Big Surprise, faux populist backed by real estate moguls

  • droopy4096@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    So the person advocating to solve housing crisis is spinsored by big real estate? Smells aquatic here… gills and all. There’s a rodent in this pile, that everyone will forget to look for untill it’s too late.

    • PilferJynx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is no surprise. PP is just a fascist version of Trudeau. Nothing will change except laws targeting the lgbtq community and relaxing environmental regulations.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes.

          Canada is not a two-party system, although for some reason many can’t seem to look beyond the Lib/Con juggernaut.

          • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But it is basically a 2 party system if only libs and cons ever win. It’s a circlejerk.

          • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is what I’m referring to. In effect it’s a 2 party system, which is frustrating.

            • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s only that way because too many won’t vote for an alternative.

              Take the plunge! Vote NDP or Green!

            • Rocket@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              it’s a 2 party system

              It’s not, though. FPTP is not a party-based electoral system.

              Which, to be fair, is the basis of its criticism, as people want to vote for parties instead of individuals. There are party-based electoral systems, some of which have been suggested as being suitable for use in Canada. But until we get around to actually changing the electoral system we don’t have a party system. All we have is individual representatives.

              • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                FPTP strongly weights towards a two-party system (where party means individual or group of individuals). The only real voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to vote against a candidate. Any other choice is wildly ineffective.

                There are many other systems that are better representations of the will of the people, both at the political party level and at the candidate level, but the caveat is that the two main parties will almost never be able to exercise the amount of power they currently have again. This may appear to be a good thing to the citizenry, but not to the two main parties.

                • Rocket@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  FPTP strongly weights towards a two-party system

                  No. It makes absolutely no consideration for parties. It is not a party system. Period.

                  There are party systems. Many believe we would be better off with a party system. But FPTP is not one of them. It is a single representative system.

          • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Canada is a two-party system, we just happen to have more than two parties in that system.

            Edit: downvotes? Really? 2016 and the broken Electoral Reform promise was not that long ago do we have to explain proportional and ranked voting systems and the flaws of first-past-the-post again?

        • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The NDP has about as good policy as you’re going to get in Canada if you care at all about the working class.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Joke all you like, but they’re counting on EXACTLY that. “I hear Trudeau sucks but these guys have no plan. Okay, pick them”

      • PilferJynx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Canadians tend to vote out than vote in. I know there are more parties than liberal or conservative but in our entire history there hasn’t been a parliament that hasn’t been the main two. There really isn’t any good options and it’s infuriating.

    • Rocket@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The easiest way to solve the housing crisis is to build more housing, so it stands to reason that he would align himself with people wanting to build more.

      Canada does have the lowest number of housing units per capita in the G7. It’s not like it isn’t something we don’t need.

      • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Makes sense at first, but REITs mostly don’t build, they mostly buy existing properties and collect rent.

        It makes sense to align with developers; it doesn’t make any sense to align with rental property managers.

      • droopy4096@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        real estate business operations are part of the reason we’re in this mess. At present real estate is a lucrative investment as you can buy properties hold on to them effectively shrinking the market and driving demand up… and driving the price of your investments up. Then, after you’ve bought a place for $300k and it’s market price got to $500k you take out a loan against the remainder and go live in warm places until market conttacts some more and you can repeat the process… TLDR; it pays to buy real estate and just sit on it, which is what real estate companies do (or help others to do)… it does not positively contribute to supply of new housing, quite the opposite. So please tell me that business that literally created this mess for us (and profit for themselves) sponsoring politician is lobbying for more housing? Would they be willing to shoot off their both feet?

  • OminousOrange@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    While I’m opposed to corporate money in politics, the amounts these executives contributed seems rather paltry.

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In 2019 Canada enacted Bill C-76 which allows third-party donations (somewhat equivalent to America’s super PACS) which allows unlimited donations … from here:

      Can I donate to third parties?

      Even if you are not organizing events or producing advertising, you may still choose to engage in the election by making contributions to third parties to support their regulated activities. Unlike political contributions, individuals, businesses, and other organizations are permitted to make contributions to third parties, and are not subject to any monetary or non-monetary limit on the amount of their contributions.[30] A third party, however, must not use funds from a foreign entity to pay for regulated activities.[31]

      Each contributor’s name and their contribution amounts must be reported in the third party’s financial returns, which are then published on the Elections Canada website.[32]

      • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What really??? We intentionally legislated the equivalent of Citizens United, one of the worst US Supreme Court decisions on political speech?

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yup. Political parties felt hamstrung so enacted laws that got waaaayyyy too little attention at the time.

          It’s essentially open season for political donations from Big Business but you will NEVER hear a politician say that out loud.

  • Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you liked trump then Squinty McProudBoy is your guy. If you are a decent human being find someone else to vote for. A vote for bitcoin milhouse is a vote for racism, white supremacy, misogyny, and hatred.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    When election hopes are based on how much money your campaign has and how much of it is corporately supported …

    … it’s starting to look more like a plutocracy rather than a democracy

  • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I always hate how we conflate developers and speculators when we talk about real-estate companies. Like, if somebody supports the automobile industry, you’d assume they mean factories and not dealerships.

    Hearing Poilievre has support from builders would be good news in a housing crisis. Hearing Poilievre has support from investors and speculators who are gouging people and exploiting the housing crisis, not so much.