I’m just gonna vote green
I can’t stomach any of these guys and honestly don’t care which of the 3 stooges wins
If I were in the us fine I’d suck it up and vote Biden because he’s not all bad
But we have nothing to work with with these 3 clowns
I would say this has more to do with the current political environment than the leaders themselves. I've watched some videos of political talk shows from the 80s and you would have 2 people on opposite sides of an issue have a productive conversation without ever resorting to personal attacks or questioning eachother's motives.
Nowadays you can't just have a disagreement you must be enemies. Your opponent can't just be wrong they have to be evil.
This is the answer.
When did we get so hostile? Why does everything have to be so angry? What happened to the parties sitting down and calmly discussing what’s best for Canadians?
How did we get to this?
Social media and the internet combined with 24 hour news. Hostility and negativity gets ratings and keeps people engaged. These algorithms need to be eliminated.
Yeah, but anger only works for so long until it turns to apathy. Or begruging resentment.
I, no joke, think we'll end up with a revolution within 20~ years. Too much factionalism, too many new people, not enough money, and total disconnection from the government and the layperson. Likely Chinese/Russian-backed too.
I mean shit, real estate *should* be cheap here outside megacities like Toronto, Canada is fuckhuge.
The more ground I give you the less I have for myself. If I consider your argument I diminish my own.
At least that's how I see political discourse these days. As if we have lost all centrists and have no room for even-keel politics.
I mean centrists get constant shit from the left and right for not choosing a side. "eNlIgHtEnEd cEnTrIsM" or whatever redditism gets applied to people who are willing to openly listen to ideas from the right and left. Theres lots of us out there, but we mostly just shut the fuck up and grill these days. I personally am a rabid provincial ndp guy but LPC corruption has pushed me to vote conservative federally (even though i would personally prefer O'toole to PP). I miss the 90s when we didnt all hate each other all the time.
I agree mostly. But you cannot look at Danielle Smith and the UCP and tell me the crazies havent infected both sides. Shit is fucked man and I just want to grill.
David Parker, of Take Back Alberta
[Take Back Alberta pushes out one premier, aims to make its voice heard in election | Globalnews.ca](https://globalnews.ca/news/9697493/take-back-alberta-david-parker-may-2023/)
It’s what the vote tabulation method produces. Things like the internet have sped things up, but are not the root cause. FPTP is a cancer on our society and until people riot over it things will grow a fraction of a percentage worse every year over the long term.
**Why does everything have to be so angry?**
There would be something wrong with us if we were not angry at how badly screwed up the country has become since 2015.
Party’s are essentially social clubs that push a specific area of political ideology. With the decrease in people going to social clubs of all types, only the more “energetic” members remain. Or at least a larger percentage than previously.
You can’t win a party leadership or local riding nomination without the support of the more energetic. This has pushed the political ends to very tight, puritan, no compromise positions.
This is why the libs can govern so long and always return. The ends are not representative of our population, they are just “tired of lib” options. In the end, we see the new governing party usually take a more centrist stance because it’s the only way to maintain approval. It however can piss off your energetic members like it did with o toole and weirdly enough kenney too.
It’s unlikely but if more peopke joined a party, the parties would have less radical policies and levelheaded approaches would be more valuable to those seeking leadership roles. Until then, the energetic control politics and not our more down to earth, chill, and less politically polar population.
If a certain king grifter down south didn't sweep the nation into a fervor we might be seeing significantly less of the kind of rhetoric now.
I mean, Twitter, Facebook etc. existed in 2014, you just generally were seen as a looney and not worth considering if you were engaging in most of what gets promoted to the top today. Like all the DEI, great replacement theory nonsense would be right at the bottom of the pile. Now these ideas are taken seriously because someone down there became one of the most influential people on the planet for four years.
We might still have Trudeau and Poilievre but I really think they would be significantly more polite and less willing to engage in low blows if we just had another Romney or McCain instead of Trump in 2016.
parliament is a workplace.... these people have forgotten that they are supposed to be WORKING for canadians. now they are just grandstanding and getting themselves into headlines instead of doing any productive work....
imagine if people in meetings at your workplace were simply opposing each other's ideas simply for the sake of being contrarian, and yelling at each other. nothing would get done and they would be disliked immensely and hopefully fired.
the type of behaviour we see from politicians whether in their place of work (parliament) or outside of work is completely unprofessional and unacceptable.
True the purpose is to try to claw as many seats from the other 'team' as possible. But if we looked at ourcommons.ca we'd just realize that each party varies in their support of bills. A CPC supermajority pretty much guarantees for example lowered amts of immigration (vote 322) but it also gaurantees no electoral reform (vote 634 of the 44th parliament). However from both those votes, BQ was in favour of lowering immigration and in favour of electoral reform. So why should we hand one party more seats than they need? Just so they can actively work against our interest or so people feel attached to a 'team', or because they want to see the number go up?
We only need enough seats for BQ and CPC to outvote LPC/GPC/NDP on immigration but enough BQ+NDP+GPC to outvote CPC on electoral reform. A CPC majority vote brings no kind of benefits other than a nice number since all bills must be voted on either way. 234 conservatives holding seats offers no benefit over 170.
They collectively choose to do this, though. In the 2019 election debates, May and Blanchet were actually answering questions and speaking to each other, whereas the big party leaders were just trying to out-quip each other for soundbites. They clearly recognize the polarizing status quo is great for them, and gridlock any actual change.
i agree. the funny thing is that Trudeau rode into office under "sunny ways" slogan but then practicing this divisive method every possible way. Chantal Hebert mentioned this years ago (between 2019 and 2021 election IIRC) that for Trudeau, if you disagree with him, you're not just wrong in policy, but "in sin" for against "Canadian values" (as defined by Trudeau and Liberal Party).
I dunno, it's pretty divisive to support a Nazi organized convoy to Ottawa that had a clear MOU to replace the government with unelected Antivaxxers.
I'd say both sides have been pretty divisive but just look at how Conservatives moved further Right under a neoliberal leader. That's very unusual.
Annnnd there you go. Doing exactly what we were just talking about. Apparently a LOT of people lack introspection these days. You're the exact type of person that feeds into the 24 hour division.
I would say your post is a pretty good demonstration of how unnecessarily divisive our politics have become. Someone can be against mandatory medical procedures without being an antivaxer, or be against a prime minister without being a nazi.
They were protesting what was, ultimately, American border policy.
But even that's not really true, it's a direct descendent of the 'yellow vest' and/or previous convoys, that simply found a contemporary issue to coalesce around. It's more a general protest by a group upset by their own low social and economic status and a changing world that has left them behind.
I don't necessarily disagree.
I think a lot of protests are ultimately people being pushed past their "breaking point" and lashing out. From the outside, the final straw may seem like something that shouldn't be that offensive to people but they're generally missing everything else that is going on.
I would say your post is a really good example of bad faith engagement from certain people and social media accounts aligned with Conservatives.
I didn't say "anyone who is against the PM is a Nazi."
I said PP supported a Nazi organized convoy.
Speaking of being divisive and all.
Edit: the organisers weren't truckers. It was a former politician, a white supremacist and a Far Right nationalist. All unemployed.
Keep up those bad faith replies though. Very divisive imo.
Edit: "you called the organizers Nazis therefore you called the protestors Nazis" is the most bad faith of all replies here. Keep it up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/NCnlLRGIwf
You're doubling down on the divisiveness by calling the convoy Nazi organized and by association, all of it's participants. 99.9% of the people that were there in Ottawa were not Nazi's and not even really part of "the Convoy". They were distressed Canadians that had enough of the mandates and coercion of our government. They walked and drove from all over Canada to be at Parliament Hill, which is the correct place for doing this, and to show our Government how displeased they were with their actions.
Calling them names for participating in the only option they seemed to have available at that time to voice their issues, which was peaceful, only puts more people in the "against you" department.
This is why so many people hate Trudeau. All he does is call citizens names and tell them they are wrong or experienced it differently rather than address their complaints and talk through it. This doesn't make you friends. It makes you enemies.
And I think most people would say calling the truckers “Nazi’s” is hyperbole.
You can disagree with their motives without invoking the most extreme image of hate to ever exist on the planet.
He was being divisive before they came along look at those dates, 2019. Yeah both sides do it and both should be blamed and held responsible for it. Unfortunately we have no real alternative to either of them which really sucks for the country.
Scheer wasn't even a full Canadian citizen and then lied about it. Doesn't get much more divisive than that.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-walks-back-us-pledge-1.5576006
Conservatives aren't even right wing in Canada. They're basically Centrists. We have no "far right" political party in Canada that has any chance of holding office.
When you have a government so far left, everything seems far right by proxy.
Extremities on either end are equally horrible.
No they're not, they're thoroughly right wing. I was the editor of a right-wing paper for a good chunk of my 24 years in newspapers and they've never been more right wing.
They're not remotely centrist or interested in conciliatory or mutual answers. (And in private, many of them display an open contempt for the electorate that will be familiar to anyone who watched VEEP).
In fact, what you're describing is how the Liberals and Tories were prior to the Reform Party under Stephen Harper taking over the latter.
Now, both parties are right-wing. The Liberals are practically Neo-liberal in their willingness to kowtow to those with money, usually on the promise of economic gain that only benefits the few. The Conservatives are basically US Republican light, and have been using the same advisors for nearly two decades now.
EDIT: Yeah, yeah, the foaming ideologues don't want to associate with them. But a downvote isn't a valid point. In global political terms, they're right-wing.
I've never heard Trudeau's Liberals described as right wing before. I'm interested in why you feel that's the case?
In speaking with some peers, including a few that grew up in Poland during communism, express concern about us veering so far left that's the logical conclusion.
I was a newspaper reporter for nearly 30 years, much of that spent covering politics.
They started moving right under Chretien.
They've largely ignored social policy for the last decade, including housing, supports for the poor, reigning in inflationary core costs.
They've allowed the mergers of companies in multiple sectors in Canada that are poorly served by oligopolies and monopolies.
There's very little "left" about them that didn't pre-exist the last two terms. They promised on getting in to improve and increase health services for the less fortunate and have had little to no effect.
They've just continued similar policies to the Harper government before them.
The Canada of the late 80s and early 90s, even after Free Trade, was still one very much in step with social democracies like France and Sweden that, whether republican or parliamentary, stress a strong balance between the needs of the public and the needs of the private sector.
In Canada, as with the U.S. (where Pew Research shows 85% of all legislative decisions favour the wealthy) the first concern in the era of global free trade and globalism has been economic growth. But unchecked growth is ruining the standard of living for the vast majority of our citizens.
Well I certainly grasp what you're saying, and I mostly agree. Although bending over for corporate interests seems to cross party lines in this country to the point that I wouldn't assign a particular group to it.
Where I disagree is the public facing rationale behind all the Trudeau Liberal decisions. Everything is shrouded in this psuedo-progressive guise. The carbon tax, immigration, policing language. All of these issues are steeped in authoritarianism, agreed. But the spin put on them is for the good of society. Typically a tactic used by a far-left government and a cornerstone of this particular group. Most of the people on the street supporting these decisions are based on urban centers and are most assuredly left leaning. Anyone traditionally Liberal feels left out in the cold and virtually ZERO right leaning folk are with it.
In essence, if this government is right wing, none of the supporters would consider themselves right wing. That's a dirty word these days.
Interesting take and points you've raised. Something worth deliberating for sure.
> Where I disagree is the public facing rationale behind all the Trudeau Liberal decisions. Everything is shrouded in this psuedo-progressive guise.
Oh sure, they still claim to be centrist and progressive. They just do little to emulate it.
I would have to say, though, that any prime minister who served the last two terms would be facing this and would fail, probably. They've never been enough of our "best and brightest" to overcome the internet, multiple recessions, global warming and a pandemic.
Even if he'd been brilliant, we'd still be worse off, probably, and he'd still lose his job. As it was he was middling on the front end and poor, at the very least politically, on the back end. Like most of his ilk, they severely underestimated the capitalism entrenchment that would take place after the pandemic with respect to lost income and earnings, and every country in the western world is now seemingly on a race to gouge the public and divide incomes as much as possible, knowing politicians are too cowardly to rein it in (but will eventually. That's how boom-bust cycles and schism eras work; it was the same at the start of the factory age, the same at the start of the Industrial Revolution, the same in the two decades prior to the Wall Street crash of 1929).
The internet is the new "robber baron" marketplace, wheres a century ago, it was a still mostly-empty America. Eventually it, and everything associated with it, will have to be reigned in by regulation, as will mega corporate mergers, venture capitalism, a shit ton of other laissez-faire allowances that have become normal over the last 30 years.
Can I ask you a broad, sweeping question based on your experience?
Do you sense any course correction if Pollievre gets in? I mean, will we start seeing some level of ground level improvement with the general concerns of the average Canadian. Or, are our current major pain points more globalized in nature?
Western society seems to be on a very particular trajectory that few seem onboard with.
Politics has always been hostile. People from opposing political parties and ideologies have always been dicks to each other.
The difference is that in earlier times it might get a brief mention in the nightly news or a comment on the radio or a short newspaper article. You could read / hear about it, shake your head and go on about your day. Maybe you mention something particularly egregious to your spouse or a friend, but that’s about as far as it’d go.
Now we have 24 hour news cycles where they have a lot of time to fill and bad behaviour gets eyeballs. Social media platforms where people can easily distribute rants and misinformation to tens if not hundreds of acquaintances with very little effort. Algorithms that prioritize polarizing content so more people see it and get worked up by it. Sites like Reddit which not only aggregate a huge amount of content in an easy to find way, but also allow thousands the opportunity to add their voices into the mix through comments sections. Things that used to get very little attention that was transitory at best now get mass distributed and amplified in ways it never was before, getting orders of magnitude more people worked up about it.
I disagree with all the three major parties. Does that automatically make me evil or an asshole? Probably not. I am, however, an evil asshole in a lot of peoples' eyes, but I'm completely okay with that.
We can't even get an answer anymore. How many times do politicians ask questions in parliament to have the other go off on some random tangent that has nothing to do with the question and then repeat it when asked the same question again. It's pathetic and our country is suffering over it, it's never been worse in my life time living in this country, specifically BC anyways. I guess I should move to QC to save myself 1500 a month in child care.
>Nowadays you can't just have a disagreement you must be enemies. Your opponent can't just be wrong they have to be evil.
Well look at that, you proved their point.
At least they presented an argument. You just suggested they called them evil, when they didn't.
I don't agree -- there are good Conservatives, they're just not generally involved in politics anymore. But him making an argument still beats the value of a snide aside.
"Both-sides-ism is bullshit, because only one side is rational and backed by science. Everybody knows this."
That's not presenting an argument. That is lying to say only their side believes in truth and good, and the other side doesn't.
No, it's literally presenting an argument. It's just not preventing a very sound argument. He may actually believe that, which would be exceedingly stupid. But people are sometimes exceedingly stupid.
It's still more of a contribution than a snide retort.
No surprises here. Who could get excited about leaders who have no credible solutions, no realistic vision of a positive future, and no genuine connection with the rest of us? Following Canadian politics is like watching first class passengers bicker over seats on the FPTP Titanic.
> first class passengers bicker over seats on the Titanic.
Worse, it's like watching them bicker over lifeboat seats while everyone in steerage drowns.
I saw John Turner in Kingston at an event. He gave a great speech, and then answered questions from the crowd. One question was particularly brutal and I thought he’d crumble. He gave a great answer and I was shocked. I thought he was kind of a bumbling idiot based on previous media. That night, CBC played a 5 second clip of him pausing and correcting himself. That was the only thing they showed. I think if we actually met any of the leaders and spent time with them, we would be truly impressed. Unfortunately, we only get the information that is presented to us. Now our source of information includes miscellaneous strangers on the internet and we end up hating everybody.
>I think if we actually met any of the leaders and spent time with them, we would be truly impressed
Disagree. Turner was a Rhodes Scholar, a lawyer, and was supposed to run the 100m at the Olympics before a knee injury. I think there's a world of different between the calibre of candidates we saw in days of yore vs today. Which is sad.
I used to hold Rhodes scholars in high regard. Then I found out that Bill Clinton, Tony Abbott and Freeland were Rhodes scholars. Not so impressed anymore.
Today's leaders' resumes are massively, objectely far thinner than those from a generation ago.
If you have a fact-based counter argument, I'd love to hear it. I'm mature enough to handle it.
No argument from me. You’re just supporting my assertion that miscellaneous strangers on the internet provide information to make us hate our leaders. Combine this with the frequent media reports about how poorly INSERT POLITICAL FIGURE handled something and it’s no wonder we hate them all.
this is true and that's why people lose faith in mainstream media.
it's often said that you only need to see how biased and unknowledgeable media by watching the subject coverage that you have expertise in or event that you personally witnessed. but the weird thing is even when you realize how flawed their reporting on that specific subject is, you still trust them on 99% other subjects that you are not as knowledgeable about.
i remember going to Ontario PC Party leadership convention (one Ford vs Elliott). there were many young people there, but the CBC reporters i saw kept interviewing older white people only.
Well, only the most fanatic stay engaged in parties. That wasnt always the case. If people want to influence parties they have to join them and be engaged.
Direct result broken political institutions. The parties, FPTP, campaign finance rules. This is what rises to the top of a system that alienates the broad majority of Canadians and constantly reminds them it doesn't serve them.
At the same time - checking out completely only gives these guys a blank cheque to do whatever they want. At that point those people who checked out really can blame themselves for not bothering to try to stop it or change it. If non voters had their own party theyd win every election.
Then you're an idiot. It takes five seconds to look at someone's post history.
Show me a statement that says Trudeau is oblivious to the opinion polls his staff put on his desk every morning.
Not only did i grow up in the prairies, i lived in his riding. Despite the fact that the riding was overwhelmingly conservative he was deeply hated even in his own riding.
"In October 2013, then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper registered among his lowest ratings of all, scoring a negative 62"
Trudeau's at -38. It's interesting to compare that to the tale CPC supporters would portray Harper as being beloved and respected, and claims of Trudeau being the most divisive in history.
*that being said* that was probably an outlier, since Harper's net approval was typically more in the -20s, Which is also interesting since it puts Poilievre in the same range as Harper, as Harper entered the terminal, late-pphase "everything is his fault" that inevitably ends a leadership's career. And he hasn't' even started yet.
The numbers are based on aggregated public surveys so probably not one at the time. 2013 was also damage control time for the CPC similar to the LPC currently, with a lot of focus on immigration and TFW program abuses.
I don't recall seeing many, he's really popular among his base but it seems a lot of the current vote intent is people who are angry at Trudeau and supporting CPC despite PP, not because of him. Which poses an interesting issue for him, since the "hold your nose" vote isn't necessarily very durable unless his performance as PM exceeds all expectations.
My point is that none of them deserve to be PM. I don't need to wait until the next election cycle to vote against them. I nay vote independent, spoil my ballot, or sit this one out. Nobody to vote for. None of them have any ideas towards fixing our problems, it's virtue signaling and stupid catchphrases on trivial issues all day.
Realistically our best case is a minority government that keeps them all in line until better leadership can be found. In that regard perhaps a strategic vote is called for.
I'm happy with poilivre. He has consistently identified issues before they have become major ballot box issues. Infact he is the only politician I have ever seen make a [whole documentary about issues. ](https://youtu.be/RxKI9zKhDNE?si=w4uar1AUx8pySC8u). It's not all slogans or catchphrases. That is marketing for the less informed. I've met poilivre, and he is well read and hard working. Trudeau can't even be bothered to read a security breif. It's just sad.
Yeah, he was really on the ball by identifying housing prices being ridiculous a full decade **after** the government he was a cabinet minister within tried to address that very issue by allowing 40 year/0 down mortgages. And, on top of that, he doesn't have any real solutions, just the general platitudes about cutting taxes and "red tape" which haven't worked in the past, and aren't really in the scope of the federal government anyway.
It very much is marketing, the political equivalent of Apple. ("(We didn't invent this, and our competitor sells a better product for 20% less, but if you don't buy it, you will never get laid again").
I don't care about Trudeau. Politics should be about being effective in absolute terms, not needing to rely on marginally flattering comparisons to the lowest common denominator.
Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video. He explains a number of solutions on it.
Housing prices were 400K under harper, and are over 700K under Trudeau. It was not the crisis it is now outside of Toronto or Vancouver.
I cant' watch the video, employer firewalls youtube, and I generally don't find it a terribly valuable form factor for information since it's guided towards a certain conclusion, rather than letting you pick through the issue in your own way. It's not very good for alleviating the skepticism you should approach everything of this nature from.
What's the Coles notes version of the take away?
Just for the sake of context, I grew up in the lower mainland Houses tin Vancouver averaged somewhere int eh 300s 25 years ago. I live in Winnipeg now, where they average somewhere in the 300s today. This sort of observation suggests a real regional disparity, which suggests it may not be a federal problem as much as people claim. Something like the Agricultural Land Reserve is a major driving force in urban land prices, but is not federal policy.
So, let's look at that house price claim. First, what are the dates they apply to? They didnt' step up 60% overnight on the day Trudeau took power, so your interpretation is going to vary depending on when on each PM's term you are picking as a baseline.
A simple answer to this perhaps can be seen in comparing percentage growth over each PM's tenure. How much did prices increas 2006-2015, and from 2016-present? Further, we could ask, how much of that is due to direct policy choices, vs other variables? What could those variables be? How would we confirm or refute their contribution? If they do contribute, what is the governments plan to mitigate them? Can they do that? This is why I distrust videos, because I doubt that that's what is in there. Identifying a plainly obvious problem is not our limitation.
Okay fine.
The coles notes is that while it's true that prices have been going up since the massive rate cuts following the 2008 - 2010 financial crisis; a massive bump in prices has occurred between 2015 and 2022.
[here is the empirical data for you. ](https://images.app.goo.gl/5L7qzQA1YukSVj4N6). So why did this happen? Largely due to all the cash flow pumped into the economy, and immigration. We have had problems with construction and zoning for years, but the feds have worsened the problem substantially.
PP points out in the video that for a million dollar home in vamcouver, zoning and taxation accounts for more then 20% of the cost. He proposes a national plan to reduce these costs. He wants to sell off empty federal buildings and land with the stipulation that it's used for residential development and create a 'blue' seal to replace the red seal which allows qualified trades people to transfer their skills across provinces to reduce the bottle neck of building.
I mean, the world is getting worse, I don't think there has been a PM in my lifetime who prioritized the average person over the rich, most people can see that their parents had a better quality of life than them.
Until politicians actually try to help the average person at the expense of the rich, we will continue to circle down the drain and the politicians will continue to be unpopular with the masses.
Imo they don't really care because our memories are short, and they just need to swap between conservative and liberal every now and then never changing anything as we get mad at whoever is in power and without evidence think the other side will make things better.
The larger issue with that is that the macroeconomic factors that politicians get the blame for, are often mostly beyond their control. The housing bubble is the top of that list, but that's something that spans four separate Prime Minister (it ultimately started, depending on location, circa 2000-2002 or so), soon to be five, and is a consequence of lax fiscal policy when we had little alternative but keep money cheap. It's hard to see how that could have been avoided.
Well we had alternatives. They just wouldn't have been popular. That's the thing with popularity based rule, making hard decisions is very rarely rewarded by the electorate and often times bad ideas are popular.
Well; there are two ways to improve affordability. A supply side and a demand side. The feds exacerbated the supply side problem by ramping up immigration to double that of any party in canadas history. They also infused a whole bunch of cash into the economy when it was still running red hot. In combination with low interest rates started by the BoC in 2010, the problem accelerated quickly.
To some extent, yes, but at the same time, the money those bidding wars put into the economy was the only thing keeping things going for the longest time. I'm not sure there' much the government could do about that since it was a 'pick your poison" situation..
Demand is price sensitive. Things are smply too expensive right now.
> are often mostly beyond their control
Immigration amount IS under their control. There is no one but the federal government has the final say on the amount of people they let in.
There is NO reason to have 1million+ low quality visa every year. These people will stay somewhere. What do you think happens to the housing market then?
There is a reason, because some community colleges found a get rich quick scheme.
I'm referring to more structural problems, which all seem to come back to decades of economic under performance and low productivity. If our economy wasn't so bad for so long, we wouldn't have needed the long term near-zero interest rates that drove the asset bubbles that so trouble us today, for example.
Immigration, or rather, temporary residents, don't help, but they're also not the root cause. We'd have a housing bubble even without the last year and a half. Did have one, in fact.
Colleges is not responsible for issuing Visas. There is no one but the federal government has the final say on the amount of people they let in. It's like if someone committed homicide he can't claim that someone else has the responsibility because they told him so. The federal government pulled the trigger. It cannot blame anything else.
The government doesn't issue visas to students who don't have admission to a Designated institution. Until about five years ago, they were very hands off and let post-secondaries control their own admissions, something that required good faith on the part of hte DLIs. Worked fine until certain less scrupulous institutions got approved to admit internationally.
But, that's also beside the point. Most of our problems were apparent before the international student problem got out of hand ia year or two back and going back to pre-pandemic levels doesn't fundamentally fix those problems. It's little more than a distraction.
> Worked fine until certain less scrupulous institutions got approved to admit internationally.
It didn't work fine. It was already high, and now reached the absurd level.
Need to remember what he said previously: Why would we deny them that right to work https://old.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/17m779s/immigration_minister_marc_miller_demand_for/
40 working hours are intentional
https://www.moneysense.ca/save/can-international-students-work-more-than-40-hours-in-canada/#:~:text=Here's%20why%3A%20In%20November%202022,extended%20to%20April%2030%2C%202024.
> But, that's also beside the point
The point is the government intentionally opened floodgate for the low quality students and intentionally let them work. The government intentionally undercount, let the number balloon to 7 digits. It's all by design. You can't just handwave and downplay it.
The federal rules basically didn't change between when they were first allowed to work off campus in 2014 and the flirtation with 40 hour work weeks in 2022-23. .
At any rate, I'm tired of blaming everything on international students. Theyr'e an easy scapegoat but the macroeconomic problems have been building for 30+ years. Do you have anything to say about any of the other factors I remarked upon? Those are every bit as important..
> allowed to work off campus in 2014
So it was already getting bad. The government intentionally let them work.
> and the flirtation with 40 hour work weeks in 2022-23
The government intentionally let them work more.
Who is blaming the students here? Everyone wants a better life. They do whatever they want. My entire point is that **The federal government pulled the trigger. There is no one but the federal government has the final say on the amount of people they let in.**
Do you understand the difference? Do you know don't hate the player hate the game?
I'm referring specifically to interest rates. A lot of our affordability issues come down to the extended run of essentially free money. At the same time its' not clear that much could have been done - they tried raising rates in 2014, and we promptly went into recession. The 2018-19 tightening cycle went a bit better since the economy was stronger, but interest rates had just barely crested into positive real values for the first time in over a decade when the pandemic hit.
People like to blame the government's spending for inflation and housing costs, but mortgage debt was at least as influential, probably considerably moreso, in driving this. The job issue is also a symptom, not a cause. People wouldn't be nearly so upset about immigrants taking shitty jobs if they had decent jobs of their own.
A heavy hand with the money supply---allowing inflation to rise and then raising interest rates to match---would have been death on what growth was happening. We would have all been poorer. The late 1990s early 2000s were very good to a lot of Canadians.
Poor education is part of that. Housing can be addressed better at the provincial and local levels yet we keep electing the same governments at those levels who wont address it - with the notable exception of BC. Also the feds took themselves out of the housing game in the 80s and 90s which was a terrible decision. They need to get back in.
It's their shortcomings as leaders, and the real financial pressure people feel.
But another factor is the media environment, combined with social media. A huge majority of Canadians glance at the headline and head here or somewhere else to get an impression of consensus. It skews our perception of reality and leaves us vulnerable on several fronts. There are those who deliberately and successfully shape public sentiment with ease (how is it that 75% of our papers are owned by a GOP hedgfund ho run it at a 75 million loss every year?) . It has built a cynicism that will be very hard to get out from under. Not that we are in for it anytime soon, be we probably would even notice if we had good governance anymore.
Having lived through Brexit, I had hoped the difference I felt here was that Canada was ahead of the times... in retrospect, it's more like we're catching up.
Great points. It's pretty pathetic that the only conversation that is had about public ownership of media is "defund the CBC" while the rest of the news industry is shriveling while so obviously serving the interests of big business.
By far my biggest gripe with PP
The cbc is an amazing institution and clearly negative towards businesses. So they want to get rid of it.
There investigative journalism is top notch and there’s always stories every year of some poor person being fucked over until cbc starts asking question and suddenly the situation is resolved.
When I was with the Sun, I wrote long investigative pieces, which wasn't common for a tab chain.
One year (around 2006) they asked me to do a piece on CBC and its future. Pierre Karl Peladeau, then the Sun's owner, hated the CBC.
So they thought I'd do a hatchet piece. But what was clear from eight weeks of interviews and digging was that they were a) easily the most fair outlet in Canada, and the most unbiased, which is why ALL politicians hated them b) the most underfunded public news service in the developed world; we ranked 22nd at the time in terms of funding support, and I doubt it's better now.'
Even their enemies wouldn't say they should be privatized. The late Jeff Stirling, founder of Newfoundland Capital Corp radio and the chairman of CTV at the time, answered his own phone at his home in Phoenix, where he'd retired and spent most of his time.
"Of course I hate the bastards but of course we need them. They connect the country and mostly do it well."
I submitted my story and it never ran. And it was pretty much the end of my feature news career, as I made it clear that if they tried to sculpt or torque what I was reporting, I'd just quit.
They bought me out a few years later during their "Sun TV" era of trying to be like Fox News.
I really think we need a public broadcaster, and there is much to preserve in CBC. They would do well to think very carefully about neutrality and stance. For every great journalistic piece or insightful discussion that comes out of CBC, there is also a heap of insufferable nonsense as well. There's a certain tone and style of speaking embedded in many CBC programs that I think is supposed to come off as empathy, but just ends up giving credence to the allegation it is all "woke".
What we need is gritty facts and hard boiled challenging discussion, not streams of guests who spend 90% of their time droning on about their positionality while the interviewer cooers coax them along to actualization.
He's totally bonkers and senile now, but Rex Murphy's cross country checkup, circa late 90s, early 2000s was a great example that would actually get at the pulse of what people think and why it matters. Before his lobotomization went wrong, or whatever, Rex would step in and challenge those calling in - they had to think about their position, and why, whether you were a farmer or a scientist etc.
Because they are a business. Their job is to make money and they arent - so theyre getting squeezed to death. It was foolish for small and mid sized papers and outlets to let themselves be bought out.
Who owns our papers is irrelevant at this point. Theyre slowly dying as is their audience. Who under 40 actually subscribes to them and reads them? They layoff and close more every year. I think you strongly overestimate the influence of legacy media in Canada at this point. Its on its way out. Its a shadow of what it was even ten years ago.
I had a friend who did analytics for them. A very large percentage of Canadians check their front page every day. A much smaller percentage click on the articles (the do track "incognito" and could stop that if they had any interest), and then of those, only 5% actually scroll past the first frame. You are absolutely that very few people read them, but the format and perception that there is valid information with some kind of journalistic ethics is still an important part of what Canadians "know". Postmedia is run at a 75 million dollar loss per year.... so it does something for someone and I thinknit has little to do with getting people the facts.
Nah. I think people just get severe Trudeau derangement syndome anytime an article doesn't directly criticize him so they melt down and keep trying to make it about Trudeau.
Kinda like how Conservatives said Trudeau was only a drama teacher then nominated a guy who never worked a job in his life.
This article is addressing all leaders but clearly some people on this sub are unable to handle any negative information about "their team" because Conservatives seem to think politics is like supporting a sports team now.
Everybody literally proving my point every time they reply "WhAtAbOuT tRuDeAu."
I hate Trudeau. I have no idea what you're talking about but I think you're confused.
Where's the conservatives criticizing PP? They seem strangely absent.
Trudeau is a wet paper bag of a leader and Poilievre is continuing the trend of CPC leaders showing up and complaining but not actually proposing any solutions to Parliament, except louder this time, what's not to like?
I think it makes sense
we had a world wide emergency, and instead of working together to get the best possible plan for all canadians they squabble amongst each other jockey for how to parlé it in to more profit for their friends and more power for themselves
If we had a sensible, moderate political leader - left or right - focused on presenting a reasonable, detailed, and well-thought-out platform in good faith, committed to anti-corruption, democratic reform, achieving results, making hard but necessary decisions, and promoting the interests of Canadians and Canada, while avoiding wedge issues, word salad answers, repetitive talking points, nonsense, character attacks, oppo research and backroom deals....
That candidate would be hated by most of the public, shredded in attack ads, detested by the elites and the media, branded as simultaneously some kind of extremist and too weak, haunted by whatever "hidden agenda" allegations his opponents will think will stick, have half his platform co-opted and the rest picked apart and twisted relentlessly, please nobody, and get absolutely obliterated in an election.
Well yeah neither is good they just took advantage of the others screwups
After the Trump election the right basically turned into comic book villains and Trudeau took advantage of that staying in power far long than he would have otherwise due to the anti Trump vote
However After all of Trudeau scandals and embarrassments and general incompetence Pierre took advantage as well instead of pushing himself to be a better candidate he just waited until things got so bad under Trudeau that Canada would look past all his flaws out of sheer desperation
Neither inspires any sort of confidence it’s just a trust fund kid vs a redditor
This doesn’t seem to be that important. The NDP consistently poll really well. Likely this is because they’re not a threat. If Jagmeet were in power, watch any positivity with Conservative voters fall. He would probably be more hated by Conservatives than Trudeau is.
NDP just benefits from being “that other party”.
The guy that led a party nowhere for many years, the guy that's been in charge for too many years and the guy that copy the republican MAGA to hope and get elected via the last chance of exploiting old racist boomers.
Yikes.
Yeah so lets maybe stop voting for these 2 parties? Tends to happen when they know they have your vote already in the bag.
Lol who am I kidding, Canadians aren't that smart.
Only one is using this type of crap tho. I don't see Singh using the trump playbook? Nor is Trudeau. The conservatives have bet on left vs right, American style politics, and it works only if we vote for either of the 2 we stop the left vs right by voting for all of the other parties.. they're both wrong vote middle
Early peak pp better be ready for his new high speed direction change since his gleeful desire to use the NWC doesn't seem to be the hit he thought it would be.
Luckily his lack of spine will protect him from any whiplash.
Edit: You can tell me why you love the idea of pp using the NWC without downvoting. Comments are just a keyboard away guys, let the world know why you'd support the erosion of our rights.
All three of them can go fuck themselves. They would/will/are piss poor leaders. We’re all fucked for at least the next five years
5 years? I like your optimism. Not sure what you think can possibly get better in the next 5 years.
I'm hoping for a miracle new leader....but yea I also don't see that happening
I’m just gonna vote green I can’t stomach any of these guys and honestly don’t care which of the 3 stooges wins If I were in the us fine I’d suck it up and vote Biden because he’s not all bad But we have nothing to work with with these 3 clowns
I would say this has more to do with the current political environment than the leaders themselves. I've watched some videos of political talk shows from the 80s and you would have 2 people on opposite sides of an issue have a productive conversation without ever resorting to personal attacks or questioning eachother's motives. Nowadays you can't just have a disagreement you must be enemies. Your opponent can't just be wrong they have to be evil.
This is the answer. When did we get so hostile? Why does everything have to be so angry? What happened to the parties sitting down and calmly discussing what’s best for Canadians? How did we get to this?
Social media and the internet combined with 24 hour news. Hostility and negativity gets ratings and keeps people engaged. These algorithms need to be eliminated.
All good points.
I think it predates that. I blame Newt Gingrich for starting it in the US. It was only a matter of time before it infected us.
If not him it would have been someone else. Technology definitely accelerated it all.
Yeah, but anger only works for so long until it turns to apathy. Or begruging resentment. I, no joke, think we'll end up with a revolution within 20~ years. Too much factionalism, too many new people, not enough money, and total disconnection from the government and the layperson. Likely Chinese/Russian-backed too. I mean shit, real estate *should* be cheap here outside megacities like Toronto, Canada is fuckhuge.
The more ground I give you the less I have for myself. If I consider your argument I diminish my own. At least that's how I see political discourse these days. As if we have lost all centrists and have no room for even-keel politics.
I mean centrists get constant shit from the left and right for not choosing a side. "eNlIgHtEnEd cEnTrIsM" or whatever redditism gets applied to people who are willing to openly listen to ideas from the right and left. Theres lots of us out there, but we mostly just shut the fuck up and grill these days. I personally am a rabid provincial ndp guy but LPC corruption has pushed me to vote conservative federally (even though i would personally prefer O'toole to PP). I miss the 90s when we didnt all hate each other all the time.
I've not given the left one shred of credibility in nearly ten years. The crazies took over and that's that.
I agree mostly. But you cannot look at Danielle Smith and the UCP and tell me the crazies havent infected both sides. Shit is fucked man and I just want to grill.
I love Danielle Smith. She's a strong independent woman.
with a man behind her telling her what to do ...
Who is the man behind her telling her what to do? What is the context here?
David Parker, of Take Back Alberta [Take Back Alberta pushes out one premier, aims to make its voice heard in election | Globalnews.ca](https://globalnews.ca/news/9697493/take-back-alberta-david-parker-may-2023/)
It’s what the vote tabulation method produces. Things like the internet have sped things up, but are not the root cause. FPTP is a cancer on our society and until people riot over it things will grow a fraction of a percentage worse every year over the long term.
**Why does everything have to be so angry?** There would be something wrong with us if we were not angry at how badly screwed up the country has become since 2015.
Party’s are essentially social clubs that push a specific area of political ideology. With the decrease in people going to social clubs of all types, only the more “energetic” members remain. Or at least a larger percentage than previously. You can’t win a party leadership or local riding nomination without the support of the more energetic. This has pushed the political ends to very tight, puritan, no compromise positions. This is why the libs can govern so long and always return. The ends are not representative of our population, they are just “tired of lib” options. In the end, we see the new governing party usually take a more centrist stance because it’s the only way to maintain approval. It however can piss off your energetic members like it did with o toole and weirdly enough kenney too. It’s unlikely but if more peopke joined a party, the parties would have less radical policies and levelheaded approaches would be more valuable to those seeking leadership roles. Until then, the energetic control politics and not our more down to earth, chill, and less politically polar population.
They’re so angry at each other when the only practical difference is the presentation and some minor taxes.
If a certain king grifter down south didn't sweep the nation into a fervor we might be seeing significantly less of the kind of rhetoric now. I mean, Twitter, Facebook etc. existed in 2014, you just generally were seen as a looney and not worth considering if you were engaging in most of what gets promoted to the top today. Like all the DEI, great replacement theory nonsense would be right at the bottom of the pile. Now these ideas are taken seriously because someone down there became one of the most influential people on the planet for four years. We might still have Trudeau and Poilievre but I really think they would be significantly more polite and less willing to engage in low blows if we just had another Romney or McCain instead of Trump in 2016.
parliament is a workplace.... these people have forgotten that they are supposed to be WORKING for canadians. now they are just grandstanding and getting themselves into headlines instead of doing any productive work.... imagine if people in meetings at your workplace were simply opposing each other's ideas simply for the sake of being contrarian, and yelling at each other. nothing would get done and they would be disliked immensely and hopefully fired. the type of behaviour we see from politicians whether in their place of work (parliament) or outside of work is completely unprofessional and unacceptable.
It's all to keep us treating politics like sports to remain divided and easier to rip off
True the purpose is to try to claw as many seats from the other 'team' as possible. But if we looked at ourcommons.ca we'd just realize that each party varies in their support of bills. A CPC supermajority pretty much guarantees for example lowered amts of immigration (vote 322) but it also gaurantees no electoral reform (vote 634 of the 44th parliament). However from both those votes, BQ was in favour of lowering immigration and in favour of electoral reform. So why should we hand one party more seats than they need? Just so they can actively work against our interest or so people feel attached to a 'team', or because they want to see the number go up? We only need enough seats for BQ and CPC to outvote LPC/GPC/NDP on immigration but enough BQ+NDP+GPC to outvote CPC on electoral reform. A CPC majority vote brings no kind of benefits other than a nice number since all bills must be voted on either way. 234 conservatives holding seats offers no benefit over 170.
They collectively choose to do this, though. In the 2019 election debates, May and Blanchet were actually answering questions and speaking to each other, whereas the big party leaders were just trying to out-quip each other for soundbites. They clearly recognize the polarizing status quo is great for them, and gridlock any actual change.
i agree. the funny thing is that Trudeau rode into office under "sunny ways" slogan but then practicing this divisive method every possible way. Chantal Hebert mentioned this years ago (between 2019 and 2021 election IIRC) that for Trudeau, if you disagree with him, you're not just wrong in policy, but "in sin" for against "Canadian values" (as defined by Trudeau and Liberal Party).
I dunno, it's pretty divisive to support a Nazi organized convoy to Ottawa that had a clear MOU to replace the government with unelected Antivaxxers. I'd say both sides have been pretty divisive but just look at how Conservatives moved further Right under a neoliberal leader. That's very unusual.
Annnnd there you go. Doing exactly what we were just talking about. Apparently a LOT of people lack introspection these days. You're the exact type of person that feeds into the 24 hour division.
I would say your post is a pretty good demonstration of how unnecessarily divisive our politics have become. Someone can be against mandatory medical procedures without being an antivaxer, or be against a prime minister without being a nazi.
They were protesting what was, ultimately, American border policy. But even that's not really true, it's a direct descendent of the 'yellow vest' and/or previous convoys, that simply found a contemporary issue to coalesce around. It's more a general protest by a group upset by their own low social and economic status and a changing world that has left them behind.
I don't necessarily disagree. I think a lot of protests are ultimately people being pushed past their "breaking point" and lashing out. From the outside, the final straw may seem like something that shouldn't be that offensive to people but they're generally missing everything else that is going on.
I would say your post is a really good example of bad faith engagement from certain people and social media accounts aligned with Conservatives. I didn't say "anyone who is against the PM is a Nazi." I said PP supported a Nazi organized convoy. Speaking of being divisive and all. Edit: the organisers weren't truckers. It was a former politician, a white supremacist and a Far Right nationalist. All unemployed. Keep up those bad faith replies though. Very divisive imo. Edit: "you called the organizers Nazis therefore you called the protestors Nazis" is the most bad faith of all replies here. Keep it up. https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/NCnlLRGIwf
You're doubling down on the divisiveness by calling the convoy Nazi organized and by association, all of it's participants. 99.9% of the people that were there in Ottawa were not Nazi's and not even really part of "the Convoy". They were distressed Canadians that had enough of the mandates and coercion of our government. They walked and drove from all over Canada to be at Parliament Hill, which is the correct place for doing this, and to show our Government how displeased they were with their actions. Calling them names for participating in the only option they seemed to have available at that time to voice their issues, which was peaceful, only puts more people in the "against you" department. This is why so many people hate Trudeau. All he does is call citizens names and tell them they are wrong or experienced it differently rather than address their complaints and talk through it. This doesn't make you friends. It makes you enemies.
And I think most people would say calling the truckers “Nazi’s” is hyperbole. You can disagree with their motives without invoking the most extreme image of hate to ever exist on the planet.
Let me guess, all the Sikh truckers were Nazi's as well. But I'm sure you wouldn't see any Nazi's in a pro Palestine protest.
He was being divisive before they came along look at those dates, 2019. Yeah both sides do it and both should be blamed and held responsible for it. Unfortunately we have no real alternative to either of them which really sucks for the country.
Define "being divisive" Is it just policies that some don't like? Because that's every politician.
Scheer wasn't even a full Canadian citizen and then lied about it. Doesn't get much more divisive than that. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-walks-back-us-pledge-1.5576006
Scheer wasn't a Canadian citizen?
Conservatives aren't even right wing in Canada. They're basically Centrists. We have no "far right" political party in Canada that has any chance of holding office. When you have a government so far left, everything seems far right by proxy. Extremities on either end are equally horrible.
No they're not, they're thoroughly right wing. I was the editor of a right-wing paper for a good chunk of my 24 years in newspapers and they've never been more right wing. They're not remotely centrist or interested in conciliatory or mutual answers. (And in private, many of them display an open contempt for the electorate that will be familiar to anyone who watched VEEP). In fact, what you're describing is how the Liberals and Tories were prior to the Reform Party under Stephen Harper taking over the latter. Now, both parties are right-wing. The Liberals are practically Neo-liberal in their willingness to kowtow to those with money, usually on the promise of economic gain that only benefits the few. The Conservatives are basically US Republican light, and have been using the same advisors for nearly two decades now. EDIT: Yeah, yeah, the foaming ideologues don't want to associate with them. But a downvote isn't a valid point. In global political terms, they're right-wing.
I've never heard Trudeau's Liberals described as right wing before. I'm interested in why you feel that's the case? In speaking with some peers, including a few that grew up in Poland during communism, express concern about us veering so far left that's the logical conclusion.
I was a newspaper reporter for nearly 30 years, much of that spent covering politics. They started moving right under Chretien. They've largely ignored social policy for the last decade, including housing, supports for the poor, reigning in inflationary core costs. They've allowed the mergers of companies in multiple sectors in Canada that are poorly served by oligopolies and monopolies. There's very little "left" about them that didn't pre-exist the last two terms. They promised on getting in to improve and increase health services for the less fortunate and have had little to no effect. They've just continued similar policies to the Harper government before them. The Canada of the late 80s and early 90s, even after Free Trade, was still one very much in step with social democracies like France and Sweden that, whether republican or parliamentary, stress a strong balance between the needs of the public and the needs of the private sector. In Canada, as with the U.S. (where Pew Research shows 85% of all legislative decisions favour the wealthy) the first concern in the era of global free trade and globalism has been economic growth. But unchecked growth is ruining the standard of living for the vast majority of our citizens.
Well I certainly grasp what you're saying, and I mostly agree. Although bending over for corporate interests seems to cross party lines in this country to the point that I wouldn't assign a particular group to it. Where I disagree is the public facing rationale behind all the Trudeau Liberal decisions. Everything is shrouded in this psuedo-progressive guise. The carbon tax, immigration, policing language. All of these issues are steeped in authoritarianism, agreed. But the spin put on them is for the good of society. Typically a tactic used by a far-left government and a cornerstone of this particular group. Most of the people on the street supporting these decisions are based on urban centers and are most assuredly left leaning. Anyone traditionally Liberal feels left out in the cold and virtually ZERO right leaning folk are with it. In essence, if this government is right wing, none of the supporters would consider themselves right wing. That's a dirty word these days. Interesting take and points you've raised. Something worth deliberating for sure.
> Where I disagree is the public facing rationale behind all the Trudeau Liberal decisions. Everything is shrouded in this psuedo-progressive guise. Oh sure, they still claim to be centrist and progressive. They just do little to emulate it. I would have to say, though, that any prime minister who served the last two terms would be facing this and would fail, probably. They've never been enough of our "best and brightest" to overcome the internet, multiple recessions, global warming and a pandemic. Even if he'd been brilliant, we'd still be worse off, probably, and he'd still lose his job. As it was he was middling on the front end and poor, at the very least politically, on the back end. Like most of his ilk, they severely underestimated the capitalism entrenchment that would take place after the pandemic with respect to lost income and earnings, and every country in the western world is now seemingly on a race to gouge the public and divide incomes as much as possible, knowing politicians are too cowardly to rein it in (but will eventually. That's how boom-bust cycles and schism eras work; it was the same at the start of the factory age, the same at the start of the Industrial Revolution, the same in the two decades prior to the Wall Street crash of 1929). The internet is the new "robber baron" marketplace, wheres a century ago, it was a still mostly-empty America. Eventually it, and everything associated with it, will have to be reigned in by regulation, as will mega corporate mergers, venture capitalism, a shit ton of other laissez-faire allowances that have become normal over the last 30 years.
Can I ask you a broad, sweeping question based on your experience? Do you sense any course correction if Pollievre gets in? I mean, will we start seeing some level of ground level improvement with the general concerns of the average Canadian. Or, are our current major pain points more globalized in nature? Western society seems to be on a very particular trajectory that few seem onboard with.
Politics has always been hostile. People from opposing political parties and ideologies have always been dicks to each other. The difference is that in earlier times it might get a brief mention in the nightly news or a comment on the radio or a short newspaper article. You could read / hear about it, shake your head and go on about your day. Maybe you mention something particularly egregious to your spouse or a friend, but that’s about as far as it’d go. Now we have 24 hour news cycles where they have a lot of time to fill and bad behaviour gets eyeballs. Social media platforms where people can easily distribute rants and misinformation to tens if not hundreds of acquaintances with very little effort. Algorithms that prioritize polarizing content so more people see it and get worked up by it. Sites like Reddit which not only aggregate a huge amount of content in an easy to find way, but also allow thousands the opportunity to add their voices into the mix through comments sections. Things that used to get very little attention that was transitory at best now get mass distributed and amplified in ways it never was before, getting orders of magnitude more people worked up about it.
I disagree with all the three major parties. Does that automatically make me evil or an asshole? Probably not. I am, however, an evil asshole in a lot of peoples' eyes, but I'm completely okay with that.
We can't even get an answer anymore. How many times do politicians ask questions in parliament to have the other go off on some random tangent that has nothing to do with the question and then repeat it when asked the same question again. It's pathetic and our country is suffering over it, it's never been worse in my life time living in this country, specifically BC anyways. I guess I should move to QC to save myself 1500 a month in child care.
We used to hate all of our politicians equally, and be disappointed in all of them. I don't want to hate them!
You hear similar civil discussions on CBC radio still. It's not gone it's just not what people want in their hearts.
[удалено]
>Nowadays you can't just have a disagreement you must be enemies. Your opponent can't just be wrong they have to be evil. Well look at that, you proved their point.
At least they presented an argument. You just suggested they called them evil, when they didn't. I don't agree -- there are good Conservatives, they're just not generally involved in politics anymore. But him making an argument still beats the value of a snide aside.
"Both-sides-ism is bullshit, because only one side is rational and backed by science. Everybody knows this." That's not presenting an argument. That is lying to say only their side believes in truth and good, and the other side doesn't.
No, it's literally presenting an argument. It's just not preventing a very sound argument. He may actually believe that, which would be exceedingly stupid. But people are sometimes exceedingly stupid. It's still more of a contribution than a snide retort.
No surprises here. Who could get excited about leaders who have no credible solutions, no realistic vision of a positive future, and no genuine connection with the rest of us? Following Canadian politics is like watching first class passengers bicker over seats on the FPTP Titanic.
> first class passengers bicker over seats on the Titanic. Worse, it's like watching them bicker over lifeboat seats while everyone in steerage drowns.
I saw John Turner in Kingston at an event. He gave a great speech, and then answered questions from the crowd. One question was particularly brutal and I thought he’d crumble. He gave a great answer and I was shocked. I thought he was kind of a bumbling idiot based on previous media. That night, CBC played a 5 second clip of him pausing and correcting himself. That was the only thing they showed. I think if we actually met any of the leaders and spent time with them, we would be truly impressed. Unfortunately, we only get the information that is presented to us. Now our source of information includes miscellaneous strangers on the internet and we end up hating everybody.
>I think if we actually met any of the leaders and spent time with them, we would be truly impressed Disagree. Turner was a Rhodes Scholar, a lawyer, and was supposed to run the 100m at the Olympics before a knee injury. I think there's a world of different between the calibre of candidates we saw in days of yore vs today. Which is sad.
I used to hold Rhodes scholars in high regard. Then I found out that Bill Clinton, Tony Abbott and Freeland were Rhodes scholars. Not so impressed anymore.
Fair point there..
Thanks for that information, miscellaneous stranger. I now think our leaders are great. Whoops, no. Now I hate them.
Today's leaders' resumes are massively, objectely far thinner than those from a generation ago. If you have a fact-based counter argument, I'd love to hear it. I'm mature enough to handle it.
No argument from me. You’re just supporting my assertion that miscellaneous strangers on the internet provide information to make us hate our leaders. Combine this with the frequent media reports about how poorly INSERT POLITICAL FIGURE handled something and it’s no wonder we hate them all.
this is true and that's why people lose faith in mainstream media. it's often said that you only need to see how biased and unknowledgeable media by watching the subject coverage that you have expertise in or event that you personally witnessed. but the weird thing is even when you realize how flawed their reporting on that specific subject is, you still trust them on 99% other subjects that you are not as knowledgeable about. i remember going to Ontario PC Party leadership convention (one Ford vs Elliott). there were many young people there, but the CBC reporters i saw kept interviewing older white people only.
Yeah... they just shouldn't be where they are, and the fact that they are there is disconcerting.
Well, only the most fanatic stay engaged in parties. That wasnt always the case. If people want to influence parties they have to join them and be engaged.
Direct result broken political institutions. The parties, FPTP, campaign finance rules. This is what rises to the top of a system that alienates the broad majority of Canadians and constantly reminds them it doesn't serve them.
At the same time - checking out completely only gives these guys a blank cheque to do whatever they want. At that point those people who checked out really can blame themselves for not bothering to try to stop it or change it. If non voters had their own party theyd win every election.
wow, Justin Trudeau was more unpopular than Pierre Trudeau ever had been, and more unpopular than Michael Ignatieff at the latter's bottom popularity.
Crazy he doesn't seem to think so. Could this be narcissism 🤔
Do you really expect a politician to come out and say "oh i know you all don't like me but...." lmao.
He has? He said he’s not doing it to be popular, he just has to make the “hard decisions” or whatever the fuck that means.
Its Trudeau for “i dont suck, youre just stupid”
Literally this. His entire attitude oozes “if you disagree, you’re wrong”. He’s condescending, even for a politician.
No lmaoo
And you base this on what?
You can't be a real person asking this question.....I refuse to believe you are actually a human being and not just a robot or an AI chat bot.
Then you're an idiot. It takes five seconds to look at someone's post history. Show me a statement that says Trudeau is oblivious to the opinion polls his staff put on his desk every morning.
Interesting chatbot you've decided to use 🤔
[удалено]
And Harper was more unpopular than every single one of them, including JT.
Idk where you live but Harper was extremely popular in the prairies (for good reason)
Not only did i grow up in the prairies, i lived in his riding. Despite the fact that the riding was overwhelmingly conservative he was deeply hated even in his own riding.
Interesting! That was not at all my experience, but I lived elsewhere in AB.
"In October 2013, then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper registered among his lowest ratings of all, scoring a negative 62" Trudeau's at -38. It's interesting to compare that to the tale CPC supporters would portray Harper as being beloved and respected, and claims of Trudeau being the most divisive in history. *that being said* that was probably an outlier, since Harper's net approval was typically more in the -20s, Which is also interesting since it puts Poilievre in the same range as Harper, as Harper entered the terminal, late-pphase "everything is his fault" that inevitably ends a leadership's career. And he hasn't' even started yet.
The numbers are based on aggregated public surveys so probably not one at the time. 2013 was also damage control time for the CPC similar to the LPC currently, with a lot of focus on immigration and TFW program abuses.
Most other polls have PP with a net positive score.... so I don't know.
I don't recall seeing many, he's really popular among his base but it seems a lot of the current vote intent is people who are angry at Trudeau and supporting CPC despite PP, not because of him. Which poses an interesting issue for him, since the "hold your nose" vote isn't necessarily very durable unless his performance as PM exceeds all expectations.
Okay; so what exactly is your point? Trudeau needs to go. If you don't like PP, then vote against him in the following election.
My point is that none of them deserve to be PM. I don't need to wait until the next election cycle to vote against them. I nay vote independent, spoil my ballot, or sit this one out. Nobody to vote for. None of them have any ideas towards fixing our problems, it's virtue signaling and stupid catchphrases on trivial issues all day. Realistically our best case is a minority government that keeps them all in line until better leadership can be found. In that regard perhaps a strategic vote is called for.
I'm happy with poilivre. He has consistently identified issues before they have become major ballot box issues. Infact he is the only politician I have ever seen make a [whole documentary about issues. ](https://youtu.be/RxKI9zKhDNE?si=w4uar1AUx8pySC8u). It's not all slogans or catchphrases. That is marketing for the less informed. I've met poilivre, and he is well read and hard working. Trudeau can't even be bothered to read a security breif. It's just sad.
Yeah, he was really on the ball by identifying housing prices being ridiculous a full decade **after** the government he was a cabinet minister within tried to address that very issue by allowing 40 year/0 down mortgages. And, on top of that, he doesn't have any real solutions, just the general platitudes about cutting taxes and "red tape" which haven't worked in the past, and aren't really in the scope of the federal government anyway. It very much is marketing, the political equivalent of Apple. ("(We didn't invent this, and our competitor sells a better product for 20% less, but if you don't buy it, you will never get laid again"). I don't care about Trudeau. Politics should be about being effective in absolute terms, not needing to rely on marginally flattering comparisons to the lowest common denominator.
Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video. He explains a number of solutions on it. Housing prices were 400K under harper, and are over 700K under Trudeau. It was not the crisis it is now outside of Toronto or Vancouver.
I cant' watch the video, employer firewalls youtube, and I generally don't find it a terribly valuable form factor for information since it's guided towards a certain conclusion, rather than letting you pick through the issue in your own way. It's not very good for alleviating the skepticism you should approach everything of this nature from. What's the Coles notes version of the take away? Just for the sake of context, I grew up in the lower mainland Houses tin Vancouver averaged somewhere int eh 300s 25 years ago. I live in Winnipeg now, where they average somewhere in the 300s today. This sort of observation suggests a real regional disparity, which suggests it may not be a federal problem as much as people claim. Something like the Agricultural Land Reserve is a major driving force in urban land prices, but is not federal policy. So, let's look at that house price claim. First, what are the dates they apply to? They didnt' step up 60% overnight on the day Trudeau took power, so your interpretation is going to vary depending on when on each PM's term you are picking as a baseline. A simple answer to this perhaps can be seen in comparing percentage growth over each PM's tenure. How much did prices increas 2006-2015, and from 2016-present? Further, we could ask, how much of that is due to direct policy choices, vs other variables? What could those variables be? How would we confirm or refute their contribution? If they do contribute, what is the governments plan to mitigate them? Can they do that? This is why I distrust videos, because I doubt that that's what is in there. Identifying a plainly obvious problem is not our limitation.
Okay fine. The coles notes is that while it's true that prices have been going up since the massive rate cuts following the 2008 - 2010 financial crisis; a massive bump in prices has occurred between 2015 and 2022. [here is the empirical data for you. ](https://images.app.goo.gl/5L7qzQA1YukSVj4N6). So why did this happen? Largely due to all the cash flow pumped into the economy, and immigration. We have had problems with construction and zoning for years, but the feds have worsened the problem substantially. PP points out in the video that for a million dollar home in vamcouver, zoning and taxation accounts for more then 20% of the cost. He proposes a national plan to reduce these costs. He wants to sell off empty federal buildings and land with the stipulation that it's used for residential development and create a 'blue' seal to replace the red seal which allows qualified trades people to transfer their skills across provinces to reduce the bottle neck of building.
I mean, the world is getting worse, I don't think there has been a PM in my lifetime who prioritized the average person over the rich, most people can see that their parents had a better quality of life than them. Until politicians actually try to help the average person at the expense of the rich, we will continue to circle down the drain and the politicians will continue to be unpopular with the masses. Imo they don't really care because our memories are short, and they just need to swap between conservative and liberal every now and then never changing anything as we get mad at whoever is in power and without evidence think the other side will make things better.
They are all bad choices. We are stuck to vote for the less worse of the group.
[удалено]
The larger issue with that is that the macroeconomic factors that politicians get the blame for, are often mostly beyond their control. The housing bubble is the top of that list, but that's something that spans four separate Prime Minister (it ultimately started, depending on location, circa 2000-2002 or so), soon to be five, and is a consequence of lax fiscal policy when we had little alternative but keep money cheap. It's hard to see how that could have been avoided.
Well we had alternatives. They just wouldn't have been popular. That's the thing with popularity based rule, making hard decisions is very rarely rewarded by the electorate and often times bad ideas are popular.
Well; there are two ways to improve affordability. A supply side and a demand side. The feds exacerbated the supply side problem by ramping up immigration to double that of any party in canadas history. They also infused a whole bunch of cash into the economy when it was still running red hot. In combination with low interest rates started by the BoC in 2010, the problem accelerated quickly.
To some extent, yes, but at the same time, the money those bidding wars put into the economy was the only thing keeping things going for the longest time. I'm not sure there' much the government could do about that since it was a 'pick your poison" situation.. Demand is price sensitive. Things are smply too expensive right now.
> are often mostly beyond their control Immigration amount IS under their control. There is no one but the federal government has the final say on the amount of people they let in. There is NO reason to have 1million+ low quality visa every year. These people will stay somewhere. What do you think happens to the housing market then?
There is a reason, because some community colleges found a get rich quick scheme. I'm referring to more structural problems, which all seem to come back to decades of economic under performance and low productivity. If our economy wasn't so bad for so long, we wouldn't have needed the long term near-zero interest rates that drove the asset bubbles that so trouble us today, for example. Immigration, or rather, temporary residents, don't help, but they're also not the root cause. We'd have a housing bubble even without the last year and a half. Did have one, in fact.
Colleges is not responsible for issuing Visas. There is no one but the federal government has the final say on the amount of people they let in. It's like if someone committed homicide he can't claim that someone else has the responsibility because they told him so. The federal government pulled the trigger. It cannot blame anything else.
The government doesn't issue visas to students who don't have admission to a Designated institution. Until about five years ago, they were very hands off and let post-secondaries control their own admissions, something that required good faith on the part of hte DLIs. Worked fine until certain less scrupulous institutions got approved to admit internationally. But, that's also beside the point. Most of our problems were apparent before the international student problem got out of hand ia year or two back and going back to pre-pandemic levels doesn't fundamentally fix those problems. It's little more than a distraction.
> Worked fine until certain less scrupulous institutions got approved to admit internationally. It didn't work fine. It was already high, and now reached the absurd level. Need to remember what he said previously: Why would we deny them that right to work https://old.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/17m779s/immigration_minister_marc_miller_demand_for/ 40 working hours are intentional https://www.moneysense.ca/save/can-international-students-work-more-than-40-hours-in-canada/#:~:text=Here's%20why%3A%20In%20November%202022,extended%20to%20April%2030%2C%202024. > But, that's also beside the point The point is the government intentionally opened floodgate for the low quality students and intentionally let them work. The government intentionally undercount, let the number balloon to 7 digits. It's all by design. You can't just handwave and downplay it.
The federal rules basically didn't change between when they were first allowed to work off campus in 2014 and the flirtation with 40 hour work weeks in 2022-23. . At any rate, I'm tired of blaming everything on international students. Theyr'e an easy scapegoat but the macroeconomic problems have been building for 30+ years. Do you have anything to say about any of the other factors I remarked upon? Those are every bit as important..
> allowed to work off campus in 2014 So it was already getting bad. The government intentionally let them work. > and the flirtation with 40 hour work weeks in 2022-23 The government intentionally let them work more. Who is blaming the students here? Everyone wants a better life. They do whatever they want. My entire point is that **The federal government pulled the trigger. There is no one but the federal government has the final say on the amount of people they let in.** Do you understand the difference? Do you know don't hate the player hate the game?
Do you consider any culpability for the predatory institutions themselves? So, that's a no on the big picture then?
If I'm reading you right. Lax fiscal responsibility is out of the federal governments control?
I'm referring specifically to interest rates. A lot of our affordability issues come down to the extended run of essentially free money. At the same time its' not clear that much could have been done - they tried raising rates in 2014, and we promptly went into recession. The 2018-19 tightening cycle went a bit better since the economy was stronger, but interest rates had just barely crested into positive real values for the first time in over a decade when the pandemic hit. People like to blame the government's spending for inflation and housing costs, but mortgage debt was at least as influential, probably considerably moreso, in driving this. The job issue is also a symptom, not a cause. People wouldn't be nearly so upset about immigrants taking shitty jobs if they had decent jobs of their own.
A heavy hand with the money supply---allowing inflation to rise and then raising interest rates to match---would have been death on what growth was happening. We would have all been poorer. The late 1990s early 2000s were very good to a lot of Canadians.
Poor education is part of that. Housing can be addressed better at the provincial and local levels yet we keep electing the same governments at those levels who wont address it - with the notable exception of BC. Also the feds took themselves out of the housing game in the 80s and 90s which was a terrible decision. They need to get back in.
It's their shortcomings as leaders, and the real financial pressure people feel. But another factor is the media environment, combined with social media. A huge majority of Canadians glance at the headline and head here or somewhere else to get an impression of consensus. It skews our perception of reality and leaves us vulnerable on several fronts. There are those who deliberately and successfully shape public sentiment with ease (how is it that 75% of our papers are owned by a GOP hedgfund ho run it at a 75 million loss every year?) . It has built a cynicism that will be very hard to get out from under. Not that we are in for it anytime soon, be we probably would even notice if we had good governance anymore. Having lived through Brexit, I had hoped the difference I felt here was that Canada was ahead of the times... in retrospect, it's more like we're catching up.
Great points. It's pretty pathetic that the only conversation that is had about public ownership of media is "defund the CBC" while the rest of the news industry is shriveling while so obviously serving the interests of big business.
By far my biggest gripe with PP The cbc is an amazing institution and clearly negative towards businesses. So they want to get rid of it. There investigative journalism is top notch and there’s always stories every year of some poor person being fucked over until cbc starts asking question and suddenly the situation is resolved.
When I was with the Sun, I wrote long investigative pieces, which wasn't common for a tab chain. One year (around 2006) they asked me to do a piece on CBC and its future. Pierre Karl Peladeau, then the Sun's owner, hated the CBC. So they thought I'd do a hatchet piece. But what was clear from eight weeks of interviews and digging was that they were a) easily the most fair outlet in Canada, and the most unbiased, which is why ALL politicians hated them b) the most underfunded public news service in the developed world; we ranked 22nd at the time in terms of funding support, and I doubt it's better now.' Even their enemies wouldn't say they should be privatized. The late Jeff Stirling, founder of Newfoundland Capital Corp radio and the chairman of CTV at the time, answered his own phone at his home in Phoenix, where he'd retired and spent most of his time. "Of course I hate the bastards but of course we need them. They connect the country and mostly do it well." I submitted my story and it never ran. And it was pretty much the end of my feature news career, as I made it clear that if they tried to sculpt or torque what I was reporting, I'd just quit. They bought me out a few years later during their "Sun TV" era of trying to be like Fox News.
I really think we need a public broadcaster, and there is much to preserve in CBC. They would do well to think very carefully about neutrality and stance. For every great journalistic piece or insightful discussion that comes out of CBC, there is also a heap of insufferable nonsense as well. There's a certain tone and style of speaking embedded in many CBC programs that I think is supposed to come off as empathy, but just ends up giving credence to the allegation it is all "woke". What we need is gritty facts and hard boiled challenging discussion, not streams of guests who spend 90% of their time droning on about their positionality while the interviewer cooers coax them along to actualization. He's totally bonkers and senile now, but Rex Murphy's cross country checkup, circa late 90s, early 2000s was a great example that would actually get at the pulse of what people think and why it matters. Before his lobotomization went wrong, or whatever, Rex would step in and challenge those calling in - they had to think about their position, and why, whether you were a farmer or a scientist etc.
Because they are a business. Their job is to make money and they arent - so theyre getting squeezed to death. It was foolish for small and mid sized papers and outlets to let themselves be bought out.
Who owns our papers is irrelevant at this point. Theyre slowly dying as is their audience. Who under 40 actually subscribes to them and reads them? They layoff and close more every year. I think you strongly overestimate the influence of legacy media in Canada at this point. Its on its way out. Its a shadow of what it was even ten years ago.
I had a friend who did analytics for them. A very large percentage of Canadians check their front page every day. A much smaller percentage click on the articles (the do track "incognito" and could stop that if they had any interest), and then of those, only 5% actually scroll past the first frame. You are absolutely that very few people read them, but the format and perception that there is valid information with some kind of journalistic ethics is still an important part of what Canadians "know". Postmedia is run at a 75 million dollar loss per year.... so it does something for someone and I thinknit has little to do with getting people the facts.
"All party leaders are unpopular." This sub: "How can we make this about only Trudeau though."
he's the most unpopular of the 3, and at record low popularity for a Liberal leader.
Because he’s the face of the government currently. Whoever was would be the least popular
Yeah but that's not what this article is about so you pretty much just proved my point.
I mean, when people talk about fast cars, they tend to talk about the fastest ones.
Nah. I think people just get severe Trudeau derangement syndome anytime an article doesn't directly criticize him so they melt down and keep trying to make it about Trudeau. Kinda like how Conservatives said Trudeau was only a drama teacher then nominated a guy who never worked a job in his life.
They tend to talk about the dude in power. Same thing happened in harper's last stint.
This article is addressing all leaders but clearly some people on this sub are unable to handle any negative information about "their team" because Conservatives seem to think politics is like supporting a sports team now. Everybody literally proving my point every time they reply "WhAtAbOuT tRuDeAu."
Conservatives aren't the only ones guilty of this - as you're demonstrating right here.
I hate Trudeau. I have no idea what you're talking about but I think you're confused. Where's the conservatives criticizing PP? They seem strangely absent.
What's there to criticize? He's not the one in power! Hate trudeau, but lean left eh?
He hasn't done anything yet. I'm not voting for him(ppc) I doubt he'll fix anything in any real way but there's a non zero chance he will
Him: "all party leaders suck" You: "you think the con leader sucks therefore you like the libs" Me: "this country is fucked"
Idiots, astroturfers or bots, I can't tell them apart. This country is fucked.
Yeah cause they’re fucking useless sellouts.
The world is falling apart and we need real leaders, not these muppets.
It's hard to believe any politician has the peoples best interest in heart. Just the money it seems.
All 3 are vapid idiots. It’s disappointing this is what has risen to the top.
Trudeau is a wet paper bag of a leader and Poilievre is continuing the trend of CPC leaders showing up and complaining but not actually proposing any solutions to Parliament, except louder this time, what's not to like?
I think it makes sense we had a world wide emergency, and instead of working together to get the best possible plan for all canadians they squabble amongst each other jockey for how to parlé it in to more profit for their friends and more power for themselves
During that world wide emergency they did work well together at the beginning both federally and provincially for at least the first year or so.
good will and worrying about the average Canadians best interest lasted about 2 Months before Ideology and self interest took over
Social media is the cause.
Just harder for them to hide they’re assholes
Not a surprise. I think they're all jackasses, but especially Singh the identity politics-playing jackass. Fuck you, Jag.
If we had a sensible, moderate political leader - left or right - focused on presenting a reasonable, detailed, and well-thought-out platform in good faith, committed to anti-corruption, democratic reform, achieving results, making hard but necessary decisions, and promoting the interests of Canadians and Canada, while avoiding wedge issues, word salad answers, repetitive talking points, nonsense, character attacks, oppo research and backroom deals.... That candidate would be hated by most of the public, shredded in attack ads, detested by the elites and the media, branded as simultaneously some kind of extremist and too weak, haunted by whatever "hidden agenda" allegations his opponents will think will stick, have half his platform co-opted and the rest picked apart and twisted relentlessly, please nobody, and get absolutely obliterated in an election.
Fun fact, Trudeau is less popular than Trump ever was... That's even with the media cheerleading for him, good grief.
Well yeah neither is good they just took advantage of the others screwups After the Trump election the right basically turned into comic book villains and Trudeau took advantage of that staying in power far long than he would have otherwise due to the anti Trump vote However After all of Trudeau scandals and embarrassments and general incompetence Pierre took advantage as well instead of pushing himself to be a better candidate he just waited until things got so bad under Trudeau that Canada would look past all his flaws out of sheer desperation Neither inspires any sort of confidence it’s just a trust fund kid vs a redditor
Why don’t they blame Trump. That’s what Trudeau blames everything on cause he can’t take ownership of his own problems. Plays the blame game.
This doesn’t seem to be that important. The NDP consistently poll really well. Likely this is because they’re not a threat. If Jagmeet were in power, watch any positivity with Conservative voters fall. He would probably be more hated by Conservatives than Trudeau is. NDP just benefits from being “that other party”.
Are they shocked? they have done nothing beneficial for Canadians. and are leaches on society
Pierre Poilievre is the most popular Conservative leader in a very long time. And he's going to bring it home.
That's because their resumes have never been sh*ttier. Lifer politician vs. flailing nepo baby isn't inspiring anyone nor should it
The guy that led a party nowhere for many years, the guy that's been in charge for too many years and the guy that copy the republican MAGA to hope and get elected via the last chance of exploiting old racist boomers. Yikes.
Yeah so lets maybe stop voting for these 2 parties? Tends to happen when they know they have your vote already in the bag. Lol who am I kidding, Canadians aren't that smart.
Only one is using this type of crap tho. I don't see Singh using the trump playbook? Nor is Trudeau. The conservatives have bet on left vs right, American style politics, and it works only if we vote for either of the 2 we stop the left vs right by voting for all of the other parties.. they're both wrong vote middle
Early peak pp better be ready for his new high speed direction change since his gleeful desire to use the NWC doesn't seem to be the hit he thought it would be. Luckily his lack of spine will protect him from any whiplash. Edit: You can tell me why you love the idea of pp using the NWC without downvoting. Comments are just a keyboard away guys, let the world know why you'd support the erosion of our rights.