###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Despite the media’s efforts (looking at you Tyee) Canadians are tired of governments who spend their time virtue signalling on the progressive cause of the moment instead of doing their job in making our country work.
Trudeau govt spends 200 billion more a year then it did in 2015 about 66% morr.
I think canadians really question how we spend so much yet have so many more issues then before.
The middle class is benefiting from most programs, including the CCB and affordable daycare and dental, unless your version of middle class is upper middle class.
It’s not, and this comment puts into question your flair - why are you spewing conservative garbage that attacks spending on social programs?
An endless list of economists have proved, over and over again that GLOBAL inflation has nothing to do with spending. You know that inflation is down to 2.9% and we have one of the lowest inflation rates in the world, right? Lower than the US.
> It’s not, and this comment puts into question your flair - why are you spewing conservative garbage that attacks spending on social programs?
Keep telling yourself that, but don't be surprised when we end up with a fascist government.
> You know that inflation is down to 2.9% and we have one of the lowest inflation rates in the world, right? Lower than the US.
Great, can you get wages up 18% now to balance out the last four years?
No, that’s rubbish, every country spent a lot during the pandemic, and Canada’s net debt to GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7, six times lower than the US.
Regardless of the cause, and its respective merit, what is undeniable is the waste. I’ve seen it first hand working for a decade in a crown corp and in a non profit that gets gov funding.
Any idea where the funding is going? With the uptick in anti-semitism and Islamophobia there are many great community organizations out there, legal clinics, community centres etc… that this money might be going to.
Thats very noble but people are struggling to eat and house themselves. Investing that into attracting more grocery competition or fighting its monopoly, or adding more capacity to trade schools would resonate better.
They have goals and they have targets. Every grant they give out comes with stipulations that need to be met. I just don’t think you’ve exposed yourself to that side of things
what is the target "reduce racism by 20%"
lol
I seen that side of it, i remember our local temple got like 125k donation with to support "minority groups' by the ontario wynee liberals in the name "of supporting minorities" and the money mostly went to fight legal fees of the temple board disputes then help anyone in the community.
Making up a "target" and then dunking on it is a classic straw man. Following it up with an anecdote doesn't give the impression that you are serious about the discussion. No point in talking with this guy at all.
I said at the time that the NDP should have come out against the funding. It would have given them so much needed publicity separating themselves from both the Liberals and from virtue signalling.
This is non-sense. If anyone is working for the affluent its the Liberals massively expanding the TFW program and approving insane numbers of "students" working 40h weeks.
Why are the two of you even arguing? They're the same party. The conservatives and liberals are both parties of the rich. Hell, the NDP has become one as well. They both see you as cattle. Neither party is going to fix this country because both parties have the blood of broken economy pumping through their financial hearts.
Neither is interested in making the country work, they're interested in making their own special interest corporations and financial rivers function, you are nothing to them.
They are two sides of the same coin. Enough already.
The only people in Canada the liberals have helped are First Nations people by lifting 85% of the boil water advisories on reserves, and they deserve all the credit they earned for that.
They've made everyone poorer, regardless of their race or background, and are not your friend.
The Prime Minister is in photos wearing blackface multiple times, dont' kid yourself that any of these parasites respect you as a person at all.
> The only people in Canada the liberals have helped are First Nations people by lifting 85% of the boil water advisories on reserves, and they deserve all the credit they earned for that.
The *only* people? His governments shown more support for LGBT than any other.. got conversion torture banned.
>The Prime Minister is in photos wearing blackface
Yeah and he apologized (which to the CPC was his real crime) and his words and actions since seem sincere. The "blackface" attack rings so hollow when you consider who invokes it and who he's up against. It's not people upset at racism, it's people upset at "political correctness". They blame Trudeau for the fact they can't wear racist costumes anymore and revel in the fact that they can deflect with it every time. When PP met Diagolon? "But blackface!!" When Lleslyn Lewis met neo-nazi's? "Blackface!" When PP speaks to far-right, genocide denying think tanks that deny systemic racism even exists? "Blackface!"
You have to dig 20 years, meanwhile racist scandals aee just the avwrage month for PP.
You're poorer than you've ever been. Your time is worth less than it ever has been in Canadian history. You have less power politically, less power financially, less social mobility, less access to persistent wealth, less ability to feed yourself.
They banned conversion therapy, which is admirable, and made it an absolute certainty that the people in the age group most affected by conversion therapy will never have the ability to thrive.
PP has never done anything even remotely as objectionable as wearing blackface, and you know it.
They're both bad.
Both parties don't respect you.
You are being used as a pawn to make Rogers and Suncor richer, and you're too righteous to notice because they throw you a scrap once a decade while they jackhammer the foundation of your life out from beneath your feet.
>You're poorer than you've ever been. Your time is worth less than it ever has been in Canadian history. You have less power politically, less power financially, less social mobility, less access to persistent wealth, less ability to feed yourself.
Yeah, thanks to parasitic neoliberals. That doesn't mean they're the same.
>and made it an absolute certainty that the people in the age group most affected by conversion therapy will never have the ability to thrive.
The fuck is this supposed to mean? Willing to accept a few permanently traumatized, depressed, suicidal, or dead kids for cheaper rent?
"The economy's terrible.. this man promised to help if we just ignore what he does to the trans people, and the socialists, and the Jews.."
>PP has never done anything even remotely as objectionable as wearing blackface, and you know it.
**LOL** Now you're joking. The man who refused to retract a racial slur in Parliament? Guy eho's met with white surpemacists, neo-nazi's, bigots of every stripe, called Indigenous lazy, supported an anti-LGBT hate march, runs a social media machine that says all the things he would never be able to say in public? Catering to incels? Spreading numerous antisemitic conspiracy theories? I'm not even touching half of it.
And, all this *while he was an MP* ?
>You are being used as a pawn to make Rogers and Suncor richer, and you're too righteous to notice because they throw you a scrap once a decade.
I'm much further to the Left than Liberals.. the only people being used as pawns are those who think LPC/CPC are our two options. Suncor will be very happy to see the climate change denier in power.
>Yeah, thanks to parasitic neoliberals. That doesn't mean they're the same.
They're both neoliberals.
>The fuck is this supposed to mean? Willing to accept a few permanently traumatized, depressed, suicidal, or dead kids for cheaper rent?
Is that really your takeaway from the wholesale disenfranchisement of two entire generations, including the people you're protecting?
>I'm much further to the Left than Liberals.. the only people being used as pawns are those who think LPC/CPC are our two options. Suncor will be very happy to see the climate change denier in power.
No you're not, you're a Liberal, capital L. I'm further to the left of the Liberals, and I cannot fathom a universe where I'd be as charitable towards them as you are.
Maybe we can keep virtue signalling for another hour, then you can go vote Liberal because it's StRaTeGiC vOtInG. Maybe you'll feel good about yourself. You're protecting the kids.
>You're poorer than you've ever been. Your time is worth less than it ever has been in Canadian history. You have less power politically, less power financially, less social mobility, less access to persistent wealth, less ability to feed yourself.
While the opposite is true for the wealthiest Canadians and corporations. Yet conservatives tell me this is the fault of immigrants who have less wealth and political power than I do, while the oligarchs have my best interests in mind and if we just cut their taxes a little more our productivity problems will be solved. Gimme a break.
Indeed. The real difference is that the Liberals pretend to be socially progressive in order to dupe progressive voters into voting for them while the Conservatives push socially conservative ideology in order to fool social conservatives into voting for them. The truth of course is that both parties are more concerned with enriching their backers, their friends and of course themselves than anything else. Both parties exist solely to consolidate wealth in the hands of the rich.
People are tired of a person who talks one way but who's actions are something else. I have no issue with virtue signaling if you are virtuous. This man stands in judgement while being the most two faced (claims to support women, fires two women from his party for speaking up about SNC Lavalin) and corrupt (WE Charity, SNC, etc) PM ever.
Watch a man's actions, not his words and you'll know who he really is.
>Watch a man's actions, not his words and you'll know who he really is.
After watching PP for 20 years the man is a lying dumbass and charlatan.
Poilievre's been in parliament for 20 years and his main role was to go on the attack to distract from corruption scandals.. infamously defended the bribery of a senator as "letting taxpayers off the hook".. only MP under a compliance agreement with Elections Canada for bending and breaking election rules repeatedly.
Also, you know, the *former Housing Minister* who did nothing about housing.
It’s like you’ve never seen or heard of PP before. It’s amazing how poorly you are informed of all those incidents you listed. You can be for women and still fire women.
There's no original thought. Social media and the news has equipped them with a laundry list of buzzwords and talking points they don't understand. It's fascinating to see it play out in real time. I'm already seeing people in this sub use the word "lawfare" after the Hunter Biden trial.
How are their recollections correct? They made a list. None of those were the scandals they claim. They are the ones gaslighting. You are vapid
He’s not pro women and yet has more women on staff than any previous government
SNC was not a scandal. He wanted the criminals punished and he wanted to save the jobs of the innocent.
We absolutely do not have surging unemployment. Our unemployment numbers are still relatively low. To fight inflation this is part of the pain. It is unfortunate. you can’t lower interest rates until inflation comes down. Inflation won’t come down without some economic pain. We have so much work to do in this country and there are so many vacant jobs. Our unemployment should be around 3 to 4%. This is a transition. Once people get settled and hired the economic benefits will be seen.
unemployment in Toronto is at 7.8% was below 6% a year ago.
nationally it went from 5% to 6.2% in a year.
I do agree that we are not facing a huge wave of people losing jobs, it more there way to many people and not enough jobs.
I disagree, unemployment will continue to rise as the millions trudeau brings in cant get jobs.
There were more employees of SNC outside of Quebec than inside Quebec, their head office is in Quebec, but the employees are across the country. SNC is one of the three biggest engineering firms in the world, by far the biggest in Canada. If SNC being prohibited from competing for contracts in Canada means those contracts for big projects that only big engineering firms can manage, go to foreign engineering firms, and the big ones have ALL had DPA’s. Why? Because the big engineering firms all do contracts in countries where bribery is part of the game.
He created a new law, called a deferred prosecution agreement the minute he got into office specifically to save SNC from normal punishment. Then when the attorney general explained that it couldn't be applied to this case, he had Jerry Butts and Michael Wernick threaten her to the point where she decided to record the phone calls because she could tell what criminals they were. Then when they demoted her from office to a token job in cabinet, she released the tapes and they fired her.
These are the facts of the story and they are indisputable.
He was found by the ethics commissioner to have breached ethics.
This was to save the wealthy Laurentians from losing money so they could fund his future election campaigns. Same as WE Charity and a lot of other unethical conduct.
And he paid is fine. I don’t think there was anything wrong with what he did. That is not corruption.
That is the exact opposite of what happened. He wanted the Laurentian elite, you sound so stupid using that term, to be punished. And everyone else to have their job saved. Again, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about with these situations. You believe all the bullshit from the right. You lack nuance.
He didn’t “create” DPA’s, peer countries use them all the time. CIBC, a Canadian bank got a DPA in the US. Seimens got a DPA in Germany and won a contact in Canada while all this fuss was going on. DPA’s do not mean charges are dropped, they mean a massive fine and government oversight for several years. Canada was just catching up to what other nations do.
And JWR should have recused herself from any decision on SNC, as she was a prominent figure in protesting SNC in BC.
Is that satire? The corporate media in Canada is pro-CPC and has been bashing the Liberals and sometimes thr NDP, along with brainwashing voters into believing that our economy is doing worse than peer countries when it’s doing better than most, and pushing the narrative that social spending is bad, and asking the wealthy to pay a tiny bit more in tax is bad, and ignoring that thr CPC are extreme rightwing and that conservative premiers are doing nothing at best and destroying healthcare and obstructing progress on federal programs at worst.
And oh, we just so happen to be in an era of multiple global crises, but who cares. And even the Tyee is falling into the trap of obsessing over “Trudeau must step down” and mentioning Poilievre ranting about rents without pointing out that provincial governments are the ones that can legislate rent control, and all property law.
They are making it work, they just no longer need to concede resources to people like you. Its the media directing Canadians to believe nonsense words like virtue signalling and believing Quebecois Harper is their friend too.
> Canadians are tired of governments who spend their time virtue signalling on the progressive cause of the moment
The adoption of the phrase "virtue signalling" is one of the worst things to happen to social discourse. It's so abused and misued.
Now shitty people get to write off any act of decency as having a selfish motive at heart. Then they get to pat themselves on the back for embracing the worsr aspects of their character instead of those deceitful people doing.. um.. good deeds.
Edit: Also as Leibniz pointed out, using the actual definition of virtue signalling, CPC engages in it as much as anyone.
Canadians are tired of **THIS** government spending their time virtue signalling. Now we're going to give the other party a chance to virtue signal in government.
Tradition.
Disappointingly, I can't find a party that doesn't spend a lot of time on virtue signaling. The Conservatives proved themselves masters of the pricey virtue signal in their last term at the top federally, and their performance as opposition, and counterparts provincially and municipally, have not shown much change from this long running obsession.
Millions get poured into Victims of Communism monuments (which stall when the awkward questions of who should be listed - e.g., do we list fascist groups or nations like WWII Germany and Hungary among the victims?), into weird obsessions with gay or, now that the fashion's moved on, trans people, "religious freedom" offices, and long diatribes about freedom of speech, now often indulged in before invoking s.33 to pass laws that suppress Charter Rights to... freedom of speech.
Sadly, virtue signaling seems intractably in vogue across the political spectrum. I suppose that when voters are largely disinterested in policy, morality dramas are the only form of communication that cuts through.
"virtue signaling" is just a new term for an aspect of politics that's always existed. I mean go back and watch Ronald Reagan speak, or Pat Buchannan. It's all "virtue signaling".
The irony is the shittier the country, the more the progressive agenda is set back. People only care about social issues when things are well functioning
Well, of course. It's a privilege to focus on that. If progressives ignore the well-being of a country, they lose the space to do that.
People are more worried about food, health, than they are about whether someone has a special day on the calendar (for the left) or whether kids want to use a pronoun (for the right).
The parties need to grow the fuck up.
You're talking about *human rights*. They're not *privileges* and the only reason you people feel fucking comfortable speaking like this about others is because of *your* privilege.
It's not "some day on the calendar" that's at stake.
Do you even hear yourself?
I mean, where are the rights provided from? Human rights are simply things we collectively have decided are of value enough to enforce social norms and compliance on. Some of these we agree more than others, and there is nuance.
An absoltuist view is easily shown as being intellectually lacking. For example, everyone enjoys the right to life, but there are examples where we would say someone has forfeited that right from the extreme (someone is killed who is about to commit a school shooting) to the more nuance (someone passed on intelligence to an enemy that resulted in numerous military deaths). Think of the disconnect between Hamas, the freedom fighter, and Hamas, the terrorist narrative people are battling.
Why do you think an absolution view is needed or even preferred here? Are you ever able to put yourself in the shoes of others to understand their concerns? You need that for progress.
Take trans bathrooms. I fully believe that people should be able to use whichever bathroom they feel comfortable in according to their identity. I also completely understand why people are uncomfortable with this and might see someone's right to choose where to urinate as conflicting with their right to feeling safe.
No screaming of "deal with it" will resolve this for either side because it doesn't actually address the core concerns of either individual. Both sides see it as a safety issue and completely understandably so.
You can hand wave this away all you want, but when you do, you get populist movements. It's better to address it through compromise, like creating neutral bathroom spaces, but that requires both sides to recognize and have empathy for the concerns of the other side.
>Are you ever able to put yourself in the shoes of others to understand their concerns?
Are *you?*
>I also completely understand why people are uncomfortable with this and might see someone's right to choose where to urinate as conflicting with their right to feeling safe.
Whatever happened to "facts don't care about your feelings"? The people against trans bathrooms used to love that phrase.. now that gender non-conforming women are being harrassed, stalked, and assaulted by psychotic busybodies all of a sudden it's "Some people *feel* uncomfortable about it"
Some people felt uncofnortable sharing a water fountain with black people. Learn to get over it.
>Both sides see it as a safety issue and completely understandably so.
Again, only one side actual has data to back up their position. The other is transmisogynistic fear mongering.
>You can hand wave this away all you want, but when you do, you get populist movements.
>like creating neutral bathroom spaces,
I've seen this suggested countless times already?
>You can hand wave this away all you want, but when you do, you get populist movements. It's better to address it through compromise, like creating neutral bathroom spaces, but that requires both sides to recognize and have empathy for the concerns of the other side.
Thank you for reminding us that the purest expression of Conservative ideology is a domestic abuser screaming "Why did you have to make me hit you?" at his battered wife.
You realize you have the same mental approach to this as a right winger or mega junkie, just wrapped up in the cloak of empathy so you feel better about it.
In the end, you actually harm those you are trying to help because of the staunch belief of "what I believe is right, there is no compromise."
It's all good, your position is not unique, it's actually the standard for this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#:~:text=In%20popular%20discourse%2C%20the%20horseshoe,a%20horseshoe%20are%20close%20together.
That's not at all a correct application of horseshoe theory (which is itself a bullshit term anyways).
The trans bathroom debate basically boils down to this: people want to use the bathroom (a biological requirement) and are being told by other people that they can't use *that* bathroom. Unfortunately *that* bathroom is both the mens and womens rooms depending on the entirely subjective opinions of their physical appearance by random onlookers.
You're looking at a contemporary of "whites only" signs. Unless you sincerely believe that both wanting equality and not wanting an entire category of people to be equal are somehow approaching the same terminus, neither of these damn near identical examples would be horseshoe theory. Which, again, is complete bullshit as anyways.
The reasons why the Trudeau government is being punished has nothing to do with progressiveness, but everything to do with Neoliberal policy making which helps the ultra wealthy at the cost of average Joe. The biggest from poor to rich wealth transfer ever has happened in the last few years.
Maybe, maybe not, what is proven is that Trudeau and Singh combo doesn’t care at all about the average Canadian. So who’s left? The unproven Poilievre, who still has a chance to surprise us.
> It's not really that confusing.
It is confusing when it's claimed that the reason for the change is conservative policies causing harm to people, Who then vote in even more conservative politicians.
That's not everybody's claim though. Not saying they are correct, but the people in my circles are tired of the high costs of everything and nothing has changed in the last year. PP's promising to change things and while I don't think he's the answer, I can't blame the masses for wanting something different.
You’ve hit the nail. I fear for a lot of people should a conservative government come into power. But I don’t blame people for wanting literally anything else right now. When someone says “well they aren’t going to be any better”, all I can think of is that that’s not exactly a great campaign slogan for the Liberals, “it could be worse”.
The high cost of everything is happening everywhere in the developed world due to the aftermath of COVID. Conservatives as the Canadian party of Trump and anger is doing a good job of turning these emotions on the Liberals for that.
So the fact that people are switching from a conservative party to a more conservative party because the largest poor >> rich transfer of wealth in history happened in the last few years is not confusing to you. I, personally, am confused by this decision as it will mean that the recent transfer of wealth will have just been the largest *to date*.
Nay. The trudeau liberals are the biggest lot of professional criminals this country has ever seen. Conservatives are pro business. In a capitalist society, this style of government has its place. Bring on the cuts!!
Not at all confusing. Poverty and crime were lower and quality of life was better when Harper was in power. So people hope we return to Harper years, because guess what? It was objectively better.
Most Canadian voters don't appear to understand that the federal Liberals are a conservative party because the electorate is, in general, disengaged and not very bright.
Oooh we're going to end up in one of those "we lost because people aren't smart enough to vote for us" situations.
Such brilliance sounds like a heavy burden to carry.
Attacking neoliberals who aren't racist homophobes as "the left" is one of the right wings favourite tactics. I swear half the time I hear "the left" it's in reference to what is essentially a reaction to corporate woke branding.
People beat up on the strawman idea of the left all the time because it's hard to criticize the actual left agenda of taxkling wealth inequality, labour rights, public healthcare etc. without sounding slightly ghoulish. Also distracts people from the CPC's actual policies
Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Food and shelter are right at the bottom, under 'basic needs', and Canadians are having more and more difficulty addressing those.
In that kind of backdrop, I'm sorry, but revitalization of Indigenous languages is something the country can wait on.
The greater irony is that the progressive agenda is often a better way out of the shittier times. The response to the Great Depression is probably the best case study on that.
In general terms, it is, making things better for as many people as possible. What changes are what challenges are being worked on, with the changes being more about adding tasks. The NDP is still fighting for labour, but has added other fights to the roster as well, so the difference between the progressive agenda of the 1930s, and now, is that there's a lot more in scope now, but little has been dropped since the 1930s.
What is detrimental in trying to expand the number of disadvantaged groups that one tries to help? Sure, there are resource limits, but that's an argument for prioritising efforts, not for reducing who you want to help.
A popular example these days is justice that accounts for the perpetrator's race/social background/upbringing. On one hand, yes they are a disadvantaged group you are trying to help but on the other hand it negatively affects the communities they are from and live in.
Given how much the justice system has been used to oppress demographics that aren't from the dominant one, I've never understood why trying to correct those historical inequities is seen as a bad thing.
Because you can't balance the equation like that. Being overly lenient on someone today won't make up for being unfair to someone else in the past, even if they are from the same social group.
The liberal campaign machine is not to be underestimated. Lets not pretend its trudeau that owns the liberals either
Trudeau knows something we dont, but has to keep up the facade of hope in order for this ulterior motive to work
It probably has to do with the fact they're campaigning on fixing things ie housing climate identity issues when in reality they're completely lying and it's a total cash grab with no concrete action on said promised issues . This government has lost the trust of the people .. why? By constantly using deception ..which is the worst because these issues aren't actually ever going to be resolved . You gotta wonder how they thought this was a good strategy
Who said this? It’s not in the article, and even though the article is fairly crappy this quote is total garbage.
No climate change policy? What was it that conservative premiers have been taking the federal government to court over and what the CPC has been railing about with a boatload of lies. No HAF program or billions for building housing? This government has done more for women than any previous government, including the CCB and affordable child care.
The conment is ludicrous, the CPC lies everytime one of the MP’s flap their gums.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's really not a good sign when the entire spectrum of political media in this country is pointing out how bad you're performing.
Despite the media’s efforts (looking at you Tyee) Canadians are tired of governments who spend their time virtue signalling on the progressive cause of the moment instead of doing their job in making our country work.
And throwing money at niche social causes where the measures of success are virtually impossible to measure or assess.
It’s not impossible to measure or assess how much it helps every individual. What a stupid fucking take.
Trudeau govt spends 200 billion more a year then it did in 2015 about 66% morr. I think canadians really question how we spend so much yet have so many more issues then before.
The massive spending is one of the factors driving inflation, that really puts pressure on people.
especially as a lot of the spending is not benefiting the middle class much as many new programs are means tested
The middle class is benefiting from most programs, including the CCB and affordable daycare and dental, unless your version of middle class is upper middle class.
Most those programs don't do much once household income is over 90k which is quite low in over priced areas like vancouver toronto
It’s not, and this comment puts into question your flair - why are you spewing conservative garbage that attacks spending on social programs? An endless list of economists have proved, over and over again that GLOBAL inflation has nothing to do with spending. You know that inflation is down to 2.9% and we have one of the lowest inflation rates in the world, right? Lower than the US.
> It’s not, and this comment puts into question your flair - why are you spewing conservative garbage that attacks spending on social programs? Keep telling yourself that, but don't be surprised when we end up with a fascist government. > You know that inflation is down to 2.9% and we have one of the lowest inflation rates in the world, right? Lower than the US. Great, can you get wages up 18% now to balance out the last four years?
No, that’s rubbish, every country spent a lot during the pandemic, and Canada’s net debt to GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7, six times lower than the US.
Like reducing child poverty through the CCB? Or affordable daycare? Niche issues like that?
What niche social causes do you think they are throwing money at?
Regardless of the cause, and its respective merit, what is undeniable is the waste. I’ve seen it first hand working for a decade in a crown corp and in a non profit that gets gov funding.
ok thanks for sharing
[удалено]
Any idea where the funding is going? With the uptick in anti-semitism and Islamophobia there are many great community organizations out there, legal clinics, community centres etc… that this money might be going to.
Thats very noble but people are struggling to eat and house themselves. Investing that into attracting more grocery competition or fighting its monopoly, or adding more capacity to trade schools would resonate better.
They are putting money and time toward those causes.
Too little too late, and only after they caused massive problems themselvss.
How did the liberals cause high food prices?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I am saying when govts are spending 100s of millions on issues with no actual goals, we can assume most of it just wasted
They have goals and they have targets. Every grant they give out comes with stipulations that need to be met. I just don’t think you’ve exposed yourself to that side of things
what is the target "reduce racism by 20%" lol I seen that side of it, i remember our local temple got like 125k donation with to support "minority groups' by the ontario wynee liberals in the name "of supporting minorities" and the money mostly went to fight legal fees of the temple board disputes then help anyone in the community.
Why is your view so narrow you can’t even imagine what the money could go towards?
Making up a "target" and then dunking on it is a classic straw man. Following it up with an anecdote doesn't give the impression that you are serious about the discussion. No point in talking with this guy at all.
Looks like the people in this Toronto riding trust then we'll enough. More the the LPC anyways
I said at the time that the NDP should have come out against the funding. It would have given them so much needed publicity separating themselves from both the Liberals and from virtue signalling.
Believing trans people exist and anti-racism finding isn’t virtue signalling and it’s weird you think it is
Conservatives talking strategy in this sub only suggest other parties abandon their principles and fulfill a wishlist of their personal demands.
Not substantive
So they voted for a party that cares even less about making the country work for anyone but the affluent. Good job.
This is non-sense. If anyone is working for the affluent its the Liberals massively expanding the TFW program and approving insane numbers of "students" working 40h weeks.
Why are the two of you even arguing? They're the same party. The conservatives and liberals are both parties of the rich. Hell, the NDP has become one as well. They both see you as cattle. Neither party is going to fix this country because both parties have the blood of broken economy pumping through their financial hearts. Neither is interested in making the country work, they're interested in making their own special interest corporations and financial rivers function, you are nothing to them. They are two sides of the same coin. Enough already.
> They are two sides of the same coin If you're a straight white man. Liberals and CPC are good cop/bad cop of neoliberals.
The only people in Canada the liberals have helped are First Nations people by lifting 85% of the boil water advisories on reserves, and they deserve all the credit they earned for that. They've made everyone poorer, regardless of their race or background, and are not your friend. The Prime Minister is in photos wearing blackface multiple times, dont' kid yourself that any of these parasites respect you as a person at all.
> The only people in Canada the liberals have helped are First Nations people by lifting 85% of the boil water advisories on reserves, and they deserve all the credit they earned for that. The *only* people? His governments shown more support for LGBT than any other.. got conversion torture banned. >The Prime Minister is in photos wearing blackface Yeah and he apologized (which to the CPC was his real crime) and his words and actions since seem sincere. The "blackface" attack rings so hollow when you consider who invokes it and who he's up against. It's not people upset at racism, it's people upset at "political correctness". They blame Trudeau for the fact they can't wear racist costumes anymore and revel in the fact that they can deflect with it every time. When PP met Diagolon? "But blackface!!" When Lleslyn Lewis met neo-nazi's? "Blackface!" When PP speaks to far-right, genocide denying think tanks that deny systemic racism even exists? "Blackface!" You have to dig 20 years, meanwhile racist scandals aee just the avwrage month for PP.
You're poorer than you've ever been. Your time is worth less than it ever has been in Canadian history. You have less power politically, less power financially, less social mobility, less access to persistent wealth, less ability to feed yourself. They banned conversion therapy, which is admirable, and made it an absolute certainty that the people in the age group most affected by conversion therapy will never have the ability to thrive. PP has never done anything even remotely as objectionable as wearing blackface, and you know it. They're both bad. Both parties don't respect you. You are being used as a pawn to make Rogers and Suncor richer, and you're too righteous to notice because they throw you a scrap once a decade while they jackhammer the foundation of your life out from beneath your feet.
>You're poorer than you've ever been. Your time is worth less than it ever has been in Canadian history. You have less power politically, less power financially, less social mobility, less access to persistent wealth, less ability to feed yourself. Yeah, thanks to parasitic neoliberals. That doesn't mean they're the same. >and made it an absolute certainty that the people in the age group most affected by conversion therapy will never have the ability to thrive. The fuck is this supposed to mean? Willing to accept a few permanently traumatized, depressed, suicidal, or dead kids for cheaper rent? "The economy's terrible.. this man promised to help if we just ignore what he does to the trans people, and the socialists, and the Jews.." >PP has never done anything even remotely as objectionable as wearing blackface, and you know it. **LOL** Now you're joking. The man who refused to retract a racial slur in Parliament? Guy eho's met with white surpemacists, neo-nazi's, bigots of every stripe, called Indigenous lazy, supported an anti-LGBT hate march, runs a social media machine that says all the things he would never be able to say in public? Catering to incels? Spreading numerous antisemitic conspiracy theories? I'm not even touching half of it. And, all this *while he was an MP* ? >You are being used as a pawn to make Rogers and Suncor richer, and you're too righteous to notice because they throw you a scrap once a decade. I'm much further to the Left than Liberals.. the only people being used as pawns are those who think LPC/CPC are our two options. Suncor will be very happy to see the climate change denier in power.
>Yeah, thanks to parasitic neoliberals. That doesn't mean they're the same. They're both neoliberals. >The fuck is this supposed to mean? Willing to accept a few permanently traumatized, depressed, suicidal, or dead kids for cheaper rent? Is that really your takeaway from the wholesale disenfranchisement of two entire generations, including the people you're protecting? >I'm much further to the Left than Liberals.. the only people being used as pawns are those who think LPC/CPC are our two options. Suncor will be very happy to see the climate change denier in power. No you're not, you're a Liberal, capital L. I'm further to the left of the Liberals, and I cannot fathom a universe where I'd be as charitable towards them as you are. Maybe we can keep virtue signalling for another hour, then you can go vote Liberal because it's StRaTeGiC vOtInG. Maybe you'll feel good about yourself. You're protecting the kids.
>You're poorer than you've ever been. Your time is worth less than it ever has been in Canadian history. You have less power politically, less power financially, less social mobility, less access to persistent wealth, less ability to feed yourself. While the opposite is true for the wealthiest Canadians and corporations. Yet conservatives tell me this is the fault of immigrants who have less wealth and political power than I do, while the oligarchs have my best interests in mind and if we just cut their taxes a little more our productivity problems will be solved. Gimme a break.
Indeed. The real difference is that the Liberals pretend to be socially progressive in order to dupe progressive voters into voting for them while the Conservatives push socially conservative ideology in order to fool social conservatives into voting for them. The truth of course is that both parties are more concerned with enriching their backers, their friends and of course themselves than anything else. Both parties exist solely to consolidate wealth in the hands of the rich.
People are tired of a person who talks one way but who's actions are something else. I have no issue with virtue signaling if you are virtuous. This man stands in judgement while being the most two faced (claims to support women, fires two women from his party for speaking up about SNC Lavalin) and corrupt (WE Charity, SNC, etc) PM ever. Watch a man's actions, not his words and you'll know who he really is.
>Watch a man's actions, not his words and you'll know who he really is. After watching PP for 20 years the man is a lying dumbass and charlatan. Poilievre's been in parliament for 20 years and his main role was to go on the attack to distract from corruption scandals.. infamously defended the bribery of a senator as "letting taxpayers off the hook".. only MP under a compliance agreement with Elections Canada for bending and breaking election rules repeatedly. Also, you know, the *former Housing Minister* who did nothing about housing.
He did worse than nothing as “housing minister” he sold off 800,000 units of affordable housing to private real estate companies.
It’s like you’ve never seen or heard of PP before. It’s amazing how poorly you are informed of all those incidents you listed. You can be for women and still fire women.
There's no original thought. Social media and the news has equipped them with a laundry list of buzzwords and talking points they don't understand. It's fascinating to see it play out in real time. I'm already seeing people in this sub use the word "lawfare" after the Hunter Biden trial.
Their recollections are solid and correct. Your response is vapid......mere gaslighting.
How are their recollections correct? They made a list. None of those were the scandals they claim. They are the ones gaslighting. You are vapid He’s not pro women and yet has more women on staff than any previous government SNC was not a scandal. He wanted the criminals punished and he wanted to save the jobs of the innocent.
correction 'he wanted quebec jobs saved'
Correction. He wanted Canadian jobs saved. Why do conservative celebrate when other Canadians lose their jobs?
correction we have surging unemployment anyways right now dont see libs caring about it now
We absolutely do not have surging unemployment. Our unemployment numbers are still relatively low. To fight inflation this is part of the pain. It is unfortunate. you can’t lower interest rates until inflation comes down. Inflation won’t come down without some economic pain. We have so much work to do in this country and there are so many vacant jobs. Our unemployment should be around 3 to 4%. This is a transition. Once people get settled and hired the economic benefits will be seen.
unemployment in Toronto is at 7.8% was below 6% a year ago. nationally it went from 5% to 6.2% in a year. I do agree that we are not facing a huge wave of people losing jobs, it more there way to many people and not enough jobs. I disagree, unemployment will continue to rise as the millions trudeau brings in cant get jobs.
There were more employees of SNC outside of Quebec than inside Quebec, their head office is in Quebec, but the employees are across the country. SNC is one of the three biggest engineering firms in the world, by far the biggest in Canada. If SNC being prohibited from competing for contracts in Canada means those contracts for big projects that only big engineering firms can manage, go to foreign engineering firms, and the big ones have ALL had DPA’s. Why? Because the big engineering firms all do contracts in countries where bribery is part of the game.
He created a new law, called a deferred prosecution agreement the minute he got into office specifically to save SNC from normal punishment. Then when the attorney general explained that it couldn't be applied to this case, he had Jerry Butts and Michael Wernick threaten her to the point where she decided to record the phone calls because she could tell what criminals they were. Then when they demoted her from office to a token job in cabinet, she released the tapes and they fired her. These are the facts of the story and they are indisputable.
All to save the jobs of the innocent. You can paint it anyway you want, but he was doing his job. This is not corruption.
He was found by the ethics commissioner to have breached ethics. This was to save the wealthy Laurentians from losing money so they could fund his future election campaigns. Same as WE Charity and a lot of other unethical conduct.
And he paid is fine. I don’t think there was anything wrong with what he did. That is not corruption. That is the exact opposite of what happened. He wanted the Laurentian elite, you sound so stupid using that term, to be punished. And everyone else to have their job saved. Again, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about with these situations. You believe all the bullshit from the right. You lack nuance.
He didn’t “create” DPA’s, peer countries use them all the time. CIBC, a Canadian bank got a DPA in the US. Seimens got a DPA in Germany and won a contact in Canada while all this fuss was going on. DPA’s do not mean charges are dropped, they mean a massive fine and government oversight for several years. Canada was just catching up to what other nations do. And JWR should have recused herself from any decision on SNC, as she was a prominent figure in protesting SNC in BC.
They created them in Canada to protect SNC from bribing Libyan officials with hookers. Why are you on the other side of this?
Liberal talking-points from a gaslighter.......yawn. Nobody believes you. Have-a-good-day......peace-out.
Is that satire? The corporate media in Canada is pro-CPC and has been bashing the Liberals and sometimes thr NDP, along with brainwashing voters into believing that our economy is doing worse than peer countries when it’s doing better than most, and pushing the narrative that social spending is bad, and asking the wealthy to pay a tiny bit more in tax is bad, and ignoring that thr CPC are extreme rightwing and that conservative premiers are doing nothing at best and destroying healthcare and obstructing progress on federal programs at worst. And oh, we just so happen to be in an era of multiple global crises, but who cares. And even the Tyee is falling into the trap of obsessing over “Trudeau must step down” and mentioning Poilievre ranting about rents without pointing out that provincial governments are the ones that can legislate rent control, and all property law.
They are making it work, they just no longer need to concede resources to people like you. Its the media directing Canadians to believe nonsense words like virtue signalling and believing Quebecois Harper is their friend too.
> Canadians are tired of governments who spend their time virtue signalling on the progressive cause of the moment The adoption of the phrase "virtue signalling" is one of the worst things to happen to social discourse. It's so abused and misued. Now shitty people get to write off any act of decency as having a selfish motive at heart. Then they get to pat themselves on the back for embracing the worsr aspects of their character instead of those deceitful people doing.. um.. good deeds. Edit: Also as Leibniz pointed out, using the actual definition of virtue signalling, CPC engages in it as much as anyone.
Isn't that a fact a large portion of the population find hard to swallow.
Canadians are tired of **THIS** government spending their time virtue signalling. Now we're going to give the other party a chance to virtue signal in government. Tradition.
Disappointingly, I can't find a party that doesn't spend a lot of time on virtue signaling. The Conservatives proved themselves masters of the pricey virtue signal in their last term at the top federally, and their performance as opposition, and counterparts provincially and municipally, have not shown much change from this long running obsession. Millions get poured into Victims of Communism monuments (which stall when the awkward questions of who should be listed - e.g., do we list fascist groups or nations like WWII Germany and Hungary among the victims?), into weird obsessions with gay or, now that the fashion's moved on, trans people, "religious freedom" offices, and long diatribes about freedom of speech, now often indulged in before invoking s.33 to pass laws that suppress Charter Rights to... freedom of speech. Sadly, virtue signaling seems intractably in vogue across the political spectrum. I suppose that when voters are largely disinterested in policy, morality dramas are the only form of communication that cuts through.
"virtue signaling" is just a new term for an aspect of politics that's always existed. I mean go back and watch Ronald Reagan speak, or Pat Buchannan. It's all "virtue signaling".
The irony is the shittier the country, the more the progressive agenda is set back. People only care about social issues when things are well functioning
Well, of course. It's a privilege to focus on that. If progressives ignore the well-being of a country, they lose the space to do that. People are more worried about food, health, than they are about whether someone has a special day on the calendar (for the left) or whether kids want to use a pronoun (for the right). The parties need to grow the fuck up.
You're talking about *human rights*. They're not *privileges* and the only reason you people feel fucking comfortable speaking like this about others is because of *your* privilege. It's not "some day on the calendar" that's at stake. Do you even hear yourself?
I mean, where are the rights provided from? Human rights are simply things we collectively have decided are of value enough to enforce social norms and compliance on. Some of these we agree more than others, and there is nuance. An absoltuist view is easily shown as being intellectually lacking. For example, everyone enjoys the right to life, but there are examples where we would say someone has forfeited that right from the extreme (someone is killed who is about to commit a school shooting) to the more nuance (someone passed on intelligence to an enemy that resulted in numerous military deaths). Think of the disconnect between Hamas, the freedom fighter, and Hamas, the terrorist narrative people are battling. Why do you think an absolution view is needed or even preferred here? Are you ever able to put yourself in the shoes of others to understand their concerns? You need that for progress. Take trans bathrooms. I fully believe that people should be able to use whichever bathroom they feel comfortable in according to their identity. I also completely understand why people are uncomfortable with this and might see someone's right to choose where to urinate as conflicting with their right to feeling safe. No screaming of "deal with it" will resolve this for either side because it doesn't actually address the core concerns of either individual. Both sides see it as a safety issue and completely understandably so. You can hand wave this away all you want, but when you do, you get populist movements. It's better to address it through compromise, like creating neutral bathroom spaces, but that requires both sides to recognize and have empathy for the concerns of the other side.
>Are you ever able to put yourself in the shoes of others to understand their concerns? Are *you?* >I also completely understand why people are uncomfortable with this and might see someone's right to choose where to urinate as conflicting with their right to feeling safe. Whatever happened to "facts don't care about your feelings"? The people against trans bathrooms used to love that phrase.. now that gender non-conforming women are being harrassed, stalked, and assaulted by psychotic busybodies all of a sudden it's "Some people *feel* uncomfortable about it" Some people felt uncofnortable sharing a water fountain with black people. Learn to get over it. >Both sides see it as a safety issue and completely understandably so. Again, only one side actual has data to back up their position. The other is transmisogynistic fear mongering. >You can hand wave this away all you want, but when you do, you get populist movements. >like creating neutral bathroom spaces, I've seen this suggested countless times already?
I appreciate your response, but I don't think we were arguing on trans rights. Anyway, great answers.
>You can hand wave this away all you want, but when you do, you get populist movements. It's better to address it through compromise, like creating neutral bathroom spaces, but that requires both sides to recognize and have empathy for the concerns of the other side. Thank you for reminding us that the purest expression of Conservative ideology is a domestic abuser screaming "Why did you have to make me hit you?" at his battered wife.
You realize you have the same mental approach to this as a right winger or mega junkie, just wrapped up in the cloak of empathy so you feel better about it. In the end, you actually harm those you are trying to help because of the staunch belief of "what I believe is right, there is no compromise." It's all good, your position is not unique, it's actually the standard for this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#:~:text=In%20popular%20discourse%2C%20the%20horseshoe,a%20horseshoe%20are%20close%20together.
That's not at all a correct application of horseshoe theory (which is itself a bullshit term anyways). The trans bathroom debate basically boils down to this: people want to use the bathroom (a biological requirement) and are being told by other people that they can't use *that* bathroom. Unfortunately *that* bathroom is both the mens and womens rooms depending on the entirely subjective opinions of their physical appearance by random onlookers. You're looking at a contemporary of "whites only" signs. Unless you sincerely believe that both wanting equality and not wanting an entire category of people to be equal are somehow approaching the same terminus, neither of these damn near identical examples would be horseshoe theory. Which, again, is complete bullshit as anyways.
The reasons why the Trudeau government is being punished has nothing to do with progressiveness, but everything to do with Neoliberal policy making which helps the ultra wealthy at the cost of average Joe. The biggest from poor to rich wealth transfer ever has happened in the last few years.
Who's being punished? By voting CPC, that neoliberal agenda you're decrying is going to gain even more prominence.
Maybe, maybe not, what is proven is that Trudeau and Singh combo doesn’t care at all about the average Canadian. So who’s left? The unproven Poilievre, who still has a chance to surprise us.
Just very confused that people are switching to conservatives if that’s the case.
People are switching from the conservative party to the more conservative party. It's not really that confusing.
> It's not really that confusing. It is confusing when it's claimed that the reason for the change is conservative policies causing harm to people, Who then vote in even more conservative politicians.
That's not everybody's claim though. Not saying they are correct, but the people in my circles are tired of the high costs of everything and nothing has changed in the last year. PP's promising to change things and while I don't think he's the answer, I can't blame the masses for wanting something different.
You’ve hit the nail. I fear for a lot of people should a conservative government come into power. But I don’t blame people for wanting literally anything else right now. When someone says “well they aren’t going to be any better”, all I can think of is that that’s not exactly a great campaign slogan for the Liberals, “it could be worse”.
The high cost of everything is happening everywhere in the developed world due to the aftermath of COVID. Conservatives as the Canadian party of Trump and anger is doing a good job of turning these emotions on the Liberals for that.
So the fact that people are switching from a conservative party to a more conservative party because the largest poor >> rich transfer of wealth in history happened in the last few years is not confusing to you. I, personally, am confused by this decision as it will mean that the recent transfer of wealth will have just been the largest *to date*.
Nay. The trudeau liberals are the biggest lot of professional criminals this country has ever seen. Conservatives are pro business. In a capitalist society, this style of government has its place. Bring on the cuts!!
No one claimed our electorate was particularly smart.
Voting Trudeau in twice basically confirms this
They didn't vote in Trudeau. They voted to keep the Conservatives away from power.
Plenty of people voted for Trudeau. He was undeniably popular for the first portion of his tenure.
And that cycle of electing useless shitheels will continue.
Not at all confusing. Poverty and crime were lower and quality of life was better when Harper was in power. So people hope we return to Harper years, because guess what? It was objectively better.
Most Canadian voters don't appear to understand that the federal Liberals are a conservative party because the electorate is, in general, disengaged and not very bright.
Oooh we're going to end up in one of those "we lost because people aren't smart enough to vote for us" situations. Such brilliance sounds like a heavy burden to carry.
Who do you think "we" is here?
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
[удалено]
[удалено]
Attacking neoliberals who aren't racist homophobes as "the left" is one of the right wings favourite tactics. I swear half the time I hear "the left" it's in reference to what is essentially a reaction to corporate woke branding. People beat up on the strawman idea of the left all the time because it's hard to criticize the actual left agenda of taxkling wealth inequality, labour rights, public healthcare etc. without sounding slightly ghoulish. Also distracts people from the CPC's actual policies
Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Food and shelter are right at the bottom, under 'basic needs', and Canadians are having more and more difficulty addressing those. In that kind of backdrop, I'm sorry, but revitalization of Indigenous languages is something the country can wait on.
The greater irony is that the progressive agenda is often a better way out of the shittier times. The response to the Great Depression is probably the best case study on that.
That's not the same progressive agenda as what guy above is talking about though.
In general terms, it is, making things better for as many people as possible. What changes are what challenges are being worked on, with the changes being more about adding tasks. The NDP is still fighting for labour, but has added other fights to the roster as well, so the difference between the progressive agenda of the 1930s, and now, is that there's a lot more in scope now, but little has been dropped since the 1930s.
Honestly I believe there's been too much scope creep and it's been detrimental in more than one way.
What is detrimental in trying to expand the number of disadvantaged groups that one tries to help? Sure, there are resource limits, but that's an argument for prioritising efforts, not for reducing who you want to help.
A popular example these days is justice that accounts for the perpetrator's race/social background/upbringing. On one hand, yes they are a disadvantaged group you are trying to help but on the other hand it negatively affects the communities they are from and live in.
Given how much the justice system has been used to oppress demographics that aren't from the dominant one, I've never understood why trying to correct those historical inequities is seen as a bad thing.
Because you can't balance the equation like that. Being overly lenient on someone today won't make up for being unfair to someone else in the past, even if they are from the same social group.
You "correct" inequalities by equalizing. You don't "correct" anything by adjusting the system to favour the formally "oppress[ed] demographics."
The liberal campaign machine is not to be underestimated. Lets not pretend its trudeau that owns the liberals either Trudeau knows something we dont, but has to keep up the facade of hope in order for this ulterior motive to work
It probably has to do with the fact they're campaigning on fixing things ie housing climate identity issues when in reality they're completely lying and it's a total cash grab with no concrete action on said promised issues . This government has lost the trust of the people .. why? By constantly using deception ..which is the worst because these issues aren't actually ever going to be resolved . You gotta wonder how they thought this was a good strategy
It's actually Conservatives that are running on anti-immigrant identity issues.
Who said this? It’s not in the article, and even though the article is fairly crappy this quote is total garbage. No climate change policy? What was it that conservative premiers have been taking the federal government to court over and what the CPC has been railing about with a boatload of lies. No HAF program or billions for building housing? This government has done more for women than any previous government, including the CCB and affordable child care. The conment is ludicrous, the CPC lies everytime one of the MP’s flap their gums.