[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Why do you give PP a pass on his support of the trucker convoy.

I pour my heart out about carbon taxes and you just ignore it.

But the answer is "because of Max Bernier".

There is a segment of the population that buys into the anti-vax, pro-trucker-convoy sentiment.  And I want those people voting for the Conservatives, not the PPC.  If Polievre tells those people to fuck off, that's where they're going to go.

So I'll put up with Polievre saying nice things about the trucker convoy.

I think it's a miscalculation.

There isn't enough of those people to make a difference. By adopting PP's discourse, we're normalizing this kind of behavior for the future, giving it legitimacy in Canadian politics, the same way Trump did with his crowd.  It will only escalate.

[Grey Fox]

Should I? He won a price in a pro bono category so he knows a thing or 2 about that. He's also expressed opinions that almost everything new is an assault on our cultural distinction.

He is a politician from the Parti Québécois, trying to regain his electorate that migrated to the CAQ because they weren't nationalist enough.  He's got to try something.

Anyhow.  He's still a kid, he'll learn proper manners growing up. 

 

[crazy canuck]

Why do you give PP a pass on his support of the trucker convoy.

I pour my heart out about carbon taxes and you just ignore it.

But the answer is "because of Max Bernier".

There is a segment of the population that buys into the anti-vax, pro-trucker-convoy sentiment.  And I want those people voting for the Conservatives, not the PPC.  If Polievre tells those people to fuck off, that's where they're going to go.

So I'll put up with Polievre saying nice things about the trucker convoy.

I understand your position regarding carbon pricing.  But you were adamant you would not give Trudeau a pass on other things.  Fair enough. I agree Trudeau is a disaster.  But the question then becomes why are you giving PP a pass on his shortcomings.

If, as it appears, your answer is that it is ok for PP to be a populist extremist because of Mad Max, then why not give Trudeau a pass for not wanting to lose votes to the NDP?

It seems to me that neither position is tenable, we should be demanding much more from our politicians.

[Sheilbh]

But wasn't this all started by the Conservatives moving ahead in the polls and the Liberals falling back?

That sounds like there's enough Liberal voters who don't view himm as a populist extremist to start swinging - perhaps because, while you might not like his line of "common sense", from everything I've seen (admittedly centre-right types here are huge fans) he's focusing on real issues like housing. Which is surely exactly what you'd want him to do?

[Jacob]

He's focusing on real issues, like housing, which is good. He's not offering anything substantial, which is less ideal... but we've agreed that it makes sense.

It'd be pretty good if the Liberals took some action on housing between now and the next election.

[Grey Fox]

Like give money to provincial governments?

[crazy canuck]

He's focusing on real issues, like housing, which is good. He's not offering anything substantial, which is less ideal... but we've agreed that it makes sense.

It'd be pretty good if the Liberals took some action on housing between now and the next election.

Also, I think housing is actually the only "real" issue he has addressed. The rest of his rhetoric is just that everything is broken.

That is enough to get a spike in the polls a couple of years before an election.

Also Shielbh, i'm not sure what you mean by saying this all started because of the poll results.. This discussion started because last weekend was the policy convention for the conservatives. Many were looking to see if they would actually have policies that might appeal. What we got was the nonsense that we've been discussing in the thread recently.

[crazy canuck]

And now Trudeau says housing is a solvable problem if we all work together.

No explanation why this solvable problem was not solved earlier.


But don't worry we just need to work together.

 

All we need need now is for Singh to say that working together common sense solutions can be found.

[Grey Fox]

RoC, please, next time don't beg us to stay.

[viper37]

Like give money to provincial governments?

That would be un-Canadian.

[crazy canuck]

CMHC released a report saying we need 3.45 million housing units in the next 7 years.

Here is an opinion using historical construction data showing building starts have decreased over the last 70 or so years.  Coming to the obvious conclusion that we have a construction crisis not an immigration crisis.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/6K7GR3XFTJEHHFOBJXQM6KH2TM/

We are going to need more than common sense and joining hands.

[Josephus]

CMHC released a report saying we need 3.45 million housing units in the next 7 years.

Here is an opinion using historical construction data showing building starts have decreased over the last 70 or so years.  Coming to the obvious conclusion that we have a construction crisis not an immigration crisis.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/6K7GR3XFTJEHHFOBJXQM6KH2TM/

We are going to need more than common sense and joining hands.

It's easier to pick on immigration. Always good for populist parties.

[Barrister]

CMHC released a report saying we need 3.45 million housing units in the next 7 years.

Here is an opinion using historical construction data showing building starts have decreased over the last 70 or so years.  Coming to the obvious conclusion that we have a construction crisis not an immigration crisis.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/6K7GR3XFTJEHHFOBJXQM6KH2TM/

We are going to need more than common sense and joining hands.

It's easier to pick on immigration. Always good for populist parties.

The article points out that we have 2% population growth, the large majority of which is from immigration.

It also points out from 1946-1982 that was the average population growth rate.  What it neglects to point out is that the large majority of that growth came from births within Canada (it was, after all, the Baby Boom).

For all of my time in politics, any attempt to discuss the level of immigration results responses something like Josephus - it's just those right wing populists picking on immigration.  That is, if they're not flat out saying it's racist to be against any change in immigration (which is not what Josephus said).

We definitely need to be building more homes of all sorts.  But I do hope the issue of housing does allow for an honest discussion of how many immigrants Canada should take in without immediately going to the race card.

[HVC]

Catch 22 because Canadians need those immigrants to build those houses *portugueseflag*


We should also really be cracking down on airBB and the like.  In theory jacked up interest rates should bring houses into the market, but people just raise rents. Going up like 100 bucks a month in Toronto.

[crazy canuck]

CMHC released a report saying we need 3.45 million housing units in the next 7 years.

Here is an opinion using historical construction data showing building starts have decreased over the last 70 or so years.  Coming to the obvious conclusion that we have a construction crisis not an immigration crisis.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/6K7GR3XFTJEHHFOBJXQM6KH2TM/

We are going to need more than common sense and joining hands.

It's easier to pick on immigration. Always good for populist parties.

The article points out that we have 2% population growth, the large majority of which is from immigration.

It also points out from 1946-1982 that was the average population growth rate.  What it neglects to point out is that the large majority of that growth came from births within Canada (it was, after all, the Baby Boom).

For all of my time in politics, any attempt to discuss the level of immigration results responses something like Josephus - it's just those right wing populists picking on immigration.  That is, if they're not flat out saying it's racist to be against any change in immigration (which is not what Josephus said).

We definitely need to be building more homes of all sorts.  But I do hope the issue of housing does allow for an honest discussion of how many immigrants Canada should take in without immediately going to the race card.

The piece did not neglect to make that point.  You have mischaracterized the piece.  The point of making the 2% comparison is that it is an historic rate of population growth.  The thing that has changed is the number of housing starts both in absolute terms (which is astounding) and of course also in relative terms to the total population we now have. 

If you want an honest discussion then at least make arguments related to the points the piece actually made.