6d ago

Liberal government's high immigration policy created housing crisis: report

torontosun.com

You're viewing a single thread.

49 comments

I'm fairly pro immigration, but it shouldn't be used mainly as a source of cheap labour to drive down corporate costs and extract money from Canada. Immigrants need time to acclimate to Canadian society, and having too high an immigration rate risks losing our values of tolerance, and equality.
And while I do kinda agree with the headline, the timing is certainly rather suspicious coming from Conservative owned media. Also, I don't think Conservative policy on the matter would be that substantially different, as they're equally pro-corporate.
- suspicious coming from Conservative owned media
  Postmedia, of which the Toronto Sun is a subsidiary, is majority owned by Chatham Asset Management. The founder of CAM is a well known GOP supporter. Postmedia group articles should be considered, at best, pro-American interest propaganda...if not outright election interference.
  We have Stephen Harper to thank for opening the loopholes that allowed Postmedia group to be wholly owned by American VCs.
  The Total Fertility Rate(TFR) of Canada hit a historic low of 1.33 national average in 2022.
  Here's a Kurzgasagt video on why TFR below 2.1 is actually really bad. There needs to be more support for immigrants, and don't fool yourself that Canada, or even most "1st world countries", will be fine without immigrants. In 30 years Canada, without a regular injection of people, would be top heavy on the age demographic graph. 100 years and the US wouldn't have to try hard to annex us, there'd be almost no one left young enough to actually put up an effective resistance.
  I live in Scotland, the TFR here is even lower, with a lower base population, and more people buy the Tory and Reform propaganda about armies of illegal Muslims outbreeding law abiding white folk.
  I hate to agree, even tangentially, with the Elongated Muskrat....as a whole, humans do need to figure out how to at least maintain our current population. A great way to do that is for people in high population countries to move to lower population countries. Are there going to be problematic people? Sure, I guess. There's already people who are problematic born in Canada, or the UK.
  I know this is a bit of a rant, sorry for unloading. Built up frustration with people willingly sticking their face in the leopard's mouth.....
- You're welcome to vote PPC, who is the only party outside of the conservatives promising to dramatically cut immigration.
  It was done as you say to lower wages and to entrench asset values, which according to BoC publications wages naturally rise after QE to restore the inequality created. In the 70s we blamed unions, now we just do mass immigration.
  
  I'll most likely be voting for a party who promises to implement PR. FPTP is a one way ticket to the American political landscape, and it has to be ended above most other issues.
  
  It didn't really help Europe. I think the pendulum swing left and right over time is from loose money and cheap debt. When rates rise people vote right, then they vote left for unfunded spending, and the cycle continues. But that's just my estimation of what's going on.
  
  Are you sure? The top 5 countries rated on their democracy index are consistently PR systems.
  https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu?tab=table
  
  then they vote left for unfunded spending
  Explain how the Doug Ford victory falls under this with his $400M spent on rushing the beer in grocery stores policy instead of waiting 6 months and getting it for free, or the proposed $800B highway tunnel under the 417 (which would likely be over 1T). I suppose I just don't see the left being the party of unfunded spending, because I don't think he's going to make the profits from this just by selling Ontario Place.
  
  Well that's true, I guess its through a US lens, who can't run those state deficits.
  But they bleed over to us, and we tend to follow the same path they do.
  
  I agree, we have that problem in more ways than one.
  
  Ask Germany with 20% AFD in their parliament how PR works. How many more elections until they form Government do you think?
  
  Perhaps you haven't noticed, but in the US, the AFD equivalent is literally running the county. I'll take deadlock over that noise any day.
  
  Perhaps you haven't noticed but AFD came in second overall in the last election. Again, I ask you, how many more elections until they form Government in your opinion?
  
  They're sitting at 20%, so never. Best they can hope for is a coalition government with the other right wing party, and at least they won't be running the show. And even if that happens, I don't see how that's any worse than a merger of right wing and far right parties, which if anything is more insidious.
  
  Thank you for at least understanding at an elementary level that PR does not prevent Far right extremism like you once claimed.
  Take care.
  
  Absolutely. Addressing the material conditions caused by rampant corporatism is the only way to address the rise of the far right, because it's a reactionary movement to perceived threat to their way of life. That and increased access to education.
  And you can't do that with two corporatist parties swapping power back and forth without any real alternative.
  
  Using Germany as an example to argue against PR is disingenuous on many levels. It shows a lack of understanding of how things work, what things are meant for, and also a blatant disregard of Germany’s history.
  You’re essentially asking for an electoral system to keep extremists at bay, when no such system exists because it is simply impossible for any system to do that. Trying to use an electoral system for such a purpose is operating at the wrong level if you want to keep extreme views in check.
  Germany has a unique history with far-left ideologies, how it got dismantled, and how the East and West reunified. If you look at the current state of old East Germany, you’ll see that the prosperity of the West did not flow into the East; their living conditions are bad, amenities lacklustre, there’s not enough jobs around and they don’t pay well, and the Western population can easily buy up their lands and properties just due to how much disparity there is in terms of wealth. And if you look at the electoral map and results of the last election, you’ll see that both far-left and far-right parties have a strong hold on old East Germany. This is the failure of the German government at truly unifying both sides of the old Germany. And if anything, I’d even argue that it’s a successful example of PR at work, as far as being a system goes.
  Keeping or adopting any kind of Winner-Takes-All system will simply further divide us and keep voters feeling disenfranchised, believing that voting brings no effective change, all for no good reason.
  An electoral system is not political. It’s the framework of which you exercise democracy.
  Trying to make frameworks, which are meant to surface all voices, suppress certain ones is, frankly, barking up the wrong tree.
  
  The person you're replying to has reeeeaaally bad takes, and have shown little understanding or willingness to learn. They're a troll. If they weren't pissing off basically everyone they interact with I'd say they were possibly a foreign (or domestic far-right) actor. I think the reality is that they're ignorant and proud of it.
  
  I initially thought I’d give them the benefit of the doubt cause I’ve seen them around, and they sometimes say things that look like they can think and hold some kind of conversation. But from the reply they’ve given me, it looks like it was not needed. I was basically Ben-Shapiro-ed there.
  
  Yeah, samesies. Which is why I mentioned it. Try and give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but that only goes so far.
  
  You’re essentially asking for an electoral system to keep extremists at bay, when no such system exists because it is simply impossible for any system to do that. Trying to use an electoral system for such a purpose is operating at the wrong level if you want to keep extreme views in check.
  Not what I am asking for, it is what is being argued. "PR will prevent us from US politics" was the original argument. Feel free to look at other countries with PR and use them as examples. Far right is on the rise regardless of the political system being used and Germany is a perfect example since they have gone from Nazi to never again to back again in less than 100 years and PR did shit all about it.
  Germany has a unique history with far-left ideologies, how it got dismantled, and how the East and West reunified. If you look at the current state of old East Germany, you’ll see that the prosperity of the West did not flow into the East; their living conditions are bad, amenities lacklustre, there’s not enough jobs around and they don’t pay well, and the Western population can easily buy up their lands and properties just due to how much disparity there is in terms of wealth. And if you look at the electoral map and results of the last election, you’ll see that both far-left and far-right parties have a strong hold on old East Germany. This is the failure of the German government at truly unifying both sides of the old Germany. And if anything, I’d even argue that it’s a successful example of PR at work, as far as being a system goes.
  All countries have unique histories, and Germany isn't special.
  PR is argued as the golden bullet to avoid "American style politics". It isn't. That is my point.
  Keeping or adopting any kind of Winner-Takes-All system will simply further divide us and keep voters feeling disenfranchised, believing that voting brings no effective change, all for no good reason.
  I am not arguing for winner take all systems. I am arguing against PR being this amazing thing that solves the problem. It doesn't and I gave an example. Feel free to look at every other country that uses PR and examine the results of recent elections. The right is seeing a Global rise and PR as a voting system isn't stopping it.
  An electoral system is not political. It’s the framework of which you exercise democracy.
  Trying to make frameworks, which are meant to surface all voices, suppress certain ones is, frankly, barking up the wrong tree.
  I don't need all of this fluff, but since I responded to everything you said without you once answering the question I posed to someone else:
  How many more elections until they form Government do you think? (The AFD in Germany)

49 comments