Can't wait for whatever policy to be implemented so poorly it ends up raising house prices.
At this point, I'm certain the intention is still to prop up housing but make voters think he finally gives a shit about them so he gets re-elected. Based on his track record, I don't have any reason to believe him.
But Pierre Poliviere's platform of "own the libs" including banning abortion and being against trans rights is not an option.
We need ranked choice voting.
You seem to have simply forgotten about the NDP.
I think that is OP's implication with ranked choice voting. With FPTP voting federal NDP can be the equivalent of tossing away your vote, where as with ranked ballot they would stand a chance.
Yes, ranked choice voting allows people to vote for who they want elected without being forced to vote "strategically" in what amounts to a horrible two-party system like the USA.
The problem is that idea of "strategic" voting only exacerbates the problems with fptp. If everyone voted for who they wanted, NDP would be getting a lot more votes.
Strategic voting is a self fulfilling prophecy.
"Getting more votes" doesn't help in FPTP unless you actually get a plurality of the votes.
If everyone voted honestly, the biggest effect of the NDP would be to help the conservatives win more elections.
"Getting more votes" doesn't help in FPTP unless you actually get a plurality of the votes.
I disagree. When everyone votes for who they actually want, everyone, including the political strategists in charge of trying to figure out how their party can win, can see what the voters really want. Yes, they will still play nasty games, but at least it will be with an awareness that there are actually a lot of people who prefer different policies.
If everyone voted honestly, the biggest effect of the NDP would be to help the conservatives win more elections.
Possibly, at least initially. But maybe the conservative strategists would see that they are courting a smaller fringe than if they had courted the socially progressive. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've long thought that most policies and platforms in all parties were designed to lead to victory rather than to adhere to some principled ideology.
But maybe the conservative strategists would see that they are courting a smaller fringe than if they had courted the socially progressive.
That would only really work if Liberals and NDP splitting the socially progressive vote doesn't cause them to consistently lose.
What's the stable equilibrium of everyone voting honestly? Each party moves to get about a third of the votes? You could reliably have an election where 2/3rds of the electorate would prefer anyone but the conservative, yet the conservative wins?
FPTP is a garbage tier electoral system.
The problem is that NDP isn't (or didn't used to be) just another way to vote for people adjacent to the centre, but for real change. "Strategic" voting for decades has done nothing but allow everything to move further right. There was a time when NDP were actually pretty radical and the Liberals weren't just yet another neoliberal clone but with fewer people stuck in the 1950s or earlier.
All the parties eventually pay attention to the most vocal voters. We need to outshout the conservatives, not just take the lesser of two evils approach. The conservatives didn't end up being such a dumpster fire by taking a lesser of two evils approach, but with a make no compromises approach. That's how they turned the ship and that's how we turn the ship. And voting our conscience is part of that.
And yes, FPTP is garbage.
The problem in FPTP is that it works really, really badly when you've got 3 or more viable candidates in one election.
As an activist in a FPTP system, you can either try to make a successful third party, or co-opt one of the existing ones during candidate selection. Both are very difficult, but the second approach is generally much easier, because you don't have to deal with vote splitting.
That makes it sound like the most effective "voting" strategy under FPTP is activism against FPTP.
I do understand strategy and tactics and understand the thinking behind strategic voting (which I think is better characterized as tactical voting, given that it's focused on immediate goals rather than long term ones). I used to be very involved in strategic voting initiatives, but after about 4 decades, it seems to me that it's not actually getting us anywhere.
My personal opinion is that one of the conservative strategies is to lock us into tactical voting as it simplifies the environment in which they operate. It also keeps us moving in their direction because we we're always focused on putting out a fire instead of on "fire prevention." This creates a ratchet mechanism, where they just do whatever they want without regard to the consequences while everyone else is taking the more reasonable approach of trying to minimize the pain of change.
That's actually the inverse of what ranked choice does.
Ranked choice fulfills "later-no-harm"; filling out a third choice can never hurt your second or first choice.
Because of that, it fails "favorite betrayal"; there are times when you get a worse outcome by voting for your honest favorite.
That's mostly because ranked choice doesn't consider your second or third picks until your first and second have been eliminated. So there's a bunch of weird edgecases where a compromise candidate with enough second, third etc. votes to win in the final round gets eliminated early on before they actually get any second, third etc. place support.
Suppose there's an election like that where the Liberal is the compromise candidate that could beat either the NDP or Conservative candidate in the final round, but because the NDP and Conservative get more first-place votes, the election goes Conservative. Depending on the particulars, NDP voters could potentially have elected the Liberal by staying home, or even by voting Conservative. Either way, they'd have been better off strategically voting for the Liberal than voting honestly for the NDP.
In general, voting honestly in ranked choice is only safe either if you're voting for a fringe third party that could never win or if you're voting for one of the two candidates with the most total popularity.
I try to avoid telling people who to vote for but they are a viable alternative.
We need open-list MMP or some other form of non-party-list PR. Ranked choice helps, but it still means that non-hyperlocal constituency groups can be ignored. Since old people vote in droves and there are old people everywhere, local winner-take-all systems like FPTP and yes, ranked-choice, still let the politicians ignore the youth.
Regional-proportional systems like STV or MMP let a constituency in the region that has enough people for a rep regionwide but not enough for any single riding get a voice in the assembly.
I mean, on the downside, this includes Nazis. But on the upside, this includes renters.
Right????
I don’t know about ranked choice voting, frankly I believe the foxes are in the hen house and there isn’t much we can do…
But like… who do I vote for? The conservatives that still want to hate on basic sexual health and destroy healthcare? The liberals that want to do a few nice things but stop short of meaningful change?
Like…. ???
Here’s hoping that the ndp pull out a huge and useful platform, because that would be great, but after a few years in charge, they’ll do the same and still screw the populace.
I can’t trust any of them.
Yeah in 2015...aged like milk.
I haven't been following this closely but the last thing I heard about was a big hand out to property developers, as if they need any more wealth and power and influence in our system lol
The handout is dependent on the city updating their zoning laws to make building higher density easier.
Not just easier, if we can zone an area that only has single family homes, then we can zone an area that can have minimum density requirements for each building. No paying a fine to ignore zoning or putting density in the corner of the lot only to meet requirements. We dont need these developments to be easier to build, we need to build them no matter what.
I love those recommendations. An earlier post here made it seem like they only wanted to build more, which (by itself) is insufficient to keep housing affordable.
But that infographic shows a balanced set of recommendations that - taken together - will definitely help!
Regardless of whether these are built as rentals or for sale, the catch-up to fulfill demand will take decades, and no property developer will do them if they aren't profitable.
So don't expect property values to seriously decline. Frankly, what we all need are wages to catch up to the cost of living.
If wages increase but housing demand remains significantly higher than supply, housing prices will just inflate. We need to build a lot more homes.
We definitely do, but people seem to think that's a speedy election-cycle process.
I mean the solution is pretty clear. Establish residency requirements, and significantly increase taxes on places that aren’t used as primary residences.
I've been telling this to anyone who will listen...
At the federal level, any income, personal or corporate, from property rentals or short term rental of any single family residental property is taxed at the highest marginal rate, PLUS a surcharge of 1%, increasing at 2x the rate of inflation every year. All taxes raised from the surcharge go to federal housing programs.
At the provincial level, any property that isn't your primary residence gets taxed at 1% of the total property value. The tax rate increases at 2x the rate of inflation every year. All taxes raised go to provincial housing programs, including rebates for first time home buyers.
At the municipal level, cities should be able to tax any property used as a short term rental at whatever rate they feel is fair. Also, any vacant property is taxed at least double the provincial rate.
This immediately stops individuals and companies from investing in single family residential properties, forces individuals and companies to divest their residential property portfolio as they become unprofitable as the tax rates increase, and slowly creates a steady flow of residential homes onto the market. It shouldn't create a housing crash, it should stop and slowly reverse the upward trend of housing over the course of 5 to 10 years.
Please steal this idea.
I'm not sure if you mean "residency" as in residents of Canada, or residency as in living in the property.
Assuming it's the former: Removing some investors from the pool of buyers would probably help a bit, but I'm not sure it would have a significant impact outside of a few markets.
Assuming it's the latter: NB taxes non-primary residences at a higher rate and has still seen significant price growth.
Rarely, if ever, has a senior politician in Canada been courageous enough to affirm that home prices need to stall if we truly care about affordability.
Wow. Such courage. To acknowledge a problem after 8 years of ambivalence. /s
Considering his biggest donors are all speculative investors in the housing market, it is actually pretty unwise, politically, to admit that he wants to slow their profiteering.
I hate that our government is so inherently corrupt like this.
I think that's where the courage part comes in. They've been pretty good about beating the drum for climate change, which alienates some voters/donors, but they've only really talked about housing supply, which is a great way to keep the base happy.
First step is realizing you have a problem. Small steps but yeah, it's progress.
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Regions
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknown💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social & Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: