afransen
Senior Member
PP's appeal was entirely fatigue with Trudeau.
|
|
|
PM Mark Carney's Canada
- Thread starter Richard White
- Start date
afransen
Senior Member
Gen Z men are increasingly diverging from women in having more socially conservative attitudes towards gender equality, LGBT issues, immigration, etc.
afransen
Senior Member
Citation needed. The housing bubble continued to inflate under Harper.
urbanclient
Active Member
Change of topic and whataboutisms...
I'll refer you to this from earlier:
Yes, Trudeau was more socially progressive in some ways. This is not mutually exclusive with what I am claiming. Many social conditions worsened under Trudeau. Often a result of high population growth, which lead to housing and public services not keeping up, which later contributed to increased crime. This then ties into Trudeau's poor record on filling judicial vacancies to ensure timely prosecution of alleged criminals.
I think progressive minded people know a decline in socioeconomic conditions is correlated with higher crime.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250722/cg-a001-eng.htm
"National homicide rate increases for fourth consecutive year [...] The homicide rate increased 8% from 2.08 homicides per 100,000 population in 2021 to 2.25 homicides per 100,000 population in 2022. This was the highest rate since 1992."
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230727/dq230727b-eng.htm
When comparing eras, sexual assault against women stats show a similar depressing trend.
---------------------------------------------------------
I am not defending Harper the person. I am pointing out that despite Trudeau's progressive image and rhetoric, on many social items that matter to ordinary Canadians---housing unaffordability, food insecurity, wealth inequality, violent crime, to name a few---got worse under his admin. So while Harper may not have presented himself as progressive, many social conditions happened to be better during his administration.
That's not to say I give 0 credit to the Trudeau admin, $10 a day childcare is great, but even that only benefits less than half of the population:
"In 2024, 51.5% of Canadian women aged 20 to 49 years were not yet mothers."
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/260126/dq260126a-eng.htm
Federal immigration-driven population growth was the primary driver of declining per capita access to public services, while provincial underfunding (relative to inflation*) was a secondary aggravating factor. The sentiment I am getting is that Ford came in and made deep cuts to every public facing department. That's not true. And any relative* decline in aggregate spending did not lead to the smoldering ruin of public institutions overnight, as some are perceiving....
Even if I wholeheartedly disagree with Ford's attitudes and policies on healthcare, education, etc.
TD Chief Economist, Oct 2025: "The federal government’s revised immigration policy is beginning to pay dividends in returning balance to a stretched social infrastructure."
https://economics.td.com/ca-dial-back-of-immigration-intended-impacts
----------------------------------------
If we are not allowed to fault Trudeau's admin for policy failures leading to socioeconomic backsliding (oil prices and covid scapegoat), then we similarly cannot credit Harper's admin for generally not worsening things despite the great recession.
When Carney recently said, "more substance" less "showboating", you wonder who the previous showboater-in-chief was...
I find it funny that noone is pointing out the obvious, that the 08 financial crisis led to income growth flatlining in that chart...Although I recall this chart from Ottawa citizen that shows the wealthy did the best under Chretien/Martin, whereas Harper improved the lot of everyone equally.
The same sentiment rings true when Chinese leadership said this:
Houses are for living, not for speculation - Wikipedia
I agree with this ideal. Wealth should not be the primary goal of housing, but a happy by-product.
However, in virtually every country, the quality of life, wealth, socioeconomic mobility for homeowners tends to be better. $1 of net worth is still $1 of wealth. High rents prevent you from accumulating any form of savings. Low rents tend to lead to homeownership. Our ideals will not change the fact that wealth tends to accumulate among the homeowner class.
There is also a reason why ostensibly socialistic countries pursue de facto homeownership for their residents. China for reference has 90+% homeownership rate (with Reuters reporting 96%), compared to less than 66% in Canada and declining.
The point is, people are dismissing the benefits that homeownership can bring. As if it's no big deal that 70% of adults under age 30 are priced out, forced to pay exorbitant rents or live with their parents, as long as other social ideals are met, like a 50/50 gender ratio in the Cabinet.
"Nationally, renters report lower quality of life than homeowners"
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240219/dq240219b-eng.htm
And some part of that divergence is due to socioeconomic decline. Although I strongly disagree with the notion that American-style social conservatism is as prevalent in Canada as UT perceives. If that were the case, PP would've won and not clutched defeat from the jaws of victory. Something like 1/4 to 1/3 of Americans are evangelical Protestants, compared to less than 10% of Canadians. And religious affiliation is declining faster in Canada.
Both of your claims are true enough. As I said before, housing stock-to-population ratio consistently increased under Harper, but that did not prevent housing costs from rising faster than inflation. There were other factors at play.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
True; that's what enabled him to be fatally framed in terms of Trump. However, when PP was leading by a landslide in the polls, Trump wasn't (back) in office yet.
CMQSD402F9011
Active Member
Harper increased the use of Mandatory Minimums in new offences and this lead to courts in Canada being overburdened. The Tyee has done an article about it.Change of topic and whataboutisms...
I'll refer you to this from earlier:
Yes, Trudeau was more socially progressive in some ways. This is not mutually exclusive with what I am claiming. Many social conditions worsened under Trudeau. Often a result of high population growth, which lead to housing and public services not keeping up, which later contributed to increased crime. This then ties into Trudeau's poor record on filling judicial vacancies to ensure timely prosecution of alleged criminals.
I think progressive minded people know a decline in socioeconomic conditions is correlated with higher crime.
View attachment 730555
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250722/cg-a001-eng.htm
"National homicide rate increases for fourth consecutive year [...] The homicide rate increased 8% from 2.08 homicides per 100,000 population in 2021 to 2.25 homicides per 100,000 population in 2022. This was the highest rate since 1992."
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230727/dq230727b-eng.htm
When comparing eras, sexual assault against women stats show a similar depressing trend.
---------------------------------------------------------
I am not defending Harper the person. I am pointing out that despite Trudeau's progressive image and rhetoric, on many social items that matter to ordinary Canadians---housing unaffordability, food insecurity, wealth inequality, violent crime, to name a few---got worse under his admin. So while Harper may not have presented himself as progressive, many social conditions happened to be better during his administration.
That's not to say I give 0 credit to the Trudeau admin, $10 a day childcare is great, but even that only benefits less than half of the population:
"In 2024, 51.5% of Canadian women aged 20 to 49 years were not yet mothers."
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/260126/dq260126a-eng.htm
Federal immigration-driven population growth was the primary driver of declining per capita access to public services, while provincial underfunding (relative to inflation) was a secondary aggravating factor. The sentiment I am getting is that Ford came in and made deep cuts to every public facing department. That's not true. And any relative decline in spending did not lead to the smoldering ruin of public institutions overnight, as some are perceiving....
Even if I wholeheartedly disagree with Ford's attitudes and policies on healthcare, education, etc.
"The federal government’s revised immigration policy is beginning to pay dividends in returning balance to a stretched social infrastructure."
----------------------------------------
Is the Dial-Back of Immigration Having the Intended Impact in Canada?
Is the Dial-Back of Immigration Having the Intended Impact in Canada?economics.td.com
If we are not allowed to fault Trudeau's admin for policy failures leading to socioeconomic backsliding (oil prices and covid scapegoat), then we similarly cannot credit Harper's admin for generally not worsening things despite the great recession.
When Carney recently said, "more substance" less "showboating", you wonder who the previous showboater-in-chief was...
I find it funny that noone is pointing out the obvious, that the 08 financial crisis led to income growth flatlining in that chart...
The same sentiment rings true when Chinese leadership said this:
Houses are for living, not for speculation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I agree with this ideal. Wealth should not be the primary goal of housing, but a happy by-product.
However, in virtually every country, the quality of life, wealth, socioeconomic mobility for homeowners tends to be better. $1 of net worth is still $1 of wealth. High rents prevent you from accumulating any form of savings. Low rents tend to lead to homeownership. Our ideals will not change the fact that wealth tends to accumulate among the homeowner class.
There is also a reason why ostensibly socialistic countries pursue de facto homeownership for their residents. China for reference has 90+% homeownership rate (with Reuters reporting 96%), compared to less than 66% in Canada and declining.
The point is, people are dismissing the benefits that homeownership can bring. As if it's no big deal that 70% of adults under age 30 are priced out, forced to pay exorbitant rents or live with their parents, as long as other social ideals are met, like a 50/50 gender ratio in the Cabinet.
"Nationally, renters report lower quality of life than homeowners"
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240219/dq240219b-eng.htm
And some part of that divergence is due to socioeconomic decline. Although I strongly disagree with the notion that American-style social conservatism is as prevalent in Canada as UT perceives. If that were the case, PP would've won and not clutched defeat from the jaws of victory. Something like 1/4 to 1/3 of Americans are evangelical Protestants, compared to less than 10% of Canadians. And religious affiliation is declining faster in Canada.
Both of your claims are true enough. As I said before, housing stock-to-population ratio consistently increased under Harper, but that did not prevent housing costs from rising faster than inflation. There were other factors at play.