EvilJoven posted:

These are two groups who are coming together rather than interrupting each others events, playing 'who is more oppressed and who is the shitlord' and generally being crap to each other. The fact that this surprises me is sad and I'm hoping the left wing as a whole learns that they have to go back to this sort of behavior rather than hunting for excuses to be garbage to each other and making GBS threads up the left with all this identity politics driven slap fighting among groups of people who should be coming together to make the world not garbage for all of us.

Duck Rodgers posted:

... that most of their demands had been made previously and ignored.

brucio posted:

https://twitter.com/iD4RO/status/834048743901188096

Conservatives are having a bit of trouble with their talking points on this file

quote:

Kelly McParland: Who will save the Conservative Party from self-destruction?

The motion was nothing more than a self-serving Liberal play for sympathy among the growing Muslim community, in much the same way the Conservatives worked diligently to win over ethnic and immigrant voters during their nine years in office. If the Tories had supported the motion, or just stayed home, it would have been quickly approved and forgotten, unnoticed by 99% of Canadians. “Are we against hatred? Yeah, we’re against hatred. Next order of business…”

Instead they decided to make a stand. To what purpose is unclear. To secure the votes of terminology fanatics? To confirm beyond all doubt that Liberals are slippery operatives? In making an issue out of hot air, they lobbed a great big softball to the government, inviting it to aim for the bleachers. Melanie Joly, for one, couldn’t resist. “What are they scared of?” the Heritage Minister demanded. “They’re scared of denouncing Islamophobia and, by not denouncing Islamophobia, they are actually contributing to the problem.”

It was a specious claim, notwithstanding the possibility Joly may actually believe it. An alternative motion fashioned by the Conservatives was more definitive than the Liberal version. But it would still have been far better for the Tories to let the Liberals have their bit of fun and move on. No harm done.

It’s yet more evidence the Conservatives don’t know who they are, or what they’re about. The more rigid elements of the party probably thought it was fine to call the government on its cynicism, and give voice to the yahoo forces that lurk darkly in Internet chatrooms and commentary forums. Those are the last people the party needs if it hopes to connect with reasonable Canadians seeking a viable alternative to the Trudeau Liberals. The party already has one leadership candidate whose sole claim to credibility is a middling profile on American television, and a spunky way with a quote. And 13 other candidates who have trouble reaching even minimal levels of recognition among the bulk of the population.

They won’t return to respectability by pandering to the mob, the disgruntled or the most alienated elements of society. There may be a Bozo in the White House, but it’s unlikely Canadians are eager to have a clown of their own. The Conservatives need to sort out what they have to offer and present it in a responsible fashion. So far they don’t seem even reasonably close.

quote:

In populist winds, the Conservatives’ inclusive tent is collapsing

Conservatives were feeling pretty good about themselves in Vancouver last May at their first national convention since they lost power.

The open, inclusive and generally harmonious gathering helped assuage fears they would fall apart after the only elected leader their party had ever known made his exit. It turned out they didn’t need Stephen Harper’s rigid discipline to avoid nasty infighting, identity crises or a re-embrace of the fringes that cost them in elections past. Their big tent, welcoming to any small-c conservatives prepared to peaceably co-exist, was built to last.

Less than nine months later, that tent is already being blown over by populist winds from south of the border. An ugly flirtation with the sort of angry, fearful populism that overtook U.S. Republicans threatens to define and divide Conservatives here, and to isolate them and their supporters from other Canadians in a way dangerous for all concerned.

In the immediate aftermath of a deadly mosque attack, and amid increased reports of anti-Islamic hate incidents, a good chunk of the Official Opposition has latched onto conspiracy theories about the otherwise rather inconsequential parliamentary Motion 103 – put forward by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid back in December – to condemn “Islamophobia.” Rather than stories about a cross-partisan condemnation of bigotry, the Conservatives now stand accused of being on the side of the bigots.

If this week’s debate on the motion was a trap cynically set by Justin Trudeau’s party, the Liberals could not have anticipated how enthusiastically many Tories would fling themselves into it – pandering to hysteria that the motion would curtail non-Muslims’ rights. (To be clear: It’s a motion, which means it would not change any laws whatsoever, and endorses very little other than the idea that fear of Muslims is a problem and along with other forms of discrimination merits further study.)

That it has played out this way, despite the Conservatives voting in favour of a similar motion condemning Islamophobia just last fall, is the culmination of twin factors: A leadership contest crowded with uninspiring and opportunistic candidates, paired with the rise of nativist carnival-barkers hoping to build a Breitbart-aping business empire.

The campaign to replace Mr. Harper would have the potential to shake the stable ground the Tories thought they were on, in and of itself. It’s never easy for an interim leader to maintain cohesion and discipline.

And with no clear front-runner in the double-digits field, few candidates seem interested in positioning to subsequently appeal to the broader electorate – just the small, disproportionately old and white sliver of it that might be inclined to buy a party membership.

Little could have exacerbated those vulnerabilities quite like the concurrent surge of independent efforts outside the party’s structure to rally the most suspicious and paranoid of potential Conservative voters.

To some extent those efforts are organic, with smaller groups of people alarmed by society’s changing complexion finding each other through social media. More so, in English Canada at least, they are spearheaded by The Rebel – an online media outlet/propaganda machine/moneymaking scheme that borrows language and tactics from the dodgier corners of Donald Trump’s support base and traffics especially heavily in Muslim conspiracy theories.

Owing partly to the marketing prowess of its “commander” Ezra Levant, and partly to the weakness of the Conservative field, The Rebel seems to excite more people than any one leadership contender. So naturally those candidates now defer to it, in some cases by turning up at Rebel events to try to pick up supporters – as Kellie Leitch, Chris Alexander, Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux did this week at an anti-M-103 rally – and in others by more quietly opposing the motion for obvious fear of facing backlash. Among 14 candidates, only one – Michael Chong – has been willing to openly support it.

The leader they hope to succeed did not exactly set an unassailable example on such matters – not when, after all his previous softening of his party’s rougher edges, he spent his final campaign at its helm trying to win votes by promising restrictions on the niqab, and a tip line to report on “barbaric cultural practices.”

But after that election, there was a common sentiment among prominent Conservatives – among them Ms. Leitch, the candidate now most overtly playing to The Rebel crowd – that the Muslim-baiting had been a mistake. In a country in which it’s very hard to win without immigrant support, the party had sent the wrong signals; it needed to be more inclusive.

Maybe the hope is to go back to being more inclusive again, once they’re done playing to a party membership in which immigrant voters are less needed. And maybe it would be easier to do that if the Liberals weren’t themselves trying to score some political points – refusing to support the Tories on a compromise motion that similarly condemns discrimination but omits the word “Islamophobia,” and in the case of one Liberal MP on Friday very offensively suggesting that Conservative and Parti Québécois policies were “directly” responsible for the recent mosque attack.

But what we’ve mostly seen from the Liberals on this so far is what political opponents do: They seize on your moments of vulnerability, to test who you really are and expose characteristics that will come back to haunt you.

The Conservatives thought they were ready for such challenges last spring. Apparently they were wrong.

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

tl;dr: The Conservatives are blowing up the Harper coalition built through heavy minority outreach by pandering to the comment section, and conservative pundits are getting nervous.

brucio posted:

https://twitter.com/iD4RO/status/834048743901188096

Conservatives are having a bit of trouble with their talking points on this file

brucio posted:

https://twitter.com/iD4RO/status/834048743901188096

Conservatives are having a bit of trouble with their talking points on this file

EvilJoven posted:

These are two groups who are coming together rather than interrupting each others events, playing 'who is more oppressed and who is the shitlord' and generally being crap to each other. The fact that this surprises me is sad and I'm hoping the left wing as a whole learns that they have to go back to this sort of behavior rather than hunting for excuses to be garbage to each other and making GBS threads up the left with all this identity politics driven slap fighting among groups of people who should be coming together to make the world not garbage for all of us.

Supercar Gautier posted:

You are tilting at windmills.

quote:

Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown says he will support an anti-Islamophobia motion that a Liberal MPP plans to introduce in the provincial legislature on Thursday.

Brown said Tuesday that Islamophobia has no place in Ontario.

"Whether it's hate against any faith, it's wrong. I will always stand in opposition to any form of hate," Brown told reporters at Queen's Park.

He said he is going to encourage members of the Ontario PC caucus to support the motion as well. The caucus is scheduled to meet on Tuesday.

"I think it's pretty straightforward to condemn any form of hate. In terms of Islamophobia, it is real," Brown said.

quote:

He said he is going to encourage members of the Ontario PC caucus to support the motion as well. The caucus is scheduled to meet on Tuesday.

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

tl;dr: The Conservatives are blowing up the Harper coalition built through heavy minority outreach by pandering to the comment section, and conservative pundits are getting nervous.

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

Meanwhile, Patrick Brown is apparently one of the only PCs smart enough to get out of the way of a speeding train.

vyelkin posted:

lmao this is amazing.

"They should do it differently."
"Okay, you're the official opposition [critic for public safety], what should they do differently?"
*dial tone*

quote:

The quaint cobblestone streets of the historic Gastown district of Vancouver belie its status as a fast-growing technology hub.

Drawing on links with nearby Seattle, and San Francisco further south, a tech boom in Canada’s third-largest city has pulled in tens of thousands of skilled workers and start-up entrepreneurs in recent years, sparking a fierce fight for the limited supply of office space.

Now the commercial centre of Canada’s most westerly province of British Columbia is braced for a fresh influx of talent — this one driven by the shifting immigration policies of the Trump administration in Washington.

A month after Donald Trump entered the White House, the US tech sector is still trying to figure out how to adapt to the sweeping immigration reform promised by the new president.

The controversial order targeting arrivals from a group of Muslim-majority nations was unanimously rejected by the industry, with Apple, Microsoft, Google and Facebook signing a letter expressing their concern.

The sector now fears that Mr Trump could push ahead with further legislation, including tearing up the H1B visa programme they rely upon to hire skilled foreign workers.

This has led many in Silicon Valley and beyond to consider their options, including looking further afield to more liberal Canada.

Gregor Robertson, Vancouver mayor, says that inquiries from US tech companies have risen sharply in recent months, putting further pressures on office spaces in areas such as Gastown.

“We’re bracing for that to now grow even faster, to see more people come north,” says Mr Robertson, who expects tech sector job growth in the city to accelerate from 6 per cent to 10 per cent in the next few years. The industry currently employs 75,000 people in Vancouver.

“It’s really a reaction to the level of uncertainty,” says Mike Tippett, a Vancouver-based entrepreneur. He believes a Canadian presence can be part of a “continuity strategy” for ambitious young US software groups. “They want a back-up plan that can be kicked into gear very quickly,” he adds.

Sensing the opportunity even before Mr Trump took office, Mr Tippett and co-founder Scott Rafer set up True North to provide advice and support for tech groups looking at Canada. “People are trying to decide whether or not to fully act . . . before anything disastrous [alters the US business climate],” says Mr Rafer.

Canada’s relatively open immigration policies makes it easier for skilled overseas workers to gain a work visa than in the US. Canadian lawyers note a rise in calls from US-based workers, which began even when Mr Trump’s presidential bid was an outside bet.

“The inquiries that started after Super Tuesday last March have now turned into full-scale applications,” says David Aujla, an immigration lawyer in Vancouver, who says that 80 per cent of his calls are from Americans and US-based workers. “It’s a good time to be an immigration lawyer in Canada,” he says. “I’ve never seen a phenomenon like this.”

Stephen Ufford, founder of Trulioo, a Vancouver-based ID verification group, says that about 80 per cent of his staff are not Canadian.

Many of the world’s largest tech groups already operate in Vancouver, which regularly tops lists of the world’s most liveable cities and has the mildest climate in Canada.

Amazon is looking to add to its 700 staff in Vancouver, while Microsoft opened an office in the city last year for 750 employees. Cisco Systems, Samsung and SAP also operate there.

Cost is also an important consideration. A skilled tech worker in British Columbia earns about C$1,600 a week, compared with C$3,400 in California, according to BC Stats, a government agency. Data from Colliers show that average office rental prices in Vancouver were $28.66 in the fourth quarter of 2016, less than half the cost of office space in San Francisco.

The tech industry and a booming construction sector have made Vancouver the fastest growing area of Canada’s economy, with GDP growth averaging 3.5 per cent in the past five years. “Resource economies historically were important, but tech now has more jobs than forestry, oil and gas, and mining combined,” says Mr Robertson.

In terms of funding, Vancouver’s share of venture capital funding for start-ups dipped last year, in line with the fall in VC funding in Silicon Valley, according to a report from CB Insights and PwC. However, entrepreneurs say that venture investors are more willing than ever to travel to Canada to access start-ups from outside the Valley’s “bubble”.

“On any given week you will see venture capitalists from Sand Hill Road [Menlo Park’s VC hub] on the plane to Vancouver,” says Bill Tam, chief executive of the BC Tech Association.

Younger companies have also made the city their home. Slack, the group messaging service, maintains dual headquarters in Silicon Valley and Vancouver, while Zenefits, an HR software start-up, is boosting staff in its Vancouver office and laying off hundreds of workers in the San Francisco Bay Area.*

Another part of the draw is that Canada offers financial incentives including rebate programmes for research and development.

Josh Buckley, a British entrepreneur who last year relocated his start-up, Mino Monsters, from the US to Montreal, says that these incentives and the lower cost of talent played a big role.

“I realised we were at a competitive disadvantage paying what ends up being $200,000 a head in San Francisco . . . so we just realised we had to make a switch,” he explains.

He calculated that when exchange rates, office space, salaries, healthcare and government incentives were taken into consideration, the cost of operating in Canada is about tenth that of San Francisco.

Mr Buckley retains a strong affinity with California, having relocated to the US aged 18 to participate in the prestigious Y Combinator start-up accelerator. For this reason he worries about the effect that Mr Trump’s immigration reforms will have on the US tech industry.

“I didn’t have any credentials, I didn’t have a degree,” he says of his move. “The way immigration policy is trending, I don’t know if those opportunities would exist going forward.”

* This article was amended from the original to state that Zenefits was boosting its Vancouver office, after opening it two years ago.

quote:

would be hard to devise a more perfect cautionary tale than Zenefits, once Silicon Valley’s highest-flying software start-up. Zenefits, which sells software that automates health insurance, payroll, and other H.R. functions for small businesses, raised about $583 million from investors in less than two years, valuing the company at an eye-watering $4.5 billion in 2015. Then, it all went wrong: Zenefits hired too many people, grew too fast, and the company culture spiraled out of control. Last February, C.E.O. and co-founder Parker Conrad resigned amid concerns that Zenefits’s rollercoaster-like growth was juiced, in part, by flouting regulatory laws governing who is, and isn’t, allowed to sell insurance.

Zenefits’s new management moved quickly to clean up the mess. David Sacks, who took over as chief executive from Conrad, soon sent an internal memo admonishing Zenefits employees for drinking at the company’s San Francisco headquarters and using the office stairwells as makeshift love nests. “Cigarettes, plastic cups filled with beer, and several used condoms were found in the stairwell,” Zenefits’s director of workplace services told staff members in an e-mail. “Yes, you read that right. Do not use the stairwells to smoke, drink, eat, or have sex.”

quote:

Zenefits, whose hyper-growth and overnight “unicorn” status were once the envy of the Valley, will use the layoffs to consolidate and centralize its satellite office in Arizona and use temporary seasonal employees when necessary. The company will also expand its engineering and product teams in Vancouver and Bangalore.

Baronjutter posted:

Maybe people illogically live in vancouver earning poo poo salaries and paying through the nose for housing because they have in-laws that live there and you can't possibly move away from them.

vyelkin posted:

lmao this is amazing.

"They should do it differently."
"Okay, you're the official opposition, what should they do differently?"
*dial tone*

namaste faggots posted:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/zenefits-fires-nearly-half-its-staff
Check it out you guys! Vancouver is now on par with Bangalore! Now we are truly world class with world class street making GBS threads to boot!

Professor Shark posted:

It reminds me a lot of that American Far Right guy who went on CBC Radio and hung up after he was asked "When? Where?" to a FAKE NEWS story he tried to pass off as true

But yeah, Tony was obviously told not to speculate what "The Right Thing" might look like and let listeners make it up on their own, but a loving rock could say nothing, this guy's job is to offer specific alternatives

Arcsquad12 posted:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...ppens-1.3853530

Heeheehee. What a dumbass.

brucio posted:

https://twitter.com/LoopEmma/status/834153040110317572

Pinterest Mom in the PMO

quote:

We can no longer brush aside the concerns of our workers and our citizens.

mashed_penguin posted:

I work in Gastown. There is absolutely world class street making GBS threads here.

quote:

The board is ultimately guided by the province’s Growth Plan — a binding 2006 document that was meant to prevent urban sprawl, protect green space and mandate intensification in urban growth centres.

The Growth Plan originally set targets for the number of people and jobs the city should accommodate by 2031, and was recently updated with 2041 targets.

The most recent city data shows of the 400,000 new units anticipated by 2041, almost 200,000 had already been built in the 14-year period between 2001 and 2015.

While city staff say based on 2016 census data the city is on track to meet updated population targets for 2041, density in some specific areas have far exceeded the targets set out by the province.

Though the plan set a density target of 400 people and jobs per hectare (or 10,000 square metres) in the Yonge-Eglinton and other centres by 2031, Yonge-Eglinton surpassed that mark in 2006 — the year the Growth Plan came into force.

quote:

The challenge, Lintern says, is the way in which OMB decisions can be “context making” — a single proposal is submitted just above what the city thinks is an acceptable height and the OMB finds two additional storeys is reasonable. Then the next application comes along and a developer wants two more storeys and that is seen to be generally within the acceptable range.

“That happens four times, you’ve got a new context,” Lintern said. “And the incrementalism that sometimes, not all the time, comes with some of these decisions threatens, I think, our ability to achieve managed growth.”

Professor Shark posted:

quote:

Beginning January 1st, 2018, MSP premiums will be reduced by 50 per cent for households with an annual net income of up to $120,000.

Following this change, more than two million British Columbians will pay no premiums and a further two million will see a 50 per cent reduction in their premiums, cutting premiums near to levels set in 1993.