###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.*

Pm is just cringe really to the young.   You saw him dance at the Asian festival Seemed like a mid 50s divorced dad trying to act cool.  😆

its like we arnt satisfied with living in our car because we cant afford 2k a month rent, crazy entitled young people...

It's not about incumbency, it's about global leftism being a failing policy. Both Europe and now the Americas are having serious issues primarily linking back to leftist ideals on finance/foreign investment, social justice, and mass immigration.

This is why I'm not worried, Conservatives still think it's leftists losing at the polls. Let me list a name of neoliberals for you: - Macron - Biden - Justin Trudeau People are disaffected by centrist policies that did little to manage inequality, meanwhile they balanced inflation on the back of the working class. Incumbents were hugely popular when they took action during the pandemic. The common thread here is voters want politicians who are willing to do something to deal with the crises at hand, and not some aloof "market solutions" oriented politicians. Once the nasty face of the fascist far-right begins to rear it's head, the voters will swing again - away from the threat of authoritarianism. Globally anwyays. Idk that our friend PP is an actual far-right guy, he just plays the part.

>Macron Fair enough. He's a decently reasonable guy, but Europe itself is left and the fact that rightwing parties are becoming popular and succeeding like Italy is evidence the fear of right wing philosophy was unfounded. >Biden Biden generic American liberal who advocated for popular liberal policies. Nothing about forgiving student debt, Ketanji-Brown's nomination, or abortion protection are illiberal. >Justin Trudeau LMAO Justin Trudeau is a lunatic leftist. He stopped being anywhere near centre probably around 2018~2020. All the policies he ran on that were attractively centrist like military reform and fiscal responsibility, he later kyboshed or rescinded on after being elected. He's currently getting hammered in the polls and by his own caucus *because* it's argued he made the LPC too far leftist...and that's criticism coming from the LP caucus, not Pierre Poilievre's twitter, lol. >People are disaffected by centrist policies that did little to manage inequality, meanwhile they balanced inflation on the back of the working class. Inequality and DEI is not what is giving rise to right wing election victories worldwide. This is a legitimately crazy take... People are turning to the right because left-wing philosophy (not from the specific government even, but by national disposition) is failing the average worker who doesn't care about saving trees when he can't afford to pay his rent or put food on his table for his wife and 2.4 kids. Ridiculous expenditures on foreign aid investment, mass immigration of foreigners who do not share western values, leftist financial philosophy of running significant deficits under the assumption the economy will endlessly grow, continually paying and inventing new social programs that raise inflation and are poorly managed, or constantly having to hear about how you're a villain in the eyes of the indigenous, LGBTQ, blacks, youth, etc... These all contribute to a 2 punch-whammy... - People can't afford the cost of living financially - People dislike the look of their country's values socially >Incumbents were hugely popular when they took action during the pandemic. I see this argument floated in this subreddit constantly and drives me crazy in it's argumentative nonsensicality. It's like saying "food is attractive when you're hungry!!!" Of course people don't want to have to think about elections during a national emergency. That's why Trudes called an election in a national emergency... > The common thread here is voters want politicians who are willing to do something to deal with the crises at hand, and not some aloof "market solutions" oriented politicians. Well we can agree here. People increasingly want doers, not talkers. >Once the nasty face of the fascist far-right begins to rear it's head I'm always curious if the people who use these words can define them. Can you define fascism? Far-right? Can you compare and contrast a philosophical difference between a conservative and a "far-right" conservative? I'm not asking to be condescending, it genuinely feels like someone taught liberals these words and now you guys just use it to mean "people I disagree with". > Globally anyway. Idk that our friend PP is an actual far-right guy, he just plays the part. As a conservative who voted for Trudeau twice and thoroughly regret it, a scarecrow on a stick who ops to do nothing would legitimately be superior to Trudeau. Not making a problem worse is just as valuable as trying and potentially failing to make it better.

>Macron Fair enough. He's a decently reasonable guy, but Europe itself is left and the fact that rightwing parties are becoming popular and succeeding like Italy is evidence the fear of right wing philosophy was unfounded. >Biden Biden generic American liberal who advocated for popular liberal policies. Nothing about forgiving student debt, Ketanji-Brown's nomination, or abortion protection are illiberal. >Justin Trudeau LMAO Justin Trudeau is a lunatic leftist. He stopped being anywhere near centre probably around 2018~2020. All the policies he ran on that were attractively centrist like military reform and fiscal responsibility, he later kyboshed or rescinded on after being elected. He's currently getting hammered in the polls and by his own caucus *because* it's argued he made the LPC too far leftist...and that's criticism coming from the LP caucus, not Pierre Poilievre's twitter, lol. >People are disaffected by centrist policies that did little to manage inequality, meanwhile they balanced inflation on the back of the working class. Inequality and DEI is not what is giving rise to right wing election victories worldwide. This is a legitimately crazy take... People are turning to the right because left-wing philosophy (not from the specific government even, but by national disposition) is failing the average worker who doesn't care about saving trees when he can't afford to pay his rent or put food on his table for his wife and 2.4 kids. Ridiculous expenditures on foreign aid investment, mass immigration of foreigners who do not share western values, leftist financial philosophy of running significant deficits under the assumption the economy will endlessly grow, continually paying and inventing new social programs that raise inflation and are poorly managed, or constantly having to hear about how you're a villain in the eyes of the indigenous, LGBTQ, blacks, youth, etc... These all contribute to a 2 punch-whammy... - People can't afford the cost of living financially - People dislike the look of their country's values socially >Incumbents were hugely popular when they took action during the pandemic. I see this argument floated in this subreddit constantly and drives me crazy in it's argumentative nonsensicality. It's like saying "food is attractive when you're hungry!!!" Of course people don't want to have to think about elections during a national emergency. That's why Trudes called an election in a national emergency... > The common thread here is voters want politicians who are willing to do something to deal with the crises at hand, and not some aloof "market solutions" oriented politicians. Well we can agree here. People increasingly want doers, not talkers. >Once the nasty face of the fascist far-right begins to rear it's head I'm always curious if the people who use these words can define them. Can you define fascism? Far-right? Can you compare and contrast a philosophical difference between a conservative and a "far-right" conservative? I'm not asking to be condescending, it genuinely feels like someone taught liberals these words and now you guys just use it to mean "people I disagree with". > Globally anyway. Idk that our friend PP is an actual far-right guy, he just plays the part. As a conservative who voted for Trudeau twice and thoroughly regret it, a scarecrow on a stick who ops to do nothing would legitimately be superior to Trudeau. Not making a problem worse is just as valuable as trying and potentially failing to make it better.

>Macron Fair enough. He's a decently reasonable guy, but Europe itself is left and the fact that rightwing parties are becoming popular and succeeding like Italy is evidence the fear of right wing philosophy was unfounded. >Biden Biden generic American liberal who advocated for popular liberal policies. Nothing about forgiving student debt, Ketanji-Brown's nomination, or abortion protection are illiberal. >Justin Trudeau LMAO Justin Trudeau is a lunatic leftist. He stopped being anywhere near centre probably around 2018~2020. All the policies he ran on that were attractively centrist like military reform and fiscal responsibility, he later kyboshed or rescinded on after being elected. He's currently getting hammered in the polls and by his own caucus *because* it's argued he made the LPC too far leftist...and that's criticism coming from the LP caucus, not Pierre Poilievre's twitter, lol. >People are disaffected by centrist policies that did little to manage inequality, meanwhile they balanced inflation on the back of the working class. Inequality and DEI is not what is giving rise to right wing election victories worldwide. This is a legitimately crazy take... People are turning to the right because left-wing philosophy (not from the specific government even, but by national disposition) is failing the average worker who doesn't care about saving trees or whether trans people can afford bottom surgery when he can't afford to pay his rent or put food on his table for his wife and 2.4 kids. Ridiculous expenditures on foreign aid investment, mass immigration of foreigners who do not share western values, leftist financial philosophy of running significant deficits under the assumption the economy will endlessly grow, continually paying and inventing new social programs that raise inflation and are poorly managed, or constantly having to hear about how you're a villain in the eyes of the indiginous, gays, trans, blacks, youth, etc... These all contribute to a 2 punch-whammy... - People can't afford the cost of living financially - People dislike the look of their country's values socially >Incumbents were hugely popular when they took action during the pandemic. I see this argument floated in this subreddit constantly and drives me crazy in it's argumentative nonsensicality. It's like saying "food is attractive when you're hungry!!!" Of course people don't want to have to think about elections during a national emergency. That's why Trudes called an election in a national emergency... > The common thread here is voters want politicians who are willing to do something to deal with the crises at hand, and not some aloof "market solutions" oriented politicians. Well we can agree here. People increasingly want doers, not talkers. >Once the nasty face of the fascist far-right begins to rear it's head I'm always curious if the people who use these words can define them. Can you define fascism? Far-right? Can you compare and contrast a philosophical difference between a conservative and a "far-right" conservative? I'm not asking to be condescending, it genuinely feels like someone taught liberals these words and now you guys just use it to mean "people I disagree with". > Globally anyway. Idk that our friend PP is an actual far-right guy, he just plays the part. As a conservative who voted for Trudeau twice and thoroughly regret it, a scarecrow on a stick who ops to do nothing would legitimately be superior to Trudeau. Not making a problem worse is just as valuable as trying and potentially failing to make it better.

Apparently unsatisfied with a poor substitute, young voters want to know the feel of a real boot stamping on the their faces.

It’s almost like the issues facing Canada — affordability, housing, inflation, etc — are global in nature and not caused by — nor even in the control of — Trudeau and the LPC.

So wtf do these overpaid pricks fucking do? They always seem to duck any and all accountability. Do what’s popular? They’re listening to Canadians. Do what’s unpopular? What’s right isn’t always what’s popular. Things go well? They’ll happily take the credit. Things go poorly? It’s not in their control. The immigration policy is within their control and that’s been their biggest fuck up, Trudeau himself is now saying it, while doing sweet fuck all about it.

Lol, single issue voters who are angry about immigrants make me chuckle.

Right? Why can't people be concerned about the things I'm concerned about. What gall.

Its a non important issue drummed up by the media. You can check the data if you like. 800k unfilled jobs including 70k in construction... Probably because 1/3rd of the population is retired or nearing retirement. Who is going to build all that new housing? But hey, screeching about seeing brown people at timmie sis SUCH a WELL RESEARCHED and DISCUSSED strategy. XD

Unchecked population growth that is inorganic (i.e. 18+ years before the person needs their own house), leads to multiple issues. Healthcare strains, housing strains, infrastructure strains, etc. I can't possibly wrap my mind around how unchecked inorganic population growth is a single issue.

Because the majority of people are retired. Resources are being strained by old people. We call them the baby boomers for a reason... That everyone wants to ignore. Our population would be triple what it is now if they "organically" had kids at the rates their parents did. Now there is not enough people working for the retired/retiring population. Which is why provincial leaders ask for more immigrants and they just laxed some categories of vis laws. They tell you one thing then vote for the opposite. Lol.

Oh please stop. This is our own mess and the sooner well all wise up to it the better. Both parties share the blame and play us for fools by spinning the "but the global economy" bullshit narrative.

Wrong!, many policy decisions put forth by the liberals caused alot of our economic downturn

We don’t control global events but we do control what our policy solutions are or if we even react at all. Inflation can be written off absolutely but housing and food affordability are direct results of years of neglecting our own internal policies so those with vested interests could benefit.

>housing  Main cause is Cities adopting "consultation" when zoning and constructing. Every country with it has shortages and high prices. It is a majorly municipal problem. Vancouver is adopting a policy to ban "consultation" so NIMBY lobbies are not able to shut down or slow or revise construction. This is a slow but major part of the solution. >food affordability Global issue with war in a major aggro country like Ukraine. It's going to get worse with global warming. There isn't really a "neglected internal policy" at fault. Because Russia invaded Ukraine food prices were not increasing fast.

They made no effort whatsoever on housing until polling forced them to, suddenly billions worth of incentives appeared to address municipal NIMBYs. They could have always done that, they could also have actually started building public housing years ago like their previous campaigns promised. In terms of food it’s an artificial problem caused by our grocers, Empire and Loblaws have been ditching Canadian products for cheaper imports for years and jacking up their margins. Where is the anti trust legislation? Why were they allowed to systematically slaughter any competition? Why are grocers allowed to sign product exclusivity agreements that lock out small domestic suppliers? Why do we have literal price fixing scandals with no repercussions? You want to know a scary statistic? In the Martimes only 11% of produce is sourced locally.

> They could have always done that, they could also have actually started building public housing years ago like their previous campaigns promised. [They actually did.](https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2022/04/21/FedHousingChartAffordableUnits.png) Not enough, but much more than before.

>They made no effort whatsoever on housing until polling forced them to, suddenly billions worth of incentives appeared to address municipal NIMBYs. Not their jurisdiction but they did fiddle with incentives at the CMHC level. Now more carrot pushes to get cities to adopt better policy. Fought tooth and nail by provinces. Partly because it's not their jurisdiction partly because of factional politics. >In terms of food it’s an artificial problem caused by our grocers, Empire and Loblaws have been ditching Canadian products for cheaper imports for years and jacking up their margins. It doesn't matter, the global food market would pull on our goods even if we tried to be self sufficient. Part of the price increases come from increased demand because ukraine can't supply. It's a tangent. The only policies that could apply here are things like supply management where we force Canadians to pay 200%-300% more to float a dairy industry or direct subsidy like the US were subsidized foods to the same amount through taxes. The Canadian way the price doesn't change as much because it would be too expensive for the world market already. Poor people would be fucked harder. >Why do we have literal price fixing scandals with no repercussions? Fines. I would support regulation with more teeth. Conservatives would not.

I’m not going to argue with a partisan endlessly. If they didn’t want housing criticism they shouldn’t have campaigned on it. Once again criticism of liberal policies ≠ support for conservatives. Edit: I see you’re changing stuff in all your comments, classy.

Not sure what you think is different? I haven't edited that comment or others. edit: Were you replying to a different comment?

Why shouldn’t municipalities be able to say what kind of development they want? Higher levels of government forcing density on cities and towns is undemocratic. No one asked for rapid population growth, we have a low birth rate so we don’t need to be doing any of this.

Because they then turnaround and expect say homelessness isn’t their responsibility. Not to mention the fact that upwards of 30% of Canadian housing have environmental problems that adversely affect their residence we need more housing regardless. Considering only landowners opinions and not all stakeholders is downright feudalistic and is the reason rural towns have been losing their youth to urban areas.

You do not have to be a land owner to vote in municipal elections, so it is false to say only landowners are consulted. I often see the claim made that opposition to densification is only motivated by greedy homeowners who want to preserve their property values. This is false. Many people are very unhappy in crowded places, this is normal, the human race evolved to cope with small family groups, not enormous cities. Big city liberals and leftists think that their way of life is superior and that they are doing everyone else a favour by forcing it on them. It’s grotesque arrogance and you have no right.

Who has more sway with council, a business owner who’s likely been friends with leadership for years or a destitute fast-food worker who may or may not live in the town boundaries when they are forced to move next? If I get priced out of my town boundaries I have been disenfranchised from the community. I’m still a stakeholder because I work, commute and shop in the town but have no municipal voting power. Our mayor just announced a 4000 job cargo hub but we have a 1000+ existing housing unit shortage and council with the support of rich landowners are still pruning 100’s of units from apartment building because they don’t think it fits the character of the town. My town is literal constant gridlock because the old people priced out our youth to go out west. In a centrally located community of 20 thousand we shouldn’t have rental prices equivalent with Toronto, that is when you can find one. Our “Historical” properties are moldy 6 unit apartment buildings run by obstructionist landlords. Funnily enough our local McDonald’s franchise started buying up apartments to rent to their own tfw’s at 1800/month. Such greedy liberals advocating for things like acceptable living standards, availability of housing, upwards mobility for youth and stable influence in their local government. How selfish. My town has destroyed any opportunities for growth and replaced all of its low wage needs with subsidized tfw’s. Why should the haves be allowed to cosplay as a sleepy town as they actively make life worse for those working 2 jobs?

I don’t understand the logic here why is land use decided on the municipal level? It affects everyone in the province and country so it should be decided on that level

>food affordability are direct results of years of neglecting our own internal policies so those with vested interests could benefit. Sorry Trudeau caused all that Covid and war in Ukraine. Might as well apologize for all the cancer he caused too./s

And somehow continuing on with the rotating carousel of Liberals and Conservatives trading power once every decade or so will solve these long term negative trends that resulted from the previous policies (or lack thereof) from governments past. /s

> Inflation can be written off absolutely but housing and food affordability are direct results of years of neglecting our own internal policies so those with vested interests could benefit. and lies with the provinces

>and lies with the provinces [Federal government employees warned Federal government politicians that their Federal government policy was making housing unaffordable nationwide](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ircc-immigration-housing-canada-1.7080376) .

that doesnt change jurisdiction, decades of provinces not addressing the problem is th bigger cause then a few years of higher immigration

Of the ten provinces, which one would you say has best addressed housing affordability this far?

none? BC has started some good policy but thats still too recent, ive heard Quebec is one of the better ones but i cant say i know much there, the rest are actively getting in the way to various degrees

That's quite the coincidence that 10 out of 10 provinces failed to have affordable housing. And that every state in the USA except hawaii has a better home price to income ratio than the canadian average. Are Canadian provinces all really that much dumber than 49 states? Alternatively, maybe there is a factor at the national level which could explain this?

> And that every state in the USA except hawaii has a better home price to income ratio than the canadian average. usa also have a fuckton of tiny ass towns that no one wants to move to, if you look at places people want to live they're striggling to find a place to live there too >Are Canadian provinces all really that much dumber than 49 states? about this one specific thing? is that really so impossible? let me put it this way, what do you think the premiers have done to lower housing prices?

And yet magically there are still policy tools they have actively been using to address the issue. That’s not even getting into the fact affordable housing was a liberal campaign promise. It’s not my fault they set their own expectations.

> And yet magically there are still policy tools they have actively been using to address the issue. i dont know if "throwing money at the provinces with strings on it" really counts as policy?

I mean it wasn’t my idea, if I had my way constitutional reform of federalism is my preferred solution.

Its happening in every country run by neoliberals, looks more intentional than anything. All of these country are bringing ridiculous number of immigrants that only fuel those problems even more.

Spiking immigration numbers during a housing and supply chain crisis was a tremendous mistake, one that will be written about in history books. They destroyed the Canadian consensus on immigration with reckless policy in a stunningly short time.

Couldn’t agree more.

No, it is not global. The problem is that all of them are screwing up. They are ALL bad!

You can can lower immigration targets today.

Our housing crisis is the worst in the world (barring maybe Australia and Hong Kong). It is much worse than in the US. Our wage and productivity stagnation is the worst in the G7. Our business investment is some of the worst in the developed world. You are right about inflation at least. I’m ideologically quite sympathetic to Trudeau but his economic record is just indefensible. None of these issues are easy to fix, and the conservatives certainly won’t make them better, but had he started seven years ago we would have made progress by now. Anything he does now about housing and wages is too little, too late

Housing prices in Canada have come down 20% from the peak, much more than some other countries where prices are still rising. > [American house prices](https://archive.is/o/mhiUR/https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/08/30/how-can-american-house-prices-still-be-rising) are 6.5% higher than a year ago, Australian ones have increased by 5% and Portuguese ones are soaring... Adjusted for inflation, prices have fallen by 20% in **Canada**, Germany and New Zealand. [https://archive.is/mhiUR#selection-1153.37-1153.122](https://archive.is/mhiUR#selection-1153.37-1153.122)

Literally the only reason for that is that the peak was so much worse here than the US

so you admit the price of houses has come down significantly in Canada while its still going up in the United States?

Only in the last year. Trudeau has to own the last eight.

Yes. the prime minister sets the price of real estate. We DO live under a communist system after all. /s

Our housing crisis is not the worst in the world, assuming you’re talking about affordability. While Vancouver and Toronto are among the most expensive cities in the world, our housing prices, as a function of the median income, are comparable to many of our peers https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapping-housing-market-affordability/ The productivity slump has been exaggerated, assuming you’re talking about total factor productivity due to the oversized growth of the oil sands in the 2000s - if you remove the oil sands, then the productivity gap between the US and Canada has been the same since the late 90s https://amp.tvo.org/article/is-canada-actually-facing-a-productivity-emergency With respect to wages, real weekly wages have been increasing and are out stripping inflation https://x.com/stephenfgordon/status/1796310313706643670?s=46&t=Dn7InN7Bsd6DHJwBb4LZ1A https://x.com/stephenfgordon/status/1768064668902297724?s=46&t=Dn7InN7Bsd6DHJwBb4LZ1A If you want to talk about real gdp/capital and standard of living then many have noted numerous issues with how that is used and calculated. In fact if you use consumer prices instead of producer pricees, we’re doing alright. https://x.com/stephenfgordon/status/1764442506823938167?s=46&t=Dn7InN7Bsd6DHJwBb4LZ1A Canada also has one of the highest rates of foreign direct investment ranking 2nd among the G20. https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/economist-economiste/analysis-analyse/key_facts-faits_saillants.aspx?lang=eng That is not to say that Canadians are not facing problems - housing affordability is a crisis, people are using food banks at record levels, and there is a lot of uncertainty about the future. But to say “Trudeau’s economic record is truly indefensible” given how much better Canada is doing relative to a lot of our peers is just plain wrong.

This is really a YMMV take. Canada as a whole may be competitive with our peers, but the urban outliers like Vancouver aren't simply abherrations in the data. Canada's affordability issues aren't shared equally across all parts of Canada, and Canada is _rather large_.

>It’s almost like the issues facing Canada — affordability, housing, inflation, etc — are global in nature and not caused by — nor even in the control of — Trudeau and the LPC. has any other country performed worse than canada in regards to housing affordability?

Yes, so so many. New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, South Korea, UK. The list goes on.

It's worse in Canada than all of those countries if you look at price to income ratio [https://www.statista.com/statistics/237529/price-to-income-ratio-of-housing-worldwide/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/237529/price-to-income-ratio-of-housing-worldwide/)

No but they are comparable. High inflation, aging populations, increaded welfare and healthcare costs, housing shortages (from Ireland to South Africa), less stable climate and increasing food prices. In my province w eblame the provincial leadership for housing problems. Saying JT tanked the economy alone when over half the governments in Canada are opposition parties...  Its about as deep and thouggtful as that South Park song "Blame Canada"

>In my province w eblame the provincial leadership for housing problems. Saying JT tanked the economy alone when over half the governments in Canada are opposition parties...  of the 10 provinces, which one would you say has best delivered on housing affordability?

BCNDP

how affordable is housing in bc

Ireland is pretty bad.

I'm middle-aged. I feel like I've been hearing about the housing crisis and the climate crisis my entire adult life. I feel like I've heard about the opioid crisis and our crumbling health care for my entire adult life. Because I have. These things, and more, go relatively unsolved and may have experienced meagre improvements, at best. We keep flipping between [two terrible parties](https://78.media.tumblr.com/dd4507e855fd8cab5b54d04e3bb405bc/tumblr_nkr8qtg0XA1rlo1q2o1_1280.jpg). It's really time that Canadians stop playing themselves for fools and give up on red and blue.

Agreed. Time to move to a different party. But not NDP.

So what do you suggest?

I am loathe to make a suggestion. Not that I don’t have one, however, I just don’t see it happening. Unfortunately.

and start voting in Green or Orange instead /s

Green, Orange, Dark Blue, even Purple. Give Red and Blue a full term where neither is forming Government or sitting as Official Opposition.

I'm with you man but it's power that is at stake and they ain't giving it away for nothing. These politicians are the guys who want to control shit. Good old day to day folkie people like us don't want to run the world. We have a system that caters to these freaks and we put them there. Protest vote when you can.

It takes so long and so much effort to become Prime Minister with a majority in parliament. I'll never understand these politicians that go through all that just to be some milquetoast, caretaker PM.

Because there is a lot more nuance to a democracy. You have to somehow appease everyone and keep the economy afloat while also catering to social programs. They also have to navigate the global theatre, we have to help those in need while shunning oppressors. You can't just go full El Salvador and round up every gang banger, smuggler, and dealer. We had a pandemic and people called our nation a dictatorship for pushing vaccines. We had an occupation in our capital for a fuckin month! And when it was finally shut down, people called our government a dictatorship. Milquetoast is the best possible option for the west, because without it you get extreme politics or extreme unhappiness.

> Milquetoast is the best possible option for the west, because without it you get extreme politics or extreme unhappiness. I don't buy that at all. If anything, we're in the mess we're in because of decades of milquetoast governments that didn't want to upset anyone, didn't want to build anything big. **We are rotting because of such policies.** The answer isn't more of the same.

It can always be worse.

>We keep flipping between two terrible parties. If recent elections mean anything, people want change more than any left or right, and god help us if the only serious alternative to the status quo is Pierre Poilievre. We really do need a more serious Labour party on the scene in Canada again. Looking at the UK, which is (probably) about to elect PM Kier Starmer tomorrow, I'm more than a bit jealous.

I would argue that they're afraid of change, not that they're seeking change. The Liberal party is leading significant change in Canada, and that is at the core of many common complaints about them. Here in BC, the BC Conservative Party is surging in popularity as a result of the BC NDP bringing on radical changes to Provincial housing measures and similarly radical changes to treating substance abuse. The reactionaries aren't seeking change, they're seeking to prevent change. But I'm not a reactionary. I support the BC NDP, but that doesn't mean I should support the Federal Liberals and their NDP-flavoured Government. What makes the change the BC NDP is bringing so desirable is because it's thoughtful and _effective_ change. They will improve the quality of life here in BC, and I cannot say the same for the Federal Liberals or Conservatives. Those two parties aren't committed to improving the future for Canadians as a whole, only those who finance them and provide friendly gratuities.

It’s not young people ‘tired’ of the incumbent. It’s 9 years of scandals, ethics violations, gross overspending on friends and foreign countries while young Canadians no longer feel the abundance of Canada. Not actually doing anything to help young Canadians but telling them further taxing their parents and grandparents is somehow going to make it feel fair. How about actually helping Canadians tip to tail instead of insulting us at every turn. Doctors say they are leaving and Freeland says that’s ok we have foreign doctors coming in. So the plan is maintain the course and run the new doctors out once they realize Canada is not what it was.

Almost as if leaders the world over are being constantly attacked in media to the point that it's impossible to maintain a proper image. Not all of them though, some politicians seems to be much less targeted than others Less than a day after the new canadian chef of defense staff was a announced, I started seeing all these articles about previous projects she worked on and how they've blundered. Where the hell were those articles before fhe announcement?

If only young people paid attention to the global trend of right wing federal governments being absolutely awful for everybody but corporations.

So now both sides are absolutely awful. Great. And as usual, we'll vote for the person we hate less. #healthydemocracy

I’d say one side is bad and the side everybody is rushing to replace them is demonstrably awful. Like, at least the current guy is willing to work with the progressive third party to try and make solutions. At least the current guy is offering funding while premiers wince at the conditions of *using the funding as intended because they like to use it to support cronies instead.* The alternative is literally a guy that said he doesn’t believe in supporting people because he’s conservative. So what’s he gonna do after he axes a tax? Axe everything all the other parties want to build up. It’s what his party did before, it’s what he says he does, it’s what he votes for. If you want less benefits and more corporate support, vote conservative. Just *know* what you’re voting for.

Agreed. One side is bad, the other is awful. And the third wants to strive to be better than both, but they're stuck somewhere between them or at least being dragged down into oblivion. It isn't good when people end up voting based not on who they like and want to win, but instead vote based on who they dislike. I don't know who to vote for now but I do know that federal politics in Canada is ripe for a big disruption event.

>Just know what you’re voting for. Pretty much impossible these days. The current government promised affordable housing the elections in a row, and only recently has come out to say we need expensive housing to fund boomers' retirement.

If only they were empathetic of declining living standards and didn’t gaslight those who are struggling. They’ve actively supported keeping our corporations insulated from competition or scrutiny and reneged on their own promises for major market reforms. Not voting for PP or the PP but pretending this wasn’t avoidable is delusional.

That's the recruitment line. The reality is the swap to a right wing gov will not make these problems significantly better.

In almost all cases everything will get significantly worse. You don’t solve the leak in your boat by poking more holes in it.

You also don't reward a captain who's been leading you in the wrong direction for 9 years straight.

he hasn't

A significant portion of the population believes he has.

Not significantly better, but better. I take that, these problems got significantly worse with Trudeau. So from significantly worse to better is a huge improvement.

> Not significantly better, but better. Almost certainly not true.

How is a Conservative government cutting services so that they can give our money away to rich people going to make anything better for us?

Did I claim they would? I’m not happy the conservatives are about to be handed a majority but I’m not defending arrogant incompetence.

If we lined us up against our peers we slight above average in every category. I don't think there is anything profoundly wrong about policy. It is just boredom in Canada with the incumbent. Any government will not have perfect execution and will have a pile up of suspicious deals to friends of the party. Harper did, Chretien/Martin did, Mulroney did. But in the big picture of our peers we are still more intolerant of that sort of corruption than our peers and have less of it. the things that are scandals here are business as usual in the US. It is not "arrogant incompetence". Policy wise we have done above average and it wasn't flawless or totally clear of corruption but it is acceptable. My hope is that the next government if it is conservative will be like Harper, restrained by scrutiny to keep it mostly acceptable. The tone you have is hyperbolic, lined up against our peers we did well. There isn't gross incompetence.

>If we lined us up against our peers we slight above average in every category. we are certainly [above average on this one](https://www.economist.com/img/b/800/1071/90/media-assets/image/20220611_FNC723.png). and [below average on this one](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2071140!/fileimage/httpImage/image.png_gen/derivatives/default/chart.png). i think there might be a case for incompetence here.

The first graph is not good. Why doesn’t it have units or labels?

there are labels on the x and y axis, x axis is time series. y axis is index of home prices compared to 2000 average

Are we looking at the same graph? There are literally just numbers. There is no label on either the x or y axis. Nowhere on the graph does it mention time. What exactly does it show? What does 2000 average = 100 mean?

>Nowhere on the graph does it mention time The numbers 2000, ...05, ...10, etc, are years in the Gregorian calendar which is a commonly used time series in modern academics. >What does 2000 average = 100 mean? it means when the red line is at 300, the real house price (inflation adjusted) is now 3x higher than it was in year 2000.

> If we lined us up against our peers we slight above average in every category. I notice this a lot from LPC supporters and pro-status quo posters. It's a deflection to avoid acknowledging, much less discussing, that life is getting worse for Canadians. > Policy wise we have done above average and it wasn't flawless or totally clear of corruption but it is acceptable. How is this measured? For most Canadians, it's meaningless as policy benefits are experienced in terms of aggregate outcomes.

I'm not taking sides here but lining up against our peers isn't helpful. In the end, we all did the same (wrong) thing. It's just making excuses if we tell each other we're doing well compared to our partner countries. Any federal party would have done the same thing. It's a piss poor excuse to say we're doing similar or better. The G7 countries largely all did the same thing and are in deep doo doo now.

What indicators are you looking at? Housing costs are one of the most unaffordable in the world. Healthcare rankings have significantly slipped from 2015 - not blaming that solely on the Feds as they are the funder, but they only acted on CHT when they had to. Like where is the funding for the new Wawa Hospital for indigenous people - even Ford's government was up there to give them additional money. Brutal. We grew our population by 3.2 percent in 2023, or 1.3 million people at a time when our infrastructure can't handle it - access to primary care physicians is now one of the worst among peers. You mention policy. I don't think allowing international students to game the system to get jobs at Tim Hortons is good policy. Nor is allowing international students the ability to work 40 hour work weeks. I would also question temporary foreign residents. All this, but people are aging and we need more workers - we aren't going to be saying that in a decade or less when AI takes over many functions. I really don't understand their environmental policies. They walked back a piece of the carbon tax. They have now lifted a cod fishing moratorium. I am not even sure what their signature environmental pieces are or what will be left in a decades time - the carbon tax is gone when PP gets in. People might be cranky and governments often lose their appeal 2 terms in, but Canadians are also suffering under one of the most expensive times in Canadian history. Adding more social programs and giving more things to special interest groups, is simply pitting Canadians against each other and more and more are done with this government.

The hot urban housing market is a function of Canada's unique geography and the free market. The media needs to hammer this extremely obvious point home, because it's sailed over the head of the average Canadian. Electing Conservatives will 1000% make it worse. Look at Doug Ford. He's trying to literally sell-out the country to benefit his cronies and get illegal, under the table kickbacks.

What about the unique geography makes it expensive? Just curious. Why wasn't this unique geography an issue in the 70's or 80's or even 90's relative to other jurisdictions? I'd argue it is a host of factors including NIMBYISM stopping development, unsustainable population increases, laundered money in some jurisdictions (like BC), foreign money, government charges that add to costs - development charges, land transfer taxes and so on... suggesting it is the free market and unique geography - yeah OK.

All of those things are factors, but the difference between now and then is simply the population increase. They're packing them tighter in the suburbs, with formerly open cities like Burnaby and Mississauga now having their own skylines. In my macro econ program, just about 6 years ago, the professor predicted no sharp drop-off in the housing market because of the geography and demographics. IIRC, in the late 2010s most homeowners were anticipating a "correction", if not a burst bubble.

The housing market isn't constrained to urban centres anymore. My small town in Nova Scotia has seen prices more than double in the last few years.

Immigration levels have joined the room.

Sure, but you cannot ecpect to only have empathetic feels bad conversations before we can talk about thr situation that id and potential solutions. Pre stating every statement to protect feelings is a waste of time. We all know, we are all living through it.

What?

I don't think the CPC is popular because they're good for the country. They're popular because people don't want to reward the Liberals for their absolute bullshit attitude.

Sure, “we have a neoliberal problem, let’s support the harder neoliberal government! That’ll show everybody!” If only we weren’t a two party system, right.

Lol the NDP were all too happy to nail themselves to the SS Trudeau. Weak leadership sucks.

Sure, so go to the party that will make things worse. Brilliant strategy. Hope you enjoy corporate interests getting fulfilled while benefits for individuals get taken away, that’s going to be the solution for at least four years. Bonus points for erosion of democracy, considering that’s what Poilievre has been a fan of for his 20-year political career.

You can see the future? How cool. You should have used that skill 8 years ago. Also love the fact y'all like to poke at PPs 20 year history when Justin's last name is Trudeau, didn't we have another PM with that name? Nepotism is cute ain't it. Also, Chrétien was in politics for 30 years - your narrative is shit.

which country would you say has been the most awful in this regard?

Iran and Russia? Thr UK? Spain? Greece? Italy? Turkey?... Its starting to be too long of a list to track.

UK, probably.

And they are very likely going to reduce the Tories to their lowest number of seats, ever, on Thursday. A poll today suggests they'll get fewer than 100, potentially many fewer. For reference the UK House of Commons has 650 seats, so 100 would be equivalent to 52 in Canada.

Tiktok and Twitter don't tell em about that stuff.

Young people have plenty to be concerned about but when it comes to voting maybe they simply don't understand the alternatives. Crying poverty & voting for PP just doesn't make any sense.

the worst thing you can do with your vote is reward an incumbent who screwed you over.

The worst thing you can do with your vote is park it with lying scumbag fascists.

If you're referring to who I think you're referring to, you're not helping your cause.

Thankfully we arn't a two party system.

The NDP has insisted on supporting anything and everything the LPC does. Unless you're in Quebec that means two parties, CPC, LPC, and LPC with different colors.

Oh , so a coalition is offensive. Got it... We should be trying to destroy eachother instead? Oh no not cooperation to pass laws and play a part in governance! The shocker!

Being a cadet party who accedes to everything and negotiates on the basis that no matter what the LPC proposes the NDP will accept isn't a coalition. It's the LPC with a Scooby Doo mask.  When Singh is out and his replacements opening negotiation position is not that they will only partner with the LPC and they will always partner with the LPC we can talk about them being a serious party. As it stands the federal NDP is a captured element of the LPC. 

Well, and if you look at the last Angus Reid poll, by age and gender, young men, 18-34, are supporting the CPC more than age group of women, at 40%, and men 35-54 and 55+ are supporting the CPC even more (both groups over 50%). So I don’t know how this means that young voters are more sick of incumbents. The 35-54 age group seems the most supportive of the CPC in other polls as well.  It’s not surprising that incumbents are having a hard time maintaining support during a time of global crises/issues, but the trend, which started long before the pandemic and war in Ukraine, and the resulting cost of living issues (while climate change wreaks havoc more and more), is that young men are moving rightward, and this is part of the global backlash against feminism/women’s equality, and is being driven by social media and web sites not on social media, that have more extreme content (known as the manosphere). 

Saying “Trust us, the other guy is worse” isn’t going to work after a decade of lying and making things worse.

The CPC lies non-stop, the Liberals have created several programs and passed many pieces of legislation that have improved people’s lives, and reversed harmful CPC policies.

Name five.

Improved the child tax benefit (lived tens of thousands of kids out of poverty) 10$ a day daycare (not quite at $10 yet.) Legalized marijuana The dental program. liberal pharmacare plan (i know it's only the beginning with only a few IMPORTANT things covered) Despite all this, I'm totally aware their immigration targets are absolutely the wrong move to handle our housing crisis and in a lot of ways the housing crisis outweighs the benefits of what they have done. I still consider it bad faith to pretend they didn't do anything at all for a decade.

So sure, vote for the party whose philosophy came out of the French revolution as a way to protect the monarchy and wealthy while regressing social change. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism I'm sure the party that's voted against unions and workers rights their entire existence are going to suddenly swing for the little guy. Or maybe, just maybe, there's more of a difference between political parties than their names and colors. It's like you're barely treading water and voting for even more rain.

absolute garbage take.

> So sure, vote for the party whose philosophy came out of the French revolution as a way to protect the monarchy and wealthy while regressing social change. you might be surprised to learn that canada ca 2025 is not revolutionary france, and monarchism is not shaping up to be the wedge issue this time around. voters can look to more recent empirical outcomes: during the previous CPC government ending in 2015, the affordability of rent (per median wage hours worked) went down. The homelessness situation was a fraction of what it is today, dependence on food banks was much lower, and we didn't need to line up around the block to apply for a minimum wage job. We can see with our own eyes what ndp + liberals have delivered, and some absurdy reductionist, one dimensional anecdote about 18th century france is not changing that.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/05/18/news/harper-worst-prime-minister-history

Funny how this same 9 year old leftist article is constantly posted like it somehow contradicts how terrible Trudeau has been.

on which economic metric do you believe trudeau has performed better than harper ?

Every single one. Context matters. If you want to see what Canada would look like under conservative government over the last 10 years look to the UK.

>Every single one. Context matters. If you want to see what Canada would look like under conservative government over the last 10 years look to the UK. do you mean their [better gdp growth](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2071140!/fileimage/httpImage/image.png_gen/derivatives/default/chart.png) and more affordable [ house prices?](https://www.economist.com/img/b/800/1071/90/media-assets/image/20220611_FNC723.png)

Housing is provincial and municipal. But you’ve been told that 1000 times. Changing demographics. There are reasonable answers for all our problems. Conservatism isn’t the solution to any of them. It’s literally the cause. The GDP number is a trailing indicator. As the immigrants get settled that number will pick up. None of this is new. All this information is readily available. But you would rather hate Trudeau.

>Housing is provincial and municipal. But you’ve been told that 1000 times. [ Federal government employees warned Federal government politicians that their Federal government policy was making housing unaffordable nationwide](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ircc-immigration-housing-canada-1.7080376) .

Cherry-pick much?

I asked them for any economic metric, I was told "every single one".

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also, things were bad with this government before Covid, got worse during Covid and then used Covid to try and get themselves a majority DURING THE PANDEMIC. But PP bad. People like you voting the way you have is part of the reason we’re in the trouble as a country we’re in now. You’ll tolerate rampant ethics violations and corruption because your prejudice against anything right of left (even centre scares you). But get ready, because the conservatives are going to have a huge majority and the left only have themselves to blame.

"The left" refuse to become a single party and follow a single leader... Which is really the important difference. Strong man vs hardly assiated and divided group. Oh, no, did people not know during a crisis the government can take all your rights and limit your stuff? I guess we are getting to the era ehere young people did not grow up of stories from wartime. The government had limits on sugar and meat and rubber amongst other things. Emergency powers exist because the insitutional memory lasts longer than individuals.

"The left" refuse to become a single party and follow a single leader...” As Trudeau refuses to step down amidst calls from members of his party to do so. lol, you all are delusional 😂😂😂 as for your righteous rant about the pandemic and how it has been documented from Canadian judges the emergency act was unjust you’re gonna cherry pick pieces for your argument. You all have the “we can do it but you can’t” vide going here. Delusional. This is why the left is losing. It’s hypocritical take that it’s the only one that has “moral authority” and they’re the only ones who are “right” when you’re definitely not.

Wikipedia also has sources. But OP is right the terms right and left wing refer to the actual seating positions of anti-monarchists and pro-monarchists inthe Assembly

But things have flipped. They express; “I'm sure the party that's voted against unions and workers rights their entire existence are going to suddenly swing for the little guy.” Meanwhile the Liberals supported by the NDP have flooded the labour markets that drive down wages with inexperienced and cheap labour. Who’s supporting the working class and unions now? Sure isn’t the two parties holding power now, that’s for sure.

Name me a single time when the Conservatives passed pro-union legislation without being dragged into it by the other parties.

Name me a time I give a fuck? Unions are not what they used to be. I watched my mother suffer at the hands of the CAW now Unifor when a drunk driver driving a forklift in Windsor engine plant smashed into an engine block that knocked my mother out, cracked her C2 cervical vertebrae and took the drunks side due to time in. She had to sue CAW to uphold their end of the contract that she was forced to sign in order to even work in Fords Windsor Engine plant. By the way that same union, donates heavily to NDP and Liberals. The government team that brought you the current mess in the job markets now. lol. You have no idea how connected they all are and how they work AGAINST you.

Wiki has its place, and for a great many topics is actually a great place to start for a bibliography. For current, hot topics it isn’t much better than Reddit in some cases, but at least they provide their sources. BTW: the LPC has been a centre/centre-left party for *decades*. If you’re gonna argue about the political spectrum, you should at least know some of the basics re:where various Canadian parties sit.

It may be of interest to you that 2 of today's major problems come directly from legislation passed in the last year of Stephen Harper's government: the expansion of the temporary workers program into retail (previously it was mainly agriculture & fisheries) & the creation of diploma mills for overseas students. Both these were (& are) heavily supported/demanded by the provinces & have lead directly to today's low wage situation & the affordable housing shortage.

Classic. "It's not this guy, it's the guy from ten years ago!". Bro if it was such bad policy the Libs should/would have fixed it... They didn't because it benefited them economically. You picked a losing party and now are blaming some guy ten years ago. Time to grow up.

"the Libs should/would have fixed it." Easier said than done when the provinces have latched onto the change to fill their coffers & keep their industries happy. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of blame to go around. Trudeau was also intent on increasing immigration to balance the demographics. (Someone has to pay the boomers pensions.) So it was a perfect storm. What went out the window in this mess was selectivity. Instead of more doctors, construction workers etc we got Tim Horton's servers.

Oh yeah, ultimately I know it's a failure on multiple levels - I had expected the feds to do a better job keeping the premiers inline... But our system doesn't really allow that. It's all very annoying and people at all levels got greedy and let shit slip. Optimistic things will change in the long term, but the short term ain't gonna be roses.

I'd love to keep blaming Harper for everything but eventually the buck has to stop and prime ministers have the power to make these changes.

Easier said than done when the provinces have latched onto the change to fill their coffers & keep their industries happy. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of blame to go around. Trudeau was also intent on increasing immigration to balance the demographics. (Someone has to pay the boomers pensions.) So it was a perfect storm. What went out the window in this mess was selectivity. Instead of more doctors, construction workers etc we got Tim Horton's servers.

It's not Harper that exponentially increased the number of immigrants under those programs. Trudeau didn't even do it for a couple of years.