CloudwalkingOwl

There're several points to this article: first that it's unhealthy to the Parliamentary system to put so much emphasis on the party leader, that this over-emphasis is a result of how they are chosen, second that politics is a lot more than just elections and progressive parties in particular have to work hard at things like public education and community organizing if they want to change the status quo, and finally that the Conservatives aren't really "conservative" anymore because they've formed an unholy alliance with some pretty unsavoury types who are trying to undermine our political system through disinformation campaigns led by neo fascists.

Hmmm.

I must have really screwed-up if your read of my article was that people shouldn't vote strategically to keep the Conservative from winning in their specific riding. I mentioned there is very little chance of the Conservative candidate winning in my particular riding and it's a race between the Green and the Liberal. It's about learning about your own riding instead of assuming that every riding is exactly the same.

Thanks for replying.

Did any of you read the article?

I was trying to suggest a nuanced way of looking at the issue that threads the needle of voting strategically where necessary but also voting for a progressive party where that's a feasible option.

I get that a lot of folks like to share 'hot takes' on issues to let others know how they feel. But I put a lot of effort into researching and writing these articles, and use social media to share them. I met with and listened to both our local candidate and Elizabeth May when I wrote this article, I've run as a candidate many times as a Green---and that experience informs the stories I write.

Should I not bother posting stuff on Lemmy? I get the feeling that a lot of folks on this social media site are really angry about the world and I'd just as soon not get caught in the cross fire.

Why don't you read the article and find out? ;-)

Certainly they aren't in the public imagination anymore. Indeed, I haven't heard a single news person or even the original policy brief mention them. More than anything else, I wanted to revive the term among my readers.

Huh?

I'm not saying that this proposal will definitely solve the housing crisis. But this is the third housing bubble I've seen in my lifetime. If it bursts like the first two, then housing will drop in price. (I bought my home when the 2nd bubble burst.)

The problem all over the world with housing is enough stock hasn't been built for decades. And Carney's proposal is the first one I've ever seen that actually deals with this problem and on the scale needed. It also identifies two things: that Canada has faced this problem in the past and fixed it, and, there has been a problem with govts not being willing to act decisively and fast enough to really make a difference.

Again. The Liberals said they'd change it. That's more than any of the other parties have said they'd do.

The NDP talk a good game, but when they get elected provincially they never actually do it. And the Conservatives don't want it---ever.

For me, it's a minor victory that a party leading in the polls actually says it takes housing seriously!

Quite right.

But what I'm excited about is a major party actually saying that the govt can actually solve the housing crisis, a reference to when the govt did this in the past, and describes a practical way of doing it.

If we won't reward a party that actually comes up with a plan because we don't trust them, when is any party going to actually do it?

And don't forget, Trudeau actually did do some of the things he promised---like legalizing cannabis. And that was something that I heard nothing but hand-wringing about from other politicians my entire life!

Too bad the 'professional' reporters for the legacy news were too busy trolling for a 'gotcha' that they couldn't be bothered looking into the first realistic proposal for ending the housing crisis.

Thanks for the feedback. Conversations with readers are what make the whole enterprise worth doing.

I came to much the same idea about using world-building and stories to help people get around their delusions about the world. I wrote a couple novels that tried to explain a rational, sophisticated response to the particular craziness we see all around us right now. (Our lives seem to have become something like a William Gibson cyber-punk novel with James Bond movie villains.) Sales have been slow for Cult Smashers of the 21st Century! and The Climate Trials, but I'm still having fun.

I'm glad to see the Fediverse expanding, though. Lemmy, Mastodon, Pixelfed, etc, added to the Open Source movement give me hope that we can eventually create a society based on co-operation and intelligence instead of brute force and greed. The wisdom of age suggests, however, that if such a beast does come along it won't be because of some master plan by the likes of us but because it spontaneously arose through some unknown self-organizing principle. Just because the Dao follows its own path doesn't mean it won't eventually end up in a better place.