Holy shit do they not want him to lose again.
“The Conservatives handily won that riding on Monday with nearly 82 per cent of the vote.”
They picked one of the safest ridings in the country so that there’s no chance of that happening.
I assume he’s being paid off by the Conservative party somehow. Otherwise he just spent a lot of time and money to get re-elected and is now unemployed.
Are there homeless in China? Yes
Is there extreme poverty in China? Yes
One thing that western people rarely truly understand is that there are also workers putting in 70+ hour weeks living in company forms under conditions so bad it makes American prisons seem reasonable, and not actually getting ahead with money because they are sending it all to their family in the countryside just to keep them fed.
There are also more than a hundred million Chinese people who don’t even have running water.
They also have tens of million people living rich in luxury apartments driving luxury cars with servants to do everything.
She would do good in both, and she’s never been one to sit back and do nothing.
Satan fuck both of these assholes
I wouldn’t quite put it as “Flip”
They managed to squeak in via vote splitting, their highest vote percentage was only 38.8%, with the lowest being 35.25%
In Nanaimo, the 3rd (NDP) and 4th(Green) candidate vote percentages together added up to more than the Conservatives, even if you ignore the Liberals in 2nd.
Every non-Conservative seat on the island won with a higher vote percentage than even the best Conservative seat.
The two Liberal wins on the island were 49.4% and 54.3% Elizabeth May(Green) got 39.1% And Gord Johns (NDP) got 39.6%
It was mostly just bad timing, the inflation and cost of living issues got blamed on him despite it being a worldwide issue. He was an easy scapegoat, and the Conservatives just attacked him constantly until he resigned. It was supposed to help them win, but as you can see from the results, it didn’t end up working out for them.
Smoke me a kipper, I’ll be back for breakfast
Will the Conservatives force someone to resign just to give him a seat?
Probably, that’s pretty on-brand
Unless there’s some method for you to help them become eligible to work in your country, you legally need to put the company’s safety first. If you give different reason to hide things you could be exposing your company to liability, so the safest option for both the company and for the applicant is for you to straight up ghost them.
I really hope you mean to say “hiring” instead of “hitting”
The simple answer is just don’t hire them, and don’t give any reason.
The Liberals only benefit from various PR type options if we assume that new parties wouldn’t form and only the existing parties are competing.
That wouldn’t be the case.
Not the best example
There was nothing useful on Pinterest before AI imagery either
PR is a non-starter for the liberals, their party would completely disappear if they passed it. That’s why they sabotaged/killed it even though they promised last time.
The NDP couldn’t push it through even if they wanted, all it would have done is forced an election into the Conservatives.
I do mean renters will have more leverage once home ownership rates drop.
We will never build enough homes to drop housing prices to affordable levels. Prices can’t just stop growing, they have to actually drop, and developers will run away from projects the moment prices start declining. We’ve already seen a slowdown in construction in the last year as home prices stagnated.
You’re right that this is a rock and a hard place. Which is why I don’t expect it to change anytime soon. What needs to happen is that home ownership rates need to drop, meaning more voters will be renters, then they will have the political clout to push through policies that make things more affordable for them by destroying home values for the now minority of owners.
I give it about 30 years or so before we see that.
Because when you look at the total ownership, individual home owners are making the vast majority of the profit from keeping prices high. Around 65% of homes are owned by the family that lives in them, and the second largest chunk of the market is dedicated rental apartments which need to be owned by corps or they would never get built in the first place and are a needed part of the economy, then a smaller chunk is the landlord who own their home plus one rental.
Corporate ownership of non-dedicated rental buildings (houses, townhouses, etc) is still a very small percentage of the overall market.
Should it be happening at all? Probably not, but at the end of the day most of the profits of housing and land appreciation are being reaped by single home owners.
There was a news article a few days ago about a new development land purchase that just went through in Vancouver, BC. 25ish lots were purchased from individual home owners, for a total of $100 million or about 4 million dollars per lot. That cost gets passed onto the people buying the new condos going in, and the profit is going to individual home owners who probably bought those lots for hundreds of thousands over the last twenty or thirty years.
It’s a very fundamental concept that almost everyone is missing.
If houses increase faster than wages, the price of them relative to incomes will slowly go up forever making them less and less affordable.
If housing prices go up less than wages (or even go down) then the people owning the houses are losing money each month, but the housing costs will stabilize at a price level that is balanced by how much money people are willing to lose each month just to have a home.
The second option isn’t as bad as most people think, it’s how cars work right now. You’re willing to buy a car and spend money each month because it benefits your life, not because it gives you money back.
How do we achieve prices going up less than wages? There are about a dozen different possible ways for the government to do it. Options include the Government owning all land and just renting/leasing it to people instead of selling it, putting a 100% capital gains tax on the land (not the buildings), or my personal favorite which is a yearly land value tax (not a property or building tax) and using that revenue to pay for a basic income leaving a net zero tax change for a person who uses an appropriate amount of land for a given area.
WE ARE THE PEOPLE CREATING THE EXTRACTIVE MARKETS
Mostly because voters don’t prioritize mass transit at all.
Politicians are not corrupt, they just follow the whims of the voters who aren’t rational.
Affordable housing is the same problem, voters don’t want it yet because it would crash existing house prices.
Funny, and partially accurate.
The US has fewer people living in the type of poverty that China has, they take some of their poverty to the extreme.
There are millions living in a tin and brick slums with no running water or access to toilets in the middle of nowhere, Or living 12 people to a single bedroom in literal stacked cages in big cities.
I’d rather be homeless in the US, by quite a significant margin.