Big Real Estate Executives Among Top Donors to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives
Big Real Estate Executives Among Top Donors to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives
Conservative Party’s donor list includes names of real estate investors and developers that are buying up affordable housing across Canada
Big Surprise, faux populist backed by real estate moguls
You're viewing a single thread.
So the person advocating to solve housing crisis is spinsored by big real estate? Smells aquatic here... gills and all. There's a rodent in this pile, that everyone will forget to look for untill it's too late.
This is no surprise. PP is just a fascist version of Trudeau. Nothing will change except laws targeting the lgbtq community and relaxing environmental regulations.
Is there even a good choice to vote for?
Yes.
Canada is not a two-party system, although for some reason many can't seem to look beyond the Lib/Con juggernaut.
This is what I'm referring to. In effect it's a 2 party system, which is frustrating.
It's only that way because too many won't vote for an alternative.
Take the plunge! Vote NDP or Green!
it’s a 2 party system
It's not, though. FPTP is not a party-based electoral system.
Which, to be fair, is the basis of its criticism, as people want to vote for parties instead of individuals. There are party-based electoral systems, some of which have been suggested as being suitable for use in Canada. But until we get around to actually changing the electoral system we don't have a party system. All we have is individual representatives.
FPTP strongly weights towards a two-party system (where party means individual or group of individuals). The only real voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to vote against a candidate. Any other choice is wildly ineffective.
There are many other systems that are better representations of the will of the people, both at the political party level and at the candidate level, but the caveat is that the two main parties will almost never be able to exercise the amount of power they currently have again. This may appear to be a good thing to the citizenry, but not to the two main parties.
FPTP strongly weights towards a two-party system
No. It makes absolutely no consideration for parties. It is not a party system. Period.
There are party systems. Many believe we would be better off with a party system. But FPTP is not one of them. It is a single representative system.
Didn't read the bracketed text immediately after the quoted text, did you?
You're wasting your breath with this one.
Of course not. Brackets signify that the words contained within may be an interesting aside, but unrelated to the topic at hand. I'm quite sure it was an interesting aside, but the topic at hand is interesting enough for me right now. I can always come back to read that aside in a few months if I am looking for a new topic.
We can quote other segments not left as asides if you want, though.
The only real voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to vote against a candidate.
Under FPTP the only voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to decline to vote. There is no option to vote against a candidate. Maybe there is some electoral system out there that provides that, but FPTP is not it.
Given your intentional obtuseness, this will be my last response.
FPTP means the only votes that matter are those for the candidate with the most votes. It also means that a majority isn't required to win, particularly if there are more than two choices as we typically have in Canada. Therefore, the only two winning strategies are to get a simple majority or to get a plurality without sufficiently outraging those who oppose you to actively vote for the second-likeliest vote, reducing vote-splitting and upsetting the norms. Not voting, as you disingenuously suggest, merely increases the odds of the person you're opposed to having win actually doing so. You can use whatever gradeschool-level language typically found in alternating caps to refute the point, or you could read just about anything written about the flaws of FPTP and see my exact scenario mentioned.
But it is basically a 2 party system if only libs and cons ever win. It's a circlejerk.
Canada is a two-party system, we just happen to have more than two parties in that system.
Edit: downvotes? Really? 2016 and the broken Electoral Reform promise was not that long ago do we have to explain proportional and ranked voting systems and the flaws of first-past-the-post again?
The NDP has about as good policy as you're going to get in Canada if you care at all about the working class.
Joke all you like, but they're counting on EXACTLY that. "I hear Trudeau sucks but these guys have no plan. Okay, pick them"
Canadians tend to vote out than vote in. I know there are more parties than liberal or conservative but in our entire history there hasn't been a parliament that hasn't been the main two. There really isn't any good options and it's infuriating.
The easiest way to solve the housing crisis is to build more housing, so it stands to reason that he would align himself with people wanting to build more.
Canada does have the lowest number of housing units per capita in the G7. It's not like it isn't something we don't need.
Makes sense at first, but REITs mostly don't build, they mostly buy existing properties and collect rent.
It makes sense to align with developers; it doesn't make any sense to align with rental property managers.
Permanently Deleted
real estate business operations are part of the reason we're in this mess. At present real estate is a lucrative investment as you can buy properties hold on to them effectively shrinking the market and driving demand up... and driving the price of your investments up. Then, after you've bought a place for $300k and it's market price got to $500k you take out a loan against the remainder and go live in warm places until market conttacts some more and you can repeat the process... TLDR; it pays to buy real estate and just sit on it, which is what real estate companies do (or help others to do)... it does not positively contribute to supply of new housing, quite the opposite. So please tell me that business that literally created this mess for us (and profit for themselves) sponsoring politician is lobbying for more housing? Would they be willing to shoot off their both feet?
Landlords aren't developers lol