Canada is going to pay for overlooking the corruption that has been going on in Trudeau's government which will now indirectly and perhaps even directly lead towards getting a not very good candidate as PM.
O'Toole was a better candidate than Trudeau if only for him being a fresh start.
I don't like PP either, but I think he has a real chance at being elected, and it is sad that Canada is going to pay for overlooking the corruption that has been going on in Trudeau's government which will now indirectly and perhaps even directly lead towards getting a not very good candidate as PM.
O'Toole was a better candidate than Trudeau if only for him being a fresh start.
I think at most PP would get a minority government, and it then wouldn't take long for it to fail.
They'll never hold Trudeau accountable for breaking all his elections promises, but damn you PP for all the promises you will break. He's not even PM yet and they're already raking him over the coals for pre-breaking election promises.
It's not PP breaking the promises that would worry me.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mull
Aside from housing (which is being discussed to death), any political polices being promoted to help mitigate these issues? The author didn't give any solutions, just laid out the problems. Maybe there isn't much to do?
Not really. That's a viewpoint, but only one of many. Imo Canada's future remains bright as compared to most of the world: abundant natural resources, especially water, and the ability to continue to ramp up immigration to counteract our aging demographics.
Climate change is the big one though. Low population, cold, and full of water.
The Following User Says Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
That OECD report showing Canada having the lowest growth in the coming decades gets a lot of press, but I've read it and I'm not sure it means a whole lot for a few reasons:
1) The countries at the bottom of the list are more advanced economies which will tend to see slower growth than emerging economies. Among the bottom 10 for projected growth are the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, and Canada. The top 10 includes countries like Turkey, Mexico, and Costa Rica. It's like if minimum wage went up by 50% over a period of time but someone earning $100K only saw a 20% increase in wages; which situation would you rather be in?
2) The differences in GDP growth between the bottom of the list and the top are pretty tiny. For instance, they have Canada's real GDP to 2060 growing by 37-38% which is dead last in the OECD. To get in the top quartile, you'd need something like 41-42% growth by 2060. Given that we're talking about predicting growth nearly 40 years out, the fact that a few percentage points difference in growth over several decades is enough to get you from dead last into the top quartile means that the rankings aren't particularly useful. The noise in the data means that it simply can't have the resolution where the rankings are meaningful.
3) The only real thing dragging Canada's growth in the paper is lower increases in labor efficiency compared to other countries. But the paper concedes that labor efficiency estimates are highly uncertain. And the way they project increases in labor efficiency leaves a ton of room for error. Essentially, they base it on how far from the best practices a country currently is relating to things like maternity leave, family benefits, support for unemployed, etc., and then assume that countries will close the gap somewhat. So the further away you are from best practices the more they're projecting growth from that. So because Canada is generally closer to what the paper considers best practices, it's being penalized for already having good policies in place. And of course, that method assumes that countries who currently have poor social supports will improve them, but that's pretty far from a given.
4) In terms of fiscal pressure (primarily related to debt and anticipated future liabilities), which is something I'd consider a pretty big indicator of future growth, Canada is one of the best scoring advanced economies.
Ultimately, it's a mathematical model, not a detailed analysis of every OECD economy. Past versions of the same report haven't been particularly accurate even in anticipating near-term growth, so I'm not sure I'd take their 40-year projections as gospel.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
It's time for a change in our federal government. We need someone with the balls to say it like it is, and do something about it. PP may be too abrasive for some, but I like what he is saying. I see him as a reaction to the sickening state of affairs we have been left with, after 6 years of liberal mismanagement. We need to:
1. maximize the value of our resource economy in order to pay for our services
2. change the tax and over regulated system to encourage foreign investment
3. reduce the layers of red tape
4. more openness and cooperation among provinces
5. more capable and business oriented people in portfolios
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
It's time for a change in our federal government. We need someone with the balls to say it like it is, and do something about it. PP may be too abrasive for some, but I like what he is saying. I see him as a reaction to the sickening state of affairs we have been left with, after 6 years of liberal mismanagement. We need to:
1. maximize the value of our resource economy in order to pay for our services
2. change the tax and over regulated system to encourage foreign investment
3. reduce the layers of red tape
4. more openness and cooperation among provinces
5. more capable and business oriented people in portfolios
6. more transparency in government
7. less political overtones in our newsrooms
8. Etc.
Holy hell, you think PP would do any of these correctly based on what he's been saying?
Are you one of the people who likes disruption? "balls to say it like it is, and do something about it." Throw enough #### at the wall and eventually some will like a point he says and it sticks. Contradicts his own statements/viewpoints, puts himself out as the best connection to the common man but couldn't be further from one, says he's anti-corporate/elistist (is one) but he wants to put in place actions that will only help them and spread inequality more.
Vote PP if you are a person who can take advantage of his new policies and get richer, else good luck to the rest of you. His idea of a free market will make things worse, and it's funny that the cons says the liberals were in bed with china in terms of allowing investments, yet they blocked a few and now PP wants less involvement?
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BlackArcher101 For This Useful Post:
You know who else got elected because they "tell it like it is"? Donald ####ing Trump. Please don't let that be a reason to vote for a person. It's a pretty poor way to judge character.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
1. maximize the value of our resource economy in order to pay for our services
2. change the tax and over regulated system to encourage foreign investment
3. reduce the layers of red tape
4. more openness and cooperation among provinces
5. more capable and business oriented people in portfolios
6. more transparency in government
7. less political overtones in our newsrooms
8. Etc.
Two that immediately jump out at me:
#4 is a function of provincial leadership. Should Ottawa should be able to force provinces to capitulate to each others' demands? This comes off as a thinly veiled request for us to be able to force pipelines through jurisdictions in which we have no standing, with Ottawa's blessing.
#7 suggests something that Ottawa should have absolutely zero influence over in any direction. The freedom of the press should not be infringed.
That list above sounds an awful lot like what Trump ran on. That all worked out fine didn't it...
Trump was a known conman who was from outside politics. In PP we have a career politician that is copying the known conman's playbook. What could go wrong?
The Following User Says Thank You to chedder For This Useful Post:
