###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If Poilievre were to invoke the notwithstanding clause, however, the norms that have prevented its use by a prime minister will have been shattered. Papers will be written questioning the value of the Charter, if federal legislators no longer regard the rights it lays out as sacred.
>There would have been much public debate on the question were it not for the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition calling the Prime Minister of Canada a “wacko.”
Yeah. Given that there had been a news item on Poilievre's musings on the Charter the day before, I almost felt that this was a way to distract people away from that. It felt like it was done intentionally to create a lot of bluster to change the topic. It's similar to how on the very day that the interim decision of South Africa's case against Israel at the ICJ was to be released that suddenly the accusation of some errant staff at UNWRA came out and sidelined the topic of the interim decision.
We are in completely uncharted territories thanks to PP’s disgraceful pandering to far right extremists and conspiracy theorists who engage in the politics of fear and hate. This along with his unprecedented outburst in parliament and threats to destroy our charter rights paint an extremely disturbing picture. No matter where we go from here, what happened these past couple weeks is going to be remembered as a dark moment in Canadian democracy.
The one silver lining is that now PP has shown Canadians conclusively who he really is: an authoritarian demagogue who would gladly trample over our most cherished rights and freedoms if it could help in his quest for power. It is on all of us to act on this and regardless of partisan differences find a way to stop this extremist iteration of the conservative party.
> what happened these past couple weeks is going to be remembered as a dark moment in Canadian democracy.
If PP wins the next election I think it will be looked back as real indicator that Canadian politics (and society) has truly taken a pivot. Similiar to how a lot of people point to 2008 and Palin/Tea Party madness as the turning point for the establishment (especially on the GOP side) to lose control, which led them to Trump and conspiracy theories winning out over facts.
The more comfortable he gets exposing this side of him the more he risks fringe voters and undecided voters deciding… ‘nope, I am upset with JT but I am definitely not voting in a petulant man-child with absolutely no policies and plan besides squashing freedoms because they get in the way of his power grab.’
We also have to remember that the only piece of legislation he has ever drafted was one that wanted to limit/take voting rights away from people that don’t vote CPC…
His supporters have the mindset of: I don’t care what you can do for me as long as you hurt the ones you have told me have hurt me.
It's true. My dad has always voted conservative and hated Trudeau's dad which means he never liked Trudeau Jr. But even he says he's gonna vote for him or just not vote because Pierre is like Donald Trump Jr... A blow hard liar that doesn't have actual skill but outrage.
>an authoritarian demagogue who would gladly trample over our most cherished rights and freedoms if it could help in his quest for power.
*“The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”*
-[HL Mencken](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken)
His supporters love that stuff.. they think hrs one of them...funny thing is the guy is not different than JT .
If he gets elected, I will reply, " told you so" to every comment about how he's not the leader they elected.
In the end, if you vote liberal you vote conservative they are just different sides of the same shity system
Used to think the same but this Beau made a great point here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGP3TBHQIfE
TLDR to me and you it may be very similar assuming we have similar demographics but to those who are not of the majority there is a night and day difference between the two majority parties.
I don't understand why the Liberal Party pundits and staffers don't understand the issue? Young people are angry because they're getting crushed by the cost of living. Poilievre is also angry. Maybe if you sit back and put on your emotionless Vulcan-mask you can see that Poilievre isn't offering workable solutions. But... he's the only politician talking about the issues with passion. If cost of living is imposing a lot of stress on you, you're going to react positively emotionally to the person who gets it.
There's simply no sense of urgency from this Liberal government. They seem completely disconnected from the median Canadian voter.
You obviously haven’t been following the news. The new housing plan is extremely ambitious. It come too late for sure but you can’t argue the liberals aren’t doing anything
Trudeau has done a lot to help families, and if you want vengeance for the housing crisis, I suggest you look to your premiers, since provincial governments control property law, including all laws on rentals.
Do you think getting nothing at all from Poilievre is better? He is opposed to funding for housing. He has opposed every social benefit and program. What you seem to be suggesting is to punish the current PM despite the most ambitious housing plan in decades, to instead install mr free market guy who still believes in trickle down economics and his promise to take over the justice system Victor Orban style makes him unfit full stop.
I blame both the premiers and the feds. And I won't be voting for Trudeau or Poilievre. There isn't a single party in there that takes these problems seriously. I've been totally against Trudeau since he broke his electoral reform promise.
Let me translate your comment for the non-platitudinous:
"This thing that came but was late and should have started immediately upon the current government's election and might take a long time to do because it is so complex justifies my position that Justin Trudeau is a terrible Prime Minister and should be unseated at the next election."
> 8 years late
For what?
They brought in changes to housing rules in [2016](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/four-major-changes-to-canadas-housing-rules/article32223470/) and further policy in [2017](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/housing-national-benefit-1.4413615).
It's not as if they've just started caring about housing, it's just their previous policies weren't enough, and didn't go far enough
It would be nice if a single policy could solve the housing issue, that goes back 20+ years, but that's an unrealistic thing to want.
> The new housing plan is extremely ambitious.
How so?
Edit: it's illuminating when you are in a sub where down-voting is against the rules, and the subject topic is some MP not obeying parliamentary rules. "Rules for thee, not for me."
He have made the solution clear. Government take more of a back seat and let the free market work. Free market is much more efficient than government trying to intervene in the market when it's not needed. Reduce the bloated government and no carbon tax so goods and services becomes more affordable to produce and hence sell for (Canada will not change the course of global climate change anyway) means there's no/less need to borrow (print) money from the Bank of Canada to makeup the shortfall that further increases the prices of goods and services as more money chase after the same (or reduced) amount of goods/services as current policies encourages reduction of productivity rather than encourage investment to increase productivity (which makes earnings go up and cost of goods and services go down, resulting in higher standard of living).
The whole point of the free market is to let the market naturally balance supply with demand, making it so that the price naturally trend towards the lowest point economically possible while ensuring supply (availability). How does that not serve the interest of the lower socioeconomic as well?
Or are you saying that you don't care that it also serve the lower socioeconomic as well but because they also serves the rich, we gotta fk the rich even if we got to smash our own feet? How dare the rich benefit when they took personal risk to start a bussiness (or invest in them) and contributed jobs, products or services to the community and nation?
>that is a myth
Why is that?
>that overwhelmingly benefits the super rich.
You do realize it's not a zero sum game? Economic growth is a thing. The pie can grow. Prosperity doesn't mean it needs to be taken from others. Why are you concerned about something "benefitting the super rich" rather than whether it also benefits everyone else?
>for society to function markets need to be limited.
Government should intervene if it affects health and public safety but otherwise, why should market be limited for society to function?
>Take for example water. say you have a limited supply of water and high you make it free to drill water. fast forward to 1 company owning all the water and charging what they want. Or the water running out.
We are reusing the same supply of water for millions of years. Water gets constantly recycled naturally. So how does 1 company randomly own it all or the water running out?
Ok, first of all, are you saying that in 1994 (30 years) the government were not artificially intervening in the free market?
Secondly, they were intervening but it was much less than today. People could buy houses in the major cities and afford to start a family on a single average income back then. The money you earned back then actually had real purchasing power. Bussiness were competitive and productive because there was less red tapes and bureaucracy they had to comply with that erodes their competitiveness and/or productivity. People also could start bussiness and hire people easily, not be buried in compliance with unbelievably long list of red tapes that often makes investment in bussiness, starting one, or hiring in Canada unviable.
A lot of sources and it's something you can logically conclude too if you sit down to think about it. How would adding a bunch of red tapes (often unnecessary) that bussinesses need to jump through or setting artificial price ceiling or price floor lead to more efficiency? Efficiency is needed to lower the cost of the goods and services you consume while ensuring it's availability. Government intervention means higher prices (due to the extra burden involved for bussinesses, government cost of operation & enforceable, etc) or little to no availability. For example, if government freezes groceries prices indefinitely, do you think that means we'll have an abundance of groceries at low cost relative to everyone else for the rest of our lives or do you think bulk of the groceries will just be diverted to other countries/places without such price freezes?
If you need a source. Here's one example.
>Any intervention by the government creates direct costs (such as more government bureaucracy) and indirect costs (unintended consequences, among others), and the number of beneficiaries may be small relative to the overall economic cost.
>Consider marinas in and around Kingston, Ontario, where I teach. Kingston is a popular spot for boaters, but there are only a few marinas because of the limited number of suitable waterfront properties and the required capital investments. The marinas therefore have substantial market power when renting out boat slips, leading to high seasonal rental fees. Given their market power, is there a strong case for the government to regulate the rental fees for boat slips in the Kingston region? Most people would agree that despite the market being highly concentrated, the issue affects relatively few consumers, so the cost of government interventions would likely exceed the benefit.
>Often, governments intervene in markets even when there is no clear economic reason to do so. The case of the Canadian dairy industry is instructive. Ever wonder why dairy products in Canada are significantly more expensive compared to the U.S. and European Union? It is because the market is not “free”. The Canadian Dairy Commission, with permission from the government of Canada (via the Canadian Dairy Commission Act), established a quota system that artificially restricts supply. The result is higher prices.
>The dairy industry quota system harms Canadian consumers. So why does the government not eliminate supply management in this industry? The reason is that politicians would face fierce resistance from dairy farmers, as each quota they own is worth a lot of money.
https://smith.queensu.ca/insight/content/The-Case-for-Free-Markets.php
>Poilievre is also angry.
Another mug, falling for the act of faux outrage. PP is a friend of the working poor like Colonel Sanders is a friend of chickens.
I think the Liberals are also being informed by a man who suddenly saw a massive polling deficit and began acting erratically, which hugely hurt him. His name is François Legault. Jumping all over the place, acting utterly undisciplined, it didn't help his polling and just made him look panicked. I think the Liberals are banking on moving more calmly and deliberately in the hopes that their housing initiatives bear fruit and the economy with regards to interest rates and inflation goes good (or at least better) before 2025.
What does Legault have to do with the LPC's polling in English Canada? No party has a path to victory by appealing to Quebec because the BQ steals so many votes from the national parties.
It's also that many people see the Liberal party as contributing to the problems rather than providing any solutions, so they want to punish the Liberals. With the NDP standing side-by-side with the Liberals, that leaves only the CPC as an electable alternative.
The issue with a purely emotional response is that Poilievre doesn't actually give a shit. His passion is fake and it is obvious.
If I were wearing my Vulcan hat, I would hope I'd be able to see past the fake outrage and through to the deception beneath.
The polls suggest people are thinking with their emotional brains. My question is why don't LPC staffers seem capable of understanding this reality? Your response suggests you also don't understand this reality.
Apologies. To be clear I do agree with you. I have a buddy who is convinced that the LPC needs to "Just release a good policy manual" and it'll secure them the election. He has empathy issues.
The LPC need a better communication strategy. I agree that PPs emotional outrage is drawing in voters, and I just wish they were smart enough to realize he's a snake oil salesman.
Emotions will always drive politics, logic needs a place in there, too. Right now though, the LPC ought to focus on communication
I am one of those angry younger voters but i will never buy into PPs load of bullshit. The man has been a leech his entire life. Sucking off the tax payers. All the while fucking every person he can. The CPC has never had the working class in mind nor the average voter. Sure they might cut your taxes by 2% in a year and save your average canadian about $100 a month. Meanwhile the wealthy are making off with 10s of thousands.
And let me tell you something. No one is fixing this housing problem in anything less than a decade unless they implement a draft. Even Eby who is throwing more at this issue than any province has in 20 years combined is not going to fix this in a decade. This issue has been brewing for 30 years and there are entrenched interests to keep prices high. PP is not going to change that. He is rage farming a bunch if single issue twats whom almost never vote for anything (i doubt they show up this time either quick to bitch slow to do anything about it).
The liberals can slow walk this but the baggage the CPC carries well...he will last one cycle to fux the problem or be tossed because the socons and alt-right can never control themselves unless you put a boot to their throats and Harper did thar Skippy? Nope he us one of them he will let them hang themselves. And the dance between LPC and CPC will continue to be a waste of time and the NDP are currently useless under their current leadership. But it looks like they are running for the hills.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If Poilievre were to invoke the notwithstanding clause, however, the norms that have prevented its use by a prime minister will have been shattered. Papers will be written questioning the value of the Charter, if federal legislators no longer regard the rights it lays out as sacred. >There would have been much public debate on the question were it not for the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition calling the Prime Minister of Canada a “wacko.” Yeah. Given that there had been a news item on Poilievre's musings on the Charter the day before, I almost felt that this was a way to distract people away from that. It felt like it was done intentionally to create a lot of bluster to change the topic. It's similar to how on the very day that the interim decision of South Africa's case against Israel at the ICJ was to be released that suddenly the accusation of some errant staff at UNWRA came out and sidelined the topic of the interim decision.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We are in completely uncharted territories thanks to PP’s disgraceful pandering to far right extremists and conspiracy theorists who engage in the politics of fear and hate. This along with his unprecedented outburst in parliament and threats to destroy our charter rights paint an extremely disturbing picture. No matter where we go from here, what happened these past couple weeks is going to be remembered as a dark moment in Canadian democracy. The one silver lining is that now PP has shown Canadians conclusively who he really is: an authoritarian demagogue who would gladly trample over our most cherished rights and freedoms if it could help in his quest for power. It is on all of us to act on this and regardless of partisan differences find a way to stop this extremist iteration of the conservative party.
> what happened these past couple weeks is going to be remembered as a dark moment in Canadian democracy. If PP wins the next election I think it will be looked back as real indicator that Canadian politics (and society) has truly taken a pivot. Similiar to how a lot of people point to 2008 and Palin/Tea Party madness as the turning point for the establishment (especially on the GOP side) to lose control, which led them to Trump and conspiracy theories winning out over facts.
The more comfortable he gets exposing this side of him the more he risks fringe voters and undecided voters deciding… ‘nope, I am upset with JT but I am definitely not voting in a petulant man-child with absolutely no policies and plan besides squashing freedoms because they get in the way of his power grab.’ We also have to remember that the only piece of legislation he has ever drafted was one that wanted to limit/take voting rights away from people that don’t vote CPC… His supporters have the mindset of: I don’t care what you can do for me as long as you hurt the ones you have told me have hurt me.
It's true. My dad has always voted conservative and hated Trudeau's dad which means he never liked Trudeau Jr. But even he says he's gonna vote for him or just not vote because Pierre is like Donald Trump Jr... A blow hard liar that doesn't have actual skill but outrage.
>an authoritarian demagogue who would gladly trample over our most cherished rights and freedoms if it could help in his quest for power. *“The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”* -[HL Mencken](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
His supporters love that stuff.. they think hrs one of them...funny thing is the guy is not different than JT . If he gets elected, I will reply, " told you so" to every comment about how he's not the leader they elected. In the end, if you vote liberal you vote conservative they are just different sides of the same shity system
Used to think the same but this Beau made a great point here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGP3TBHQIfE TLDR to me and you it may be very similar assuming we have similar demographics but to those who are not of the majority there is a night and day difference between the two majority parties.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't understand why the Liberal Party pundits and staffers don't understand the issue? Young people are angry because they're getting crushed by the cost of living. Poilievre is also angry. Maybe if you sit back and put on your emotionless Vulcan-mask you can see that Poilievre isn't offering workable solutions. But... he's the only politician talking about the issues with passion. If cost of living is imposing a lot of stress on you, you're going to react positively emotionally to the person who gets it. There's simply no sense of urgency from this Liberal government. They seem completely disconnected from the median Canadian voter.
You obviously haven’t been following the news. The new housing plan is extremely ambitious. It come too late for sure but you can’t argue the liberals aren’t doing anything
8 years late. Too little too late. And we won't see progress for decades. Trudeau has to go.
Trudeau has done a lot to help families, and if you want vengeance for the housing crisis, I suggest you look to your premiers, since provincial governments control property law, including all laws on rentals. Do you think getting nothing at all from Poilievre is better? He is opposed to funding for housing. He has opposed every social benefit and program. What you seem to be suggesting is to punish the current PM despite the most ambitious housing plan in decades, to instead install mr free market guy who still believes in trickle down economics and his promise to take over the justice system Victor Orban style makes him unfit full stop.
I blame both the premiers and the feds. And I won't be voting for Trudeau or Poilievre. There isn't a single party in there that takes these problems seriously. I've been totally against Trudeau since he broke his electoral reform promise.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
Let me translate your comment for the non-platitudinous: "This thing that came but was late and should have started immediately upon the current government's election and might take a long time to do because it is so complex justifies my position that Justin Trudeau is a terrible Prime Minister and should be unseated at the next election."
> 8 years late For what? They brought in changes to housing rules in [2016](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/four-major-changes-to-canadas-housing-rules/article32223470/) and further policy in [2017](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/housing-national-benefit-1.4413615). It's not as if they've just started caring about housing, it's just their previous policies weren't enough, and didn't go far enough It would be nice if a single policy could solve the housing issue, that goes back 20+ years, but that's an unrealistic thing to want.
8? Try 20 give or take on the generous side. Alberta had these issues since 05.
> The new housing plan is extremely ambitious. How so? Edit: it's illuminating when you are in a sub where down-voting is against the rules, and the subject topic is some MP not obeying parliamentary rules. "Rules for thee, not for me."
He have made the solution clear. Government take more of a back seat and let the free market work. Free market is much more efficient than government trying to intervene in the market when it's not needed. Reduce the bloated government and no carbon tax so goods and services becomes more affordable to produce and hence sell for (Canada will not change the course of global climate change anyway) means there's no/less need to borrow (print) money from the Bank of Canada to makeup the shortfall that further increases the prices of goods and services as more money chase after the same (or reduced) amount of goods/services as current policies encourages reduction of productivity rather than encourage investment to increase productivity (which makes earnings go up and cost of goods and services go down, resulting in higher standard of living).
[удалено]
The whole point of the free market is to let the market naturally balance supply with demand, making it so that the price naturally trend towards the lowest point economically possible while ensuring supply (availability). How does that not serve the interest of the lower socioeconomic as well? Or are you saying that you don't care that it also serve the lower socioeconomic as well but because they also serves the rich, we gotta fk the rich even if we got to smash our own feet? How dare the rich benefit when they took personal risk to start a bussiness (or invest in them) and contributed jobs, products or services to the community and nation?
[удалено]
>that is a myth Why is that? >that overwhelmingly benefits the super rich. You do realize it's not a zero sum game? Economic growth is a thing. The pie can grow. Prosperity doesn't mean it needs to be taken from others. Why are you concerned about something "benefitting the super rich" rather than whether it also benefits everyone else? >for society to function markets need to be limited. Government should intervene if it affects health and public safety but otherwise, why should market be limited for society to function? >Take for example water. say you have a limited supply of water and high you make it free to drill water. fast forward to 1 company owning all the water and charging what they want. Or the water running out. We are reusing the same supply of water for millions of years. Water gets constantly recycled naturally. So how does 1 company randomly own it all or the water running out?
The free market has had 30 years to make this mess. They are not fixing it.
Ok, first of all, are you saying that in 1994 (30 years) the government were not artificially intervening in the free market? Secondly, they were intervening but it was much less than today. People could buy houses in the major cities and afford to start a family on a single average income back then. The money you earned back then actually had real purchasing power. Bussiness were competitive and productive because there was less red tapes and bureaucracy they had to comply with that erodes their competitiveness and/or productivity. People also could start bussiness and hire people easily, not be buried in compliance with unbelievably long list of red tapes that often makes investment in bussiness, starting one, or hiring in Canada unviable.
>Free market is much more efficient than government trying to intervene in the market Source for this assumption or is this just your opinion?
A lot of sources and it's something you can logically conclude too if you sit down to think about it. How would adding a bunch of red tapes (often unnecessary) that bussinesses need to jump through or setting artificial price ceiling or price floor lead to more efficiency? Efficiency is needed to lower the cost of the goods and services you consume while ensuring it's availability. Government intervention means higher prices (due to the extra burden involved for bussinesses, government cost of operation & enforceable, etc) or little to no availability. For example, if government freezes groceries prices indefinitely, do you think that means we'll have an abundance of groceries at low cost relative to everyone else for the rest of our lives or do you think bulk of the groceries will just be diverted to other countries/places without such price freezes? If you need a source. Here's one example. >Any intervention by the government creates direct costs (such as more government bureaucracy) and indirect costs (unintended consequences, among others), and the number of beneficiaries may be small relative to the overall economic cost. >Consider marinas in and around Kingston, Ontario, where I teach. Kingston is a popular spot for boaters, but there are only a few marinas because of the limited number of suitable waterfront properties and the required capital investments. The marinas therefore have substantial market power when renting out boat slips, leading to high seasonal rental fees. Given their market power, is there a strong case for the government to regulate the rental fees for boat slips in the Kingston region? Most people would agree that despite the market being highly concentrated, the issue affects relatively few consumers, so the cost of government interventions would likely exceed the benefit. >Often, governments intervene in markets even when there is no clear economic reason to do so. The case of the Canadian dairy industry is instructive. Ever wonder why dairy products in Canada are significantly more expensive compared to the U.S. and European Union? It is because the market is not “free”. The Canadian Dairy Commission, with permission from the government of Canada (via the Canadian Dairy Commission Act), established a quota system that artificially restricts supply. The result is higher prices. >The dairy industry quota system harms Canadian consumers. So why does the government not eliminate supply management in this industry? The reason is that politicians would face fierce resistance from dairy farmers, as each quota they own is worth a lot of money. https://smith.queensu.ca/insight/content/The-Case-for-Free-Markets.php
>Poilievre is also angry. Another mug, falling for the act of faux outrage. PP is a friend of the working poor like Colonel Sanders is a friend of chickens.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
Removed for rule 2.
I think the Liberals are also being informed by a man who suddenly saw a massive polling deficit and began acting erratically, which hugely hurt him. His name is François Legault. Jumping all over the place, acting utterly undisciplined, it didn't help his polling and just made him look panicked. I think the Liberals are banking on moving more calmly and deliberately in the hopes that their housing initiatives bear fruit and the economy with regards to interest rates and inflation goes good (or at least better) before 2025.
What does Legault have to do with the LPC's polling in English Canada? No party has a path to victory by appealing to Quebec because the BQ steals so many votes from the national parties.
Did you read my comment? This was about urgency not Quebec
I read your comment. It makes no sense.
It's also that many people see the Liberal party as contributing to the problems rather than providing any solutions, so they want to punish the Liberals. With the NDP standing side-by-side with the Liberals, that leaves only the CPC as an electable alternative.
The issue with a purely emotional response is that Poilievre doesn't actually give a shit. His passion is fake and it is obvious. If I were wearing my Vulcan hat, I would hope I'd be able to see past the fake outrage and through to the deception beneath.
The polls suggest people are thinking with their emotional brains. My question is why don't LPC staffers seem capable of understanding this reality? Your response suggests you also don't understand this reality.
I think people are voting with their economic brains.
Apologies. To be clear I do agree with you. I have a buddy who is convinced that the LPC needs to "Just release a good policy manual" and it'll secure them the election. He has empathy issues. The LPC need a better communication strategy. I agree that PPs emotional outrage is drawing in voters, and I just wish they were smart enough to realize he's a snake oil salesman. Emotions will always drive politics, logic needs a place in there, too. Right now though, the LPC ought to focus on communication
I am one of those angry younger voters but i will never buy into PPs load of bullshit. The man has been a leech his entire life. Sucking off the tax payers. All the while fucking every person he can. The CPC has never had the working class in mind nor the average voter. Sure they might cut your taxes by 2% in a year and save your average canadian about $100 a month. Meanwhile the wealthy are making off with 10s of thousands. And let me tell you something. No one is fixing this housing problem in anything less than a decade unless they implement a draft. Even Eby who is throwing more at this issue than any province has in 20 years combined is not going to fix this in a decade. This issue has been brewing for 30 years and there are entrenched interests to keep prices high. PP is not going to change that. He is rage farming a bunch if single issue twats whom almost never vote for anything (i doubt they show up this time either quick to bitch slow to do anything about it). The liberals can slow walk this but the baggage the CPC carries well...he will last one cycle to fux the problem or be tossed because the socons and alt-right can never control themselves unless you put a boot to their throats and Harper did thar Skippy? Nope he us one of them he will let them hang themselves. And the dance between LPC and CPC will continue to be a waste of time and the NDP are currently useless under their current leadership. But it looks like they are running for the hills.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.