this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
319 points (97.6% liked)

CanadaPolitics

1889 readers
119 users here now

Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees

Rules:

All of Lemmy.ca's rules apply

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one 81 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Conservative Party Has No Real Solutions ~~For The Affordability Crisis~~

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Conservative Party Has ~~No~~ Real ~~Solutions For The Affordability~~ Crisis

[–] BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one 11 points 1 year ago

very big, yuge, some may say the biggest, I've heard, everyone tells me...

[–] Ryan213@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Not surprised at all. They just want us to get angry and vote the current government out.

I hope people learned from Ontario but probably not.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is what our "democracy" has morphed into .... we are no longer told who to vote for .... we are instead told who NOT to vote for.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

All to ensure that we never actually talk to the person we do vote for. "Oh, yeah, the problems are totally a result of you chosing the wrong party and not because the person you elected isn't a mind reader and was left to guess about what you wanted."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

That's just pruning the worse ideas until we have a clear last-loser.

We should not have people voting on a single issue (for the cons, it's whether corporations and rich people should continue to skate on their tax obligation) but "people vs monoliths" is kinda it.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I hope people learned from Ontario but probably not.

Learned to not elect the federal Progressive Conservatives? I think they learned that back in 2002. Remember, the party gave up after that?

[–] harpuajim@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If the Canadian conservative party is anything like the American conservative party then they don't have a plan for...anything.

[–] Llamalitmus@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 year ago

That is objectively not true. They have a plan to weaken the rights of the marginalized and to enrich themselves and their cronies. C'mon now >_>

They do have a plan.

It's called "You're wrong and I will vote against it 100% of the time."

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Im sure ending wokeness ought'a do something about it.

[–] bestnerd@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Taking the US approach. Nice

[–] bane_killgrind@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude was being sarcastic. He's pointing out the rest of the shit they do is just a smokescreen for not having a platform.

[–] bestnerd@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I know I was too. US GOP approach is just as garbage

[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

"The Conservative Party has no real solutions for the affordability crisis"

... sure maybe, but do the Liberals? They've had a long time to fix things. Maybe it's time we start electing someone other than the two parties that brought us here.

That's crazy talk. The Two Parties Plus False Hope system has served Canada well for generations.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bababooey@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

They have a “solution” and it’s massive breaks for development companies funded by all us losers who didn’t plan ahead by owning one.

[–] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What happened to their policy of throwing cash at billionaires and hoping?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes they do: be born rich next time.

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And something something bootstraps, something something avocado toast.

[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I fucking love that bootstrap saying. Like if you take even 3 seconds to think about it, it's obvious that pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is physically impossible.

But they'll happily keep parrot it nonetheless.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

That's the point. It's started out as satire, but someone didn't get the joke.

It's like how the Republicans thought that "Born in the USA" or (more recently) Twisted Sister's "We're not gonna take it!" are good right-wing anthems.

[–] Navarian@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fact that this post title could fit so perfectly into UK politics also probably speaks volumes.

So much so that upon first glance I just assumed this was in the UK politics community.

[–] tehfishman@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The states, too. Clicked the link and saw the Maple leaf, was depressed at how we may have exported our brand of idiocy to Canada.

[–] landlord_destroyer1990@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Newsflash: none of our political parties have any solutions to the crises of capitalism.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

People keep saying this but it rings hollow to me. There are plenty of ways to attack the CPC, but this meme is not one of them.

Poilievre has specific plans on how to force cities to get more housing built. Now, obviously, if you don't believe in market solutions this sounds dumb, but most people with even the most basic, minimal centrist respect for economics will believe that more housing will help with prices.

So if you keep saying "he has no plan", what those voters hear is "leftist media is lying about Poilievre".

The LPC could very easily disarm him on this one issue: steal his plan and implement it. Bring out the stick. Start threatening cities that do not greenlight enough housing with cuts to their gas-tax funds. Because while Poilievre's policy is generally horrifying on a lot of fronts (LGBTQ issues, environment, poverty) his plan on this issue is better than anything anybody else has offered (to be fair, the bar is very low).

Progressive YIMBY activists and affordable-housing builders have been saying for decades: slow-walking approvals and restrictive zoning are driving up the costs of urban housing. Thid is a spot where PP is on the same side of the issue as Alexandria freaking Ocasio Cortez!

Yes, there are many publicly-funded ways we should also be fighting the housing crisis, things that PP is not going to do. But on this one specific issue: PP is talking sense, you look stupid to swing voters when you say he isn't, and you can disarm him by just stealing the idea wholesale. It works against the NDP every time, just do it here to the Conservatives.

edit: I just took another look and realized that TFA was written by Nora Loreto. Now it all adds up. The woman is a troll. People just get confused because this style of political trolling is almost exclusively conservative chuds, so seeing this kind of over-the-top hot-take nonsense is unfamiliar when it comes from this side of the aisle.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

Yes, there are many publicly-funded ways we should also be fighting

Correct.

But we're going to disagree on whether the government should - and whether that government would - help regular people. Trending shows his party does not in any case.

So while there are emany ways the gov could and maybe should address housing as well as the environment, science and the social contract, I don't expect his bunch will suddenly start caring about any of it when that's not how they vote and it's not how theyre funded.

PP's biggest donor is a massive property developer, right?

Nice hair though.

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

After seeing this I completely agree with you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvFFGoAVeDY

They should just steal like you said

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Well, in the case of "reward cities for fixing their processes" actually that's literally the Housing Generator Fund, which Hussen touted so much as the thing that would fix housing that he completely destroyed its utility as something they could celebrate. The entire media circuit started rolling their eyes at "housing generator fund". Beyond policy problems, the man had buffoonish political instincts.

But one thing that Poilievre's vicious political style works with here is that he wants sticks, not just carrots.

Municipal governments deserve that stick.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I haven't heard of these plans to force municipalities to build housing, but am curious how that is supposed to work.

Municipalities don't have their own construction crews, housing is built by private contractors and land developers.

Are municipalities supposed to buy up land and hire contractors to build housing themselves? Then sell it once completed? Or rent it out for little to no profit?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

That's because real solutions would destroy the value of all current homes. Given that most people are still homeowners, that's not a winning political strategy.

[–] gaiussabinus@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The crash is inevitable. This is going to be a game of political hot potato.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think a crash is inevitable. It could just plateau forever as long as our population doesn't decline.

I think we'll eventually see political reforms to reign in ownership profits, but not until we have a lot lower ownership percentage. Multiple decades at the very least, possibly half a century.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

The same party hoping for the super soft 23-year landing also wants to curtail the immigration that will prevent the imminent collapse of the economy.

But nice thinking.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Rendering that home you bought back down to even double the inflation-adjusted price - so no loss at all - would be even more than we need, but thank you for suggesting we reduce it even more out of the goodness of your heart.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I bought my current home three years ago, it's got a hell of a lot more of a loss to me than that.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You'll still have a home, and presumably still be able to afford the payments. Fuck the loss, and let other people get a chance to actually have a place to live.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Yup, fuck me for working my young ass off to get a place when they're so expensive, and continue to fuck me for another 20 years to pay for the $700,000 remaining on my mortgage because I wanted to have space for my kids.

At that point I'd be better off abandoning Canada to get rid of the debt load.

That screws the people who benefitted least, and barely touches the people who benefitted most.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Headline is about 4 words too long

load more comments
view more: next ›