CanadaPolitics

3240 readers

49 users here now

Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lightrush@lemmy.ca

grte@lemmy.ca

Here's why I think Parliament chose to fund the NDP despite no official status... (rail.chat)

submitted 3 days ago by allen@rail.chat to c/canadapolitics@lemmy.ca

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Here's why I think Parliament chose to fund the NDP despite no official status...

I think it's because the Conservatives and BQ know that a two party-system would become a 1.75-party one in reality, giving the Liberals lasting power at their own expense. The Terrebonne and other byelections make that quite clear. We need a space for Canada's left flank. And an end to FPTP.

#cdnpoli #NDP #BlocQuebecois #Canada #Liberal @canadapolitics

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 11 points 3 days ago

Conservatives know the only chance they have for power is the NDP siphoning off enough votes from the Liberals.

Liberals designed that the agreement so that funding is based on the party at the time of election so as to encourage more floor crossing.

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

Maybe just maybe the Liberals see a reemergence of the Reform Party, and want to encourage it to happen. Sure I am sure they may lose some of the floor crossers and there for the majority but it will give PP even less power. Sure the Reform Party was conservative but they did not have to agree with the PC’s on everything.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

But why did the libs support it? The commettee has majority lib members. They must have supported the decision.

I've also been asking myself the same question btw.

[+] Teppa@lemmy.world -10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Maybe the NDP should stop committing seppuku by supporting mass immigration and brainrot ideas like government run grocery stores?

Margins on grocery stores for food are terrible, Loblaws margins are almost entirely from real estate, like everything in Canada. So deal with the shortage of space and bring down commercial real estate prices so we can have competition.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Even if margins are low, government run grocery stores can still bring down costs by other means. For example if you use land owned by the federal/provincial/municipal government then you don't need to worry about rent, which would bring down costs.

[–] Teppa@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The government should just open it up for public grocery stores and stop large corporation like Loblaws from buying and leasing it. Allow new entrants access like they do Telecoms, treat it as a natural monopoly in its current state, since we've so royally screwed up real estate.

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

How are the margins on their real estate and the other businesses they own in the value chain? These aren't simple grocers. They also have majority ownership stakes in the REITs their grocery stores are paying rent to and they have pharmacy and financial services businesses wrapped up in there too. So, the grocery store itself may be making 2%-5%, but they're making 60%-70% as landlords to their grocery, another 10% for the pharmacy, and probably 30%-40% on financial services.

There are policy proposals for how government could get involved that are estimated potentially offer up to 25% savings for customers.

All the benefits could be passed on to the consumer, leading to reductions of between approximately 25 and 30 per cent in consumer prices in urban areas, and approximately 45 per cent for northern communities (where groceries currently cost double or triple southern prices). A family could save between $2,500-10,000 annually, depending on where they live.

[–] Teppa@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Well thats entirely my point, the problem in Canada is overpriced real estate, due to government policy.

You're slapping lipstick on a pig and calling it a great idea.