Canadian Politics Thread

[Bob Long]

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

I’m in agreement with both of you. But purchasing stuff is different depending on where we live. A house in town here is way more to buy than when we bought our first back in ‘76. Earning is a lot higher too, of course, but a 50,000 dollar home in ‘76 is millions now and (imo) wages don’t cover that cost increase. 
Buying other stuff, like food, is more now but in relative terms it’s not much different than years ago. I think a really big difference is where we spend. We used to mostly buy groceries to cook at home. Lots of fixin’s, so to speak. It seems people buy ready made meals or eat out. That would certainly be more costly than cooking at home. Then there’s the whole growing and raising one’s own food too. More done years ago. Hanging clothes to dry is (seemingly) a thing not seen much now. 
I think we just lived different years ago than the big city ways of today. 
 

 

food is certainly relatively more expensive, but you're correct if you do most of your own cooking its still OK.

 

Its housing, its way out of hand. Boomers in particular couldn't say no to the equity party of the 2000+ era. They saw those huge home equity numbers and their eyes got big, and didn't care at all about the consequences.

 

And it happened all over north america. I see people still trying to blame the BC liberals, e.g., but absolutely no one did anything, anywhere, about putting a lid on those fat, fat equity numbers. 

 

Boomers really cashed in, made an extra million or more for retirement if you lived on a good street on the west side. 

 

[Bob Long]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

At this point, I'd argue that as much as I dislike Singh, and certain parts of their platform, a minority NDP government could very well be the best thing for Canada. And ideally get the other two parties to smarten the fuck up with their nonsense and get them (the Conservatives especially) back closer to centre.

 

Singh with any more power would be a disaster. You really want team NDP negotiating the next free trade deal with the US?

Edited April 2 by Bob Long

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

Singh with any more power would be a disaster. You really want team NDP negotiating the next free trade deal with the US?

As opposed to the Conservatives? Fuck yes.

[Bob Long]

Just now, aGENT said:

As opposed to the Conservatives? Fuck yes.

 

wow. You'd see Canada get screwed on trade just to make a political point? 

[RupertKBD]

8 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

wow. You'd see Canada get screwed on trade just to make a political point? 

 

Not that I'm taking a position on Jag becoming PM, why do you believe that it's a given we'd be "screwed" with him negotiating? IIRC, Stephen Harper was advising Freeland to cave to the Americans in NAFTA 2.0

 

That doesn't inspire much confidence in the Cons' negotiating prowess for me....

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Not that I'm taking a position on Jag becoming PM, why do you believe that it's a given we'd be "screwed" with him negotiating? IIRC, Stephen Harper was advising Freeland to cave to the Americans in NAFTA 2.0

 

That doesn't inspire much confidence in the Cons' negotiating prowess for me....

 

because of their previous stand on free trade and taxation issues, which were completely wrong? 

 

What gives you any confidence there's a skill set within the NDP to handle something like nafta 3.0? 

[RupertKBD]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

because of their previous stand on free trade and taxation issues, which were completely wrong? 

 

What gives you any confidence there's a skill set within the NDP to handle something like nafta 3.0? 

 

Wrong how? Can you elaborate?

 

As to your second sentence, I have no idea who Singh would appoint to lead negotiations, so it's hard to comment. I was just wondering what inspires your confidence in the Conservatives, given their previous stance....

[Bob Long]

3 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Wrong how? Can you elaborate?

 

As to your second sentence, I have no idea who Singh would appoint to lead negotiations, so it's hard to comment. I was just wondering what inspires your confidence in the Conservatives, given their previous stance....

 

I guess you need a refresher on how the NDP views trade: https://www.broadbentinstitute.ca/tags/free_trade

 

Yea, that would be a disaster for our economy to have these folks in the negotiating seat. 

 

Where were the PCs wrong on trade and taxes? 

[aGENT]

50 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

wow. You'd see Canada get screwed on trade just to make a political point? 

I'd see us get less screwed than the Conservatives would screw us. Nothing to do with a political point.

Edited April 2 by aGENT

[Bob Long]

Just now, aGENT said:

I'd see us get less screwed than the Conservatives would screw us. 

 

the NDP has no fundamental understanding of trade, if their own institutes are to be believed. See above.

 

Do I think Skippy would cave in on some issues? 100% he would. Would the CPC be inept? no not likely, given the base of experience the party still has on trade. 

 

[Elias Pettersson]

54 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

At this point, I'd argue that as much as I dislike Singh, and certain parts of their platform, a minority NDP government could very well be the best thing for Canada. And ideally get the other two parties to smarten the fuck up with their nonsense and get them (the Conservatives especially) back closer to centre.

I agree. Trudeau has pushed the Liberals too far to the left.  And Poilievre has pushed the Conservatives too far to the right. Unfortunately the NDP isn’t a centrist party, so that’s where the problem lies. 
 

Ultimately the NDP needs to get new leadership to push one of the other parties to the centre. None of Trudeau, Poilievre or Singh are fit to run the country. It’s probably one of the worst times in Canadian history where there really isn’t anyone capable of being the Prime Minister. 

[aGENT]

30 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

the NDP has no fundamental understanding of trade, if their own institutes are to be believed. See above.

 

Do I think Skippy would cave in on some issues? 100% he would. Would the CPC be inept? no not likely, given the base of experience the party still has on trade. 

 

 

I'm not sure what you disagree with in that article there. NAFTA has sent manufacturing jobs to the Southern US and Mexico with their cheaper labour and lax/nonexistent labour laws. I thought you were a proponent of more value added manufacturing jobs and not just being a cheap resource whore at the beck and call of rich corporations based in other countries?

[Miss Korea]

6 hours ago, Alflives said:

I’m in agreement with both of you. But purchasing stuff is different depending on where we live. A house in town here is way more to buy than when we bought our first back in ‘76. Earning is a lot higher too, of course, but a 50,000 dollar home in ‘76 is millions now and (imo) wages don’t cover that cost increase. 
Buying other stuff, like food, is more now but in relative terms it’s not much different than years ago. I think a really big difference is where we spend. We used to mostly buy groceries to cook at home. Lots of fixin’s, so to speak. It seems people buy ready made meals or eat out. That would certainly be more costly than cooking at home. Then there’s the whole growing and raising one’s own food too. More done years ago. Hanging clothes to dry is (seemingly) a thing not seen much now. 
I think we just lived different years ago than the big city ways of today. 
 

 

Here's the thing - if I doubt anything you say, the burden's now on you to prove everything you just said. 

 

You said home purchasing power has decreased dramatically over the years.  For sure - that's probably the easiest thing to prove.  A simple comparison of wage growth to the price of an average home should show that, or you can just find a news article highlighting that.  

 

You said food prices haven't dramatically increased in relative terms.  That's also something that can be proven pretty easily.  Even if you don't look at CPI baskets and how much food contributed to that number over the years... you can probably just find an old advertisement or a menu from a restaurant that's still around, and do some basic math. 

 

You mentioned spending habits (ie. more dryers, more prepped meals/going out).  A little bit harder to measure, but you can still do it.  I'm currently looking at a StatCan report of spending habits from 1997, 2007, and a couple of tables from the present.  I simply searched up "Canada food prices 1990s" on Google and the information is all there.  You could probably even find surveys highlighting how many homes have dryers and compare that figure to two decades prior.  Even sales figures would show that.  Washing machine companies want to know these things, so studies have most certainly been conducted on that.

 

So here's my point - we're talking about things related to money here.  Things like prices are EXTREMELY easy to quantify over the years.  Something cost relatively more now than before?  You should easily be able to prove that.  Overall purchasing power has gone up/down?  Fucking easy to prove right or wrong.  I can handle being criticized for using numbers to try and explain hockey.  But MONEY?  I'm being criticized by EP for using charts to explain money?  That has absolutely nothing to do with him (or even you/anyone else) being older than me.  That's just arrogance and laziness on his part for refusing to back his words up.

[PureQuickness]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I agree. Trudeau has pushed the Liberals too far to the left.  And Poilievre has pushed the Conservatives too far to the right. Unfortunately the NDP isn’t a centrist party, so that’s where the problem lies. 
 

Ultimately the NDP needs to get new leadership to push one of the other parties to the centre. None of Trudeau, Poilievre or Singh are fit to run the country. It’s probably one of the worst times in Canadian history where there really isn’t anyone capable of being the Prime Minister. 

 

This is a really fair assessment of what's going on.

[Fantomex]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I agree. Trudeau has pushed the Liberals too far to the left.  And Poilievre has pushed the Conservatives too far to the right. Unfortunately the NDP isn’t a centrist party, so that’s where the problem lies. 
 

Ultimately the NDP needs to get new leadership to push one of the other parties to the centre. None of Trudeau, Poilievre or Singh are fit to run the country. It’s probably one of the worst times in Canadian history where there really isn’t anyone capable of being the Prime Minister. 

Vote for me! 

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

 

I'm not sure what you disagree with in that article there. NAFTA has sent manufacturing jobs to the Southern US and Mexico with their cheaper labour and lax/nonexistent labour laws. I thought you were a proponent of more value added manufacturing jobs and not just being a cheap resource whore at the beck and call of rich corporations based in other countries?

 

the issue is, under the NDP we lose the jobs anyway, AND have no proper trade agreement. 

[PureQuickness]

This whole carbon tax issue may be the final straw for Trudeau. The tax itself is not that expensive (roughly $65 a year more). Honestly, if you can't afford THIS, you're in a whole lot more trouble and the carbon tax is not the problem. I think if the party was popular, this tax would be a non-issue.

 

So this begs the question as to how people are doing. It's a reality that many people are living paycheque to paycheque. This could be the result of poor spending habits, predatory lending practices (including leasing), necessities for people that are becoming too expensive, or just the fact that people's wages are not enough, despite the costs of housing.

 

As another poster (Elias Pettersson) aptly said: Trudeau has gone too far left and is getting more and more radical. On the other hand, PP is too far on the right. Canadians are being divided between two AWFUL choices right now.

 

It's clear that climate change needs to be addressed. Perhaps a better strategy would've been to have Canadians the option to swap out their old cars with electric ones. Obviously not all Canadians can use electric, so not everyone can take advantage of this. There'd be costs of course, which I'm no Finance Minister so I can't crunch those numbers. I think it would be a smarter idea than the carbon tax, which IMO is not really that big of a deal.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, PureQuickness said:

This whole carbon tax issue may be the final straw for Trudeau. The tax itself is not that expensive (roughly $65 a year more). Honestly, if you can't afford THIS, you're in a whole lot more trouble and the carbon tax is not the problem. I think if the party was popular, this tax would be a non-issue.

 

So this begs the question as to how people are doing. It's a reality that many people are living paycheque to paycheque. This could be the result of poor spending habits, predatory lending practices (including leasing), necessities for people that are becoming too expensive, or just the fact that people's wages are not enough, despite the costs of housing.

 

As another poster (Elias Pettersson) aptly said: Trudeau has gone too far left and is getting more and more radical. On the other hand, PP is too far on the right. Canadians are being divided between two AWFUL choices right now.

 

It's clear that climate change needs to be addressed. Perhaps a better strategy would've been to have Canadians the option to swap out their old cars with electric ones. Obviously not all Canadians can use electric, so not everyone can take advantage of this. There'd be costs of course, which I'm no Finance Minister so I can't crunch those numbers. I think it would be a smarter idea than the carbon tax, which IMO is not really that big of a deal.

 

was watching Nanos on BNN, he had a really good point - Trudeau is dropping the ball on selling the reason for the carbon tax. His polling has found that once people understand why its in place, and how it works to actually reduce emissions, they are OK with it (outside of conservative voters).

 

Seems like its a poor sell job, vs. an actual out of pocket issue for most people. 

 

[RupertKBD]

2 hours ago, Bob Long said:

I guess you need a refresher on how the NDP views trade: https://www.broadbentinstitute.ca/tags/free_trade

 

Yea, that would be a disaster for our economy to have these folks in the negotiating seat. 

 

Where were the PCs wrong on trade and taxes? 

 

Yeah, I guess "refresher" is the word, seeing as that is almost a decade old.....

 

Anyway, you seem to have a strong opinion on the matter, so I guess you're right....

 

[Maninthebox]

30 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

was watching Nanos on BNN, he had a really good point - Trudeau is dropping the ball on selling the reason for the carbon tax. His polling has found that once people understand why its in place, and how it works to actually reduce emissions, they are OK with it (outside of conservative voters).

 

Seems like its a poor sell job, vs. an actual out of pocket issue for most people. 

 

 

That's an excellent point. When the Liberal talking point continues to focus on the dubious rebates it leads one to wonder what the actual point of the tax is. As it stands it seems like merely another paper straw solution.

 

The incentive aspect of the carbon tax is also diminished by other language commonly used by JT et all referring to punishing pollution when said tax is applied to necessities such as heating our homes.

 

There is also the fact that we have no actual data proving the potential effectiveness of the tax across Canada (yet), though there is available information from other sources if one cares to delve into it.

[Optimist Prime]

16 hours ago, Sharpshooter said:

I wonder if this will also apply to those are banking on social media as their careers? 
 

A bit OT, and my apologies for that, but it struck me that some or many that coasted through life didn’t have a scholastic foundation that they could lean on and are pissed about everything except their own life choices. 
 

But, I digress. Convoy on! 

You hit on a BINGO there my friend, this arcade fire tune goes a long way into the mindset, i love it. 

 

[Bob Long]

13 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Yeah, I guess "refresher" is the word, seeing as that is almost a decade old.....

 

Anyway, you seem to have a strong opinion on the matter, so I guess you're right....

 

 

I do have one yes, and I think I can back it up. If you can show me where the federal NDP, or any provincial NDP, would have a solid plan on trade and development thats at least equal to the other parties, I'm quite open to adjusting my opinion. 

[Optimist Prime]

46 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

was watching Nanos on BNN, he had a really good point - Trudeau is dropping the ball on selling the reason for the carbon tax. His polling has found that once people understand why its in place, and how it works to actually reduce emissions, they are OK with it (outside of conservative voters).

 

Seems like its a poor sell job, vs. an actual out of pocket issue for most people. 

 

my local Co-op gas is cheaper today for a litre of the good stuff than it was on Thursday, 'oh noes, the tax!' lol. 

[King Heffy]

50 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

was watching Nanos on BNN, he had a really good point - Trudeau is dropping the ball on selling the reason for the carbon tax. His polling has found that once people understand why its in place, and how it works to actually reduce emissions, they are OK with it (outside of conservative voters).

 

Seems like its a poor sell job, vs. an actual out of pocket issue for most people. 

 

The question is whether or not it's even possible to explain this properly to someone stupid enough to vote for Poilivre.

[Bob Long]

15 minutes ago, Maninthebox said:

 

That's an excellent point. When the Liberal talking point continues to focus on the dubious rebates it leads one to wonder what the actual point of the tax is. As it stands it seems like merely another paper straw solution.

 

neutral for consumers isn't a bad thing. It reminds me a little of the change to the GST/HST where people argued it would drive prices up dramatically. All it did was remove the old 13% manufacturers tax for the most part, and made it a much more efficient tax system.

 

Carbon pricing is a globally recognized method of creating a market to drive carbon out of the value chain. If you have something better to show us, please do I'd love to see it. 

 

15 minutes ago, Maninthebox said:

The incentive aspect of the carbon tax is also diminished by other language commonly used by JT et all referring to punishing pollution when said tax is applied to necessities such as heating our homes.

 

but you get that back, so for your family thats a neutral thing. Unless the oil company is adding an extra gouge for you, and then thats on them. 

 

15 minutes ago, Maninthebox said:

There is also the fact that we have no actual data proving the potential effectiveness of the tax across Canada (yet), though there is available information from other sources if one cares to delve into it.

 

Aren't Canada's emissions staying kind of flat, other then last year with an uptick in emissions from oil and gas and buildings (https://climateinstitute.ca/news/canadas-climate-progress/)?

 

We can certainly do more to green up buildings. Oil and gas paying a bit more is fine by me, as long as its basically neutral for most people.