• Grant_M@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The trouble with addressing the housing crisis, climate, health care, and affordability crises in Canada is that all of these things require provincial partnership. The Premiers have figured out the best way to stick with (mostly) US RW styled/influenced radicalization methods while simultaneously harming federal leadership is to abstain from partnering to help Canadians. It’s a pretty great scam for the billionaire class. Moscrop often leaves out important details like these in his pieces. The reality is as long as the GOP-North Cons have an iron grip on the provinces, the beatings will continue.

    He mentions it here >There’s some truth to the contention that many of these failures fall within provincial jurisdiction. But the federal government has a long history of intervening in and shaping policies at the provincial level, so that’s hardly an excuse.

    And it isn’t an excuse – it is a FACT. Maybe 30 years ago the Feds could influence Premiers, but not anymore. The ‘Conservatives’ have been completely overtaken by DeSantis-trumpism and post-truth narratives. David Moscrop needs to snap out of the notion the RW wants to deal for the betterment of our country – they don’t.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe 30 years ago the Feds could influence Premiers, but not anymore.

      The feds have “convinced” all of the provinces to implement a carbon tax, $10/day childcare, and national reporting for healthcare (I’m pretty sure about the last one, but I may be wrong).

      The federal government has leverage. If they want to use it.

      • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They have managed to do some things – yes. But the big things will NEVER happen Not as long as Cons have the ability to block the road. This includes if the NDP were elected Federally and wanted to do the same things. We need to elect non-Cons provincially across the board, or we lose our democracy. It’s that simple.

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

          I don’t see why you say that. Poilievre is apparently in favour of using carrots and sticks to make cities approve more housing. Liberals could do the same and dare Conservatives to vote against it. I’m very unsympathetic to all these excuses.

          That said, agree that we need to vote non-Con provincially. I sometimes have no idea why Canadians vote the way they do. Every province has a healthcare crisis, growing inequality and unaffordability, and yet voters keep voting in conservatives. Makes no sense.

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

              This is a nice article and I agree with it. But I don’t see any mention of housing or Doug Ford style policies, so I’m a little confused why you posted it. I gave housing as one example of something Liberals could address, but frankly, I don’t have any faith that they want to meaningfully address it. Every single policy JT has proposed has raised demand, like the first time home buyers tax free savings account, a tax cut for the rich which will only help those who have maxed out their TFSA. Where is the non-market housing? Where are the co-ops? We also need to stop cities from denying new housing, like they’ve done in California, Boston, New Zealand, and other progressive places. (If that’s what you’re calling a Doug Ford style approach, I strongly disagree. It’s delusional to think we don’t need more supply.)

              • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                For many decades, protecting people’s “home investment” values have been central to winning politics in Canada for both the Liberals and Conservatives because home owners are a huge and powerful voting block. The CPC are bucking that trend, and I think it will work this time. I don’t think the Liberals have caught on to the change in the winds. They will probably change course mid- to late- campaign.

    • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s plenty of things the feds could do to help housing. Instead they implemented programs to fuel demand.

      • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Like I said – nothing can take place without buy in, messaging and assistance from the US owned Premiers.

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

          How would the Feds adding a capped capital gains tax exemption on primary homes sales (a la the US) need the Premiers? How about taxing homes 20+% beyond a primary residence like Singapore? Lots of options…

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

            How about it? Sell these ideas to your local representatives and get the word out! Let’s go!

            • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Moving the goalposts: first you claim the feds are powerless, and when proven wrong you demand that the poster does all the work instead of admitting that you were wrong. You can do better than that.