What's going on Canada?
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
π Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
π» Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
π΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales
π£οΈ Politics
π Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
All this would be solved if the left leaders would actually fix affordability. This is the only real reason I see so many voting right. Nobody can afford shit and they blame the left.
Problem is it's not the left's fault. The world is blaming the leaders but it's happening globally. The real problem is a few have all the wealth.
Capitalism, infinite greed and growth and the resulting wealth inequality. Unaffordablity is the inevitable conclusion of late stage capitalism
Our left leaning leaders should update tax laws to address the growing wealth gap. And start building homes so average Canadians can afford a decent home in a decent location.
Agree completely. Carney is a neoliberal and will not address this problem - I fear the next election people will be unhappy that their life still sucks due to late stage capitalism and vote in Cons out of some desire for change, and they will destroy our institutions like the Americans.
NDP need to step up with a real candidate that will challenge these systems of wealth extraction.
Sadly I think this could be the beginning of the end for the NDP. They struggled to fill Jack Laytons shoes and though Jagmeet was a less well received leader, I feel they will struggle to fill his shoes too. The Americanization of Canada has already begun.
That's the key here - the Liberals under Trudeau waited too long to move on affordability, and then they didn't do enough. I hope Carney & co can show quick improvements in housing so the CPC is less attractive.
It would help if we had some left leaders in the first place
we got in this morass because the neoliberal state and its accompanying economy financialized every damn thing
The problem is monetary policy, not deregulation. Deregulation of zoning and housing policy would actually prevent monetary policy from creating such a large housing bubble.
Our Bank of Canada targets a 2% inflation, which means prices need to continuously rise as technology actively reduces goods prices, and we then exclude investments and housing appreciation entirely, and we do hedonic adjustments to discount goods inflation. Then there's likely an element of shrinkflation, as company find tricks to cheapen products or degrade services, which lead to no inflation in the CPI but higher profits and then lower prices.
So the money supply needs to grow via low interest rates, in order to provide a windfall to boomers to encourage them sell their real estate holdings, to create new bank loans, to increase the money supply, which turns into aggregate demand, in order to create inflation in the CPI.
But we can't build enough houses due to reverse neo-liberalism, so housing acts as liquidity sponges for cheap debt, and people hold them as investments in perpetuity since they think prices are always going to go up. Also as interest rates fall inflation falls, as interest expense is included in the CPI while housing appreciation is not, its a feedback loop due to its poorly constructed nature. The Bank of Canada now also buys half of all mortgage bonds to attempt to reverse this, so they're actually printing money in order to cause deflation funnily enough, again due to the absurd way the CPI is constructed.
If we don't do something about social media, disinformation, and voting reform, we will not have a Canada to protect after the next election.
It will be difficult to impossible to hold onto a country that nearly half the population would freely give away without a fight.
Unfortunately, the call to "do something" about social media will only result in renewed efforts to do the wrong thing, as the previous government attempted. Facebook will be made to behave slightly better at the cost of creating a new regulatory system that reinforces its power and makes Canada legally dangerous for fedi instances or other alternatives.
Go on Mr. Carney, please prove me wrong.
Unfortunately, due to the piss-poor human condition, Canada - and every country on Earth that allows free speech - will go whatever direction the bots run by the nations that do NOT allow free speech want them to go. Anything else is a temporary reprieve.
Boy, I sure didn't see that coming. It's going to be very interesting seeing where such a path ends. Uncomfortable, likely, but interesting.
Totally. I was thinking about China the other day, how crazy they seemed for building the Great Firewall fifteen years ago. I felt sad for their citizens being cutoff from the internet. Now I'm sitting here looking in and I'm all like - fuck, this has been a major contributor to their sovereignty. Both in that this allowed their own strong digital economy to develop instead of getting hooked on American Big Tech, and in that it keeps the propaganda that's threatening us at bay. I'm not saying that censorship is amazing all around but just like you said, had they gone with free speech online, they'd be subject to whatever Big Social makes money from that day. It's crazy how the tables have turned from this perspective. I'm not optimistic that there's a solution that both keeps speech free and protects us from this problem.
Newspapers aren't allowed to print whatever they want, news networks can't straight up lie on TV, why are we obsessed with the idea that tech platforms need to be able to wash their hands of everything on their platform.
Maybe we don't need the web to be full of user submitted content. I remember the early Internet, it was way better than what we have today.
We have 4 years to get canadians away from Twitter and Facebook to Mastodon and Friendica to reduce the amount of influence the oligarchs have on our comms.
Lets bring back the vote subsidy, limit the contribution limits to $100 a year, lower the voting age to 16 and pass proportional representation!
lower the voting age to 16
I don't agree with this, mostly because that age range is perhaps the most influenced by social media and "misogynist male influencers".
They are too young to know better at that age, and to throw away their future because Joe Rogan or Andrew "The Rapist" Tate manipulated them is just not what this country needs.
But an overhaul of our election system is needed, and laws need to be made that protect people from the barrage of misinformation we are seeing more of every day.
Is this really your experience with +16 years old? If so, you should get your province to invest more in education.
They(16yo) can drive, they can enlist.
In most provinces, they are choosing their career, trade, university, and with fresh knowledge of history and geopolitics they get from schools.
And there is no magical switch that flips when you turn 18. The sooner they start thinking about their future, the better.
Many countries already allowed 16 years old people to vote, for more than 20 years, and they did not become a misogynist hell-hole.
Also, setting the age to 16 pretty much means the average person won't vote until 18 based on election timing. If government is elected when you're 17, you might not vote until you are 21.
Some countries allow you to vote in primaries if you will be at voting age by the time of the main elections. It also helps when they have consistent voting days, and alternate elections every 2 years (federal/province for example).
If the provinces and cities also lower the voting age, they will be able to vote much sooner than 18/21.
Is this really your experience with +16 years old? If so, you should get your province to invest more in education.
That's the problem, though. Young males voters are swaying heavily to right-wing parties, and it's thought that this is because of the online influence of bad actors.
Of course, any age can be manipulated, but far fewer are being swayed by these βinfluencersβ as age increases.
And a lack of education ties in with voting Conservative, so there's no incentive for the Cons to change this. They benefit from young, naive, undereducated voters.
They(16yo) can drive, they can enlist.
I'm against that, too. Young drivers are notoriously bad at driving, and have poor judgment on the road.
In most provinces, they are choosing their career, trade, university, and with fresh knowledge of history and geopolitics they get from schools.
Yes, of course. It's a transition age.
Many countries already allowed 16 years old people to vote, for more than 20 years, and they did not become a misogynist hell-hole.
Other countries may not (at least, not now) have a problem with social media influencing their young voters. So, it may "work" for them, but not for North Americans.
I'm not trying to throw this age group under the bus. It's THEIR future that we vote for, and they really should be playing a role in shaping that future.
But I'd want them to be making an informed vote, without the voice of right-wing extremists in their heads. At this present time, I don't think that could happen, because these influencers run unchecked, and it DOES impact how our youth think and act.
Young males voters are swaying...
No rights for a whole group because you do not agree with the political leaning of ~1/4 of them (poor young folks that vote centre and left). Add to this that younger men have a lower turnout voting, than any other age group.
A while we are at it
Young drivers are notoriously bad at driving,
With this logic, I imagine you also want to remove the license from people +50yo. Maybe their voter card as well.
Given their turnout and right-wing tendencies. Also, how bad they drive, given the number of accidents.
Hey, I all for a walkable city, possibly you are right with this license takeover.
but not for North Americans
Oh, yes, we are different because we live on this arbitrary piece of land.
Other countries have internet (better than here) and right-wing pundits as well.
I don't think irrational fear of what others might do should be the gatekeeper of their rights.
I also do not agree with them paying taxes with no representation.
Itβs THEIR future that we vote for
Given that you want to reduce the rights of a group that are active members of the society, can join the workforce and pay taxes, and studied for most of their lives. Just because you do not agree with what a fraction might do. I don't think you have their best interest in mind.
Just because you do not agree with what a fraction might do.
Nils, if you cannot explain how this voting-age change is guaranteed to move the country in a Progressive direction, then I am not interested in your whinging.
American ICE is coming to deport you from your country next. You had better have the upper hand when they do. Tick tick.
remove the license from people +50yo. Maybe their voter card as well.
Given their turnout and right-wing tendencies.
Fuck it, sure.
Nils, if you cannot explain how this voting-age change ...
I guess my first paragraph could be a bit more detailed, so all could understand.
It is hard to imagine you ignored it just to throw a tantrum.
So let me go more in depth, and please let me know if you need further assistance.
Context,
The news in Canada reported that young males might vote conservative, from polls, to schools simulations where the conservatives formed a minority government. I imagine this was part of the reason our friend was afraid of young voters - ironically, just as the right-wing voters, victim of their own unfounded fears.
People that took the time to open past the headlines would see a few things, the percentage of males voting conservative is still minimal compared to the total of other parties, and less than other age group. Young women avoid conservatives more than any other group.
The simulations involved kids as young as elementary, depending on the province here in Canada, they might be as young as 5 years old. And even there, the conservatives got only 36% of the votes across all age groups from elementary to high school.
Last, election turnover is very low with the younger audiences.
There are a bunch of "ifs" and stars to align. It is a fraction (16 and 17 years old), of a fraction (males), of a fraction (that lean conservatives) of a fraction (that would go vote), that you and our friend do not want to have the right to vote. And because of that, everyone else from the 16 and 17 years old age group would not be allowed as well.
It is funny that people like you want to limit other group rights because of what a small fraction of the constituents might do, and call it for the good of "progressive initiatives".
Suppressing voters is not Progressive. As far as I can compare around, places where people have more rights and power, (more democracy) are more progressive.
Lowering the voting age is usually a Progressive instance, in most cases brought up by progressive parties, just look around the globe. Here we have the examples of FairVote and Sunshine.
Progressive does not mean "things I don't like must go".
Well, to be fair, I wrote this for others. By the way that you behave, it does not seem like you are interested in understanding, and just went crazy with slogans. I am not sure if you are a troll or a toddler throwing a tantrum.
I find it hilarious users claim progressiveness, while curbing people's rights.*
American ICE is coming to deport you
Sadly, we already have other groups coming here to kidnap or murder inhabitants, and I am not sure if I will be alive long enough to give ICE a chance to get rid of me.
* You see how I repeat that a few times in the text, I noticed some people like slogans. So I will put in bold here.
Curbing people's rights is not progressive
Its a minority government. Four years is optimistic.
The last one lasted pretty long.
tbh the last one did have an agreement with the ndp
If people didn't get their butts out to vote, we'd have a conservative government right now.
There's been a huge increase in U.S. influenced right-wing extremism in Canada and it contributed to the increase in conservative seats in gouvernent.
Don't kid yourselves. Just because P.P. didn't get elected or the Conservatives didn't get a majority, it doesn't mean there isn't a rise of right-wing extremism in Canada.
CBC demonstrated that several Canadian subreddits (which are toxic cesspits rife with divisieness) are run by Russian bots so it's not just US influence.
Oh wow. Do you still have a link? I'd like to read whatever they found.
I think even worse than voting for fear and resentment, they voted for actual fascism. The guy openly stated that he was going to try to ignore Canadian rights and freedoms without any ambiguity. It's not like him twisting turning Canada into a 3rd world resource economy as a great boost to the economy, or that saving the 1% billions in taxes as a way for the average Canadian to save their money.
One of PP's mandates was to use the notwithstanding clause to bypass Canadian rights and freedoms to jail people without a trial. It was one of his platforms, and there was zero ambiguity that he intended to do it exactly as he stated.
The fact that this wasn't a red flag for over 40% of Canadians and an immediate reason to distance themselves from him, it honestly scares me. Because this is how Hitler and Mussolini came into power, along with many other of history's worst leaders. They sounded reasonable at first, with only one or two shady bits to their mandates, only for those shady bits to be the core that started the greatest evils in the world.
Before the election, I was able to see this multiple poll breakdown that was kind of surprising. If you were under 35 and male, you were more likely to have voted CPC. Every other group (esp. women under 35 and everyone over 65) was more likely to vote LPC. This tells me Poilievre's social media campaign, which you may recall was highly "manosphere"-coded was effective with the target group. The good news then is that (while not making the same mistake as the CPC and forgetting other demographics exist), we can reach these people with a smart approach online.
I think Rational National has a good point in that video I linked that maybe these folks who were taken in by the Conservatives were under the impression because the Liberals were in charge as long as they can remember, everything is solely their fault. They're likely missing the overall historical context that we can't afford to keep the tax burden on poor people (especially as wages stagnate) instead of the rich (whose incomes have been exploding up until Trump's market crashes) as we've been doing increasingly for decades upon decades.