Majority of Canadians feeling politically homeless

[erinmore3775]

I, like many others, are willing to vote for an election platform that acknowledges the need for universal childcare, pharmacare, and environmental programs that reduce Canada's carbon footprint and encourage green technology development. Alternative platforms that do not acknowledge these desires are destined to ensure that those parties remain in opposition. You have to start somewhere. Quebec has started, their childcare system is not perfect, but it is better that anything else available.

Parties that base their platforms on denial and it cannot be done philosophies are not going to gain the support of the politically homeless. They are looking for a pathway to the future not a roadmap from the past.

[rustled]

I, like many others, are willing to vote for an election platform that acknowledges the need for universal childcare, pharmacare, and environmental programs that reduce Canada's carbon footprint and encourage green technology development. Alternative platforms that do not acknowledge these desires are destined to ensure that those parties remain in opposition. You have to start somewhere. Quebec has started, their childcare system is not perfect, but it is better that anything else available.

Parties that base their platforms on denial and it cannot be done philosophies are not going to gain the support of the politically homeless. They are looking for a pathway to the future not a roadmap from the past.

This perfectly illustrates and attempts to support the "Disneyland Dad" style of governance.

Acknowledging the desire for child care builds expectation the government will provide, exacerbating the need for childcare.

Having built that expectation, I invite you to explain HOW parties will provide childcare once in government. The Quebec model is FAR from perfect, and it is an expense pushing up the cost of living for all parents via both taxation and increased market expectation.

Some of us still expect accountability from our government, not just a pack of pretty promises leveraging our desires regardless of reality. Supporting parties' tendencies to falsely imply there is a way for the government to ensure childcare spaces for all - "just elect us and we'll make it happen" - does nothing to show we expect accountability.

The same is true of "environmental programs that reduce Canada's carbon footprint and encourage green technology development". Canadians want to wear the coolest clothing to be part of the in crowd. Canadians need to make sure people aren't struggling with basic necessities first.

In a first world country, there's no excuse for people in dying during heat waves because they can't afford to cool their homes, while we jack up energy costs and dump our resources into controlling the global climate solely because that is what the voters have been manipulated into "desiring" most.

Putting the family resources toward the electorate's "desires" while ignoring our needs is Disneyland parenting. Platforms selling more "desire" without any realistic assessment of the tradeoffs involved or the likelihood of being able to deliver are nonsense platforms, promoting "oh, well, don't expect them to be accountable" and we can see where that's got us. I won't support "more of same" nonsense promises masquerading as platform, and I'm disappointed to see you suggesting that's what's needed to form government without any mention of the consequences.

[fluffy]

BC had, and still does to a lesser degree, a worker shortage in long term healthcare. The government responded by offering to cover the cost of training for new recruits. There’s no reason to think the same couldn’t be accomplished for daycare.

It also occurs to me that “politically homeless” leaves a lot of room for compromise. We don’t always have great options from which to choose, sometimes we do have to just choose from what’s available.

[rustled]

BC had, and still does to a lesser degree, a worker shortage in long term healthcare. The government responded by offering to cover the cost of training for new recruits. There’s no reason to think the same couldn’t be accomplished for daycare.

They've been trying this for years, fluffy, including here in BC where we continue to have too few daycare spaces for the parents who want to return to regular Mon-Fri daytime jobs.

Perhaps there simply aren't a lot of people who genuinely want to spend their days with young children.

It also occurs to me that “politically homeless” leaves a lot of room for compromise. We don’t always have great options from which to choose, sometimes we do have to just choose from what’s available.

We can also work to make our voices heard on what matters most to us. For example, IMO one of the most important things to vote FOR is an accountable government that consistently puts long-term Canadian interests before global and party interests and popular fads. I've championed that message over and above all else. If too few Canadians prioritize that, we lose it to special interests, global interests, partisanship etc. and end up with escalating corruption.

[Ka-El]

It also occurs to me that “politically homeless” leaves a lot of room for compromise. We don’t always have great options from which to choose, sometimes we do have to just choose from what’s available.

While some people will always vote Conservative or Liberal or NDP due to partisan loyalties, I think many of us, if not most, are swing voters prepared to vote for whichever party presents the most credible and timely platform (timely in the sense it acknowledges current realities). While some are rigid in either their left-wing or right-wing views, I think most of us tend to cluster toward the centre; either left-leaning (social democracy) or right-leaning (liberalism), and like to see and consider ideas from both sides. Your statement that “politically homeless” leaves a lot of room for compromise is exactly, in my opinion, what is required for effective politics. I think that minority governments that force politicians to work for their paycheques and engage in actual politicking can be and often is a good thing.

[fluffy]

We can also work to make our voices heard on what matters most to us. For example, IMO one of the most important things to vote FOR is an accountable government that consistently puts long-term Canadian interests before global and party interests and popular fads. I've championed that message over and above all else. If too few Canadians prioritize that, we lose it to special interests, global interests, partisanship etc. and end up with escalating corruption.

One thing that has always been a major fault in our system for me is the disconnect between voters and our elected representatives once you move above the municipal level. Party policy is developed and imposed with very little input from the actual electorate. If you turn on Question Period most of what you see is partisan squabbling. It’s embarrassing to see what passes for government. The amount of effort required for an individual to have his/her voice heard often goes unrewarded.

[Merry]

As our population ages, there are going to be many gaps in the workforce, that we must fill in order for our economy to continue to function efficiently. And the Government needs to replenish its tax base, following the retirement and/or death of so many taxpayers, in order to continue to provide current programs and services.

Immigration or an increased birthrate are the only solutions to those issues. Most likely, a combination of both.

[erinmore3775]

In many ways, I am thankful for the past year. It has given me time to examine my beliefs and views from a different perspective. I now have a new appreciation for the importance of childcare. Members of my direct family are essential workers. They have come in contact with those infected, been tested, and fortunately shown negative results. During those times I have been pressed into the childcare role for our grandson. I have also seen the effect of reduced incomes on family finances and choices. A Pharmacare program would have been beneficial. I am by nature a progressive conservative. With these political perspectives under renewed scrutiny and my concern for the environment, and an election in the offing I am looking for a niche for my homeless vote.

It was with interest that I examined carefully the CPC and Liberal recent policy conventions. I was less interested in the leaders' speeches. These were opportunities to the viewpoints and wishes of the party faithful. Mr. O'Toole was clearly out of step with his party base, while Mr. Trudeau was more interested in castigating the CPC than providing party policy leadership. If the after convention party statements and the news media reports were/are correct, I find myself finding more to "like" about the delegate proposals placed on the floor at the Liberal convention than those outlined at the CPC convention. I must say that was disappointing.

While I cannot totally support adoption of a Universal Basic Income, I see it as an acknowledgment by the Liberal base to support the boosting of existing social support programs for vulnerable groups through improved disability assistance, dental care, and drug assistance programs and programs for the working poor to help pay rent. I was also impressed with their insistance that there must be immediate, transparent and inclusive consultation process with workers, labour unions and businesses affected by the shift to cleaner fuel sources. I also liked the fact thatthey rejected changes to capital gains tax and rejected the imposition of an inheritance tax.I have also carefully examed the NDP proposals and find them in many cases too far to the left for my liking.

Unfortunately, what I find totally distasteful is the movement by all political parties to the spectrum of blind political criticism. I am looking for leadership. Leadership builds on the ideas and values of the base. I am seeing more I like in the Liberal base, than the ideas and policies suggested by the base of the other parties. However, things can change before the writ is dropped.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/libera ... -1.5982862

[Merry]

As our population ages, there are going to be many gaps in the workforce, that we must fill in order for our economy to continue to function efficiently. And the Government needs to replenish its tax base, following the retirement and/or death of so many taxpayers, in order to continue to provide current programs and services.

Immigration or an increased birthrate are the only solutions to those issues. Most likely, a combination of both.

So, in order to maintain your lifestyle now and for the future, it's okay to giver away now knowing that there are 7.9 billion people on earth and that the UN wants 140 million in Canada within the next century which will destroy this place? Nothing more than a high interest credit card debt compounding and deferred. It's national suicide in the long run. Have now....pay later.

I am old, so my “lifestyle” won’t need maintaining much longer. But if younger Canadians want to continue to enjoy the lifestyle we all currently have, the Government is going to need a large enough tax base to pay for it.

This can be achieved in one of two ways, (higher birth rate or higher immigration), or a combination of both.

[Merry]

In many ways, I am thankful for the past year. It has given me time to examine my beliefs and views from a different perspective. I now have a new appreciation for the importance of childcare.

As someone who grew up in working class England, where both parents always had to work just to get by, I’ve always appreciated the need for good child care. But, in order to be accessible to those who need it the most, it has to be affordable.

I think the problem many have with Governments getting involved in lowering the cost of childcare, is that there are some couples (not the majority) where having both parents work is not a financial necessity. So the argument then becomes, why are taxpayers helping such folk make more money than they actually need? And there is some validity to that argument.

Maybe the solution is to continue using the income tax system to reduce the cost of childcare for folks that need the help, but with even bigger benefits going to those at the lower end of the pay scale than are currently available.

However, addressing affordability is only part of the problem; accessibility being the other part. If Governments want to see more women in the workforce, then Governments are going to have to address this accessibility problem. They can either use the tax system to encourage the development of more privately run childcare facilities, or they can develop a Public childcare system. There are pros and cons for each, but they need to choose one and then get on with it. Because people NEED this service, and so does our economy.

[rustled]

No party should promise they can convince more people to work in daycares, and I continue to question how any elected government would be able to deliver on that promise. No one to date has been able to provide a workable answer.

[Merry]

No party should promise they can convince more people to work in daycares, and I continue to question how any elected government would be able to deliver on that promise. No one to date has been able to provide a workable answer.

Part of the reason there is a shortage of such workers is the exact same reason there is a shortage of long term care workers - society doesn’t value such work enough to pay a decent wage for the service.

[rustled]

No party should promise they can convince more people to work in daycares, and I continue to question how any elected government would be able to deliver on that promise. No one to date has been able to provide a workable answer.

Part of the reason there is a shortage of such workers is the exact same reason there is a shortage of long term care workers - society doesn’t value such work enough to pay a decent wage for the service.

I agree that is part of the reason for the shortage of workers.

What solution is available to the government?

[erinmore3775]

Oldtrucker, your concern about telemarketers and call centre services is a legitimate one. However, call centre outsourcing has been going on for over 20 years and there is little that we can do about it. Many Canadian companies that have offshore call centres have an international company affiliation. The urge to cut costs overrides their necessity to protect their customers' data. All too often, their security covering that data can be compromised. The CRTC is only interested in regulating Canadian telemarketers and our political parties are not interested in tightening the rules because it would affect them and their ability to raise money. Currently, they are exempt from any regulations. This is clearly a case of "we are not interested in new legislation or regulations because it would affect our base."

Presently there is another example of the political base directly influencing legislation going on in the Senate. There Conservative Party of Canada affiliated Senators are holding up the review of the assisted dying bill. Three Senate party affiliate groups have named their committee representatives but the CPC group refused to name theirs unless that person is made co-chairperson. The CPC Senators have made their opposition against this Bill clear, but instead of agreeing to assist in the critical review process, they have chosen obstruction. Their ideological base does not support the Bill.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/assist ... -1.6003329

It seems that the time of bipartisan political work is over. Our political parties are more interested in appeasing their "radical base" than developing principles and policies that represent the voters in the middle of the political spectrum, the middle class politically homeless. It seems that my future election choices may be better determined by an ouija board than by analysing political platforms.

[Gilchy]

It seems that the time of bipartisan political work is over. Our political parties are more interested in appeasing their "radical base" than developing principles and policies that represent the voters in the middle of the political spectrum, the middle class politically homeless. It seems that my future election choices may be better determined by an ouija board than by analysing political platforms.

This is a great point. Political allegiance has devolved into sports fandom, where you root for your team, and boo the other team out of course, regardless of merit, ability or productiveness.

The right side of the spectrum has shifted from "my rights are as important as your rights" to "my rights supersede your rights", where "owning the libs" seems to be a foundational, guiding principle, and anyone left of hard-right is considered evil.

The left side of the spectrum has shifted from attempting to provide equality in opportunity and support for those who need it to a holier-than-thou "punish the successful" mantra, where anyone right of hard-left is considered evil.