CTV throws a life preserver to Justin Trudeau

Justin Trudeau’s popularity is falling.  I would like to say that his popularity is in free fall but this is Canada and Canadians are just not that smart.  A politician as obviously unintelligent as Justin who praises Chinese communists would poll at less to 10% in any sane country.  In Canada however Justin always managed to get around 30% which under the right conditions is enough to win in a parliamentary system.  Justin has now fallen to mid-20% so he really has not lost much support.  Justin’s real problem is that his main opponent Pierre Poilievre has been rising.

Recently Justin tried to turn this around by capturing the sympathy vote.  He announced his separation from his wife which really was a nonevent.  Anyone paying attention would note they appear to have separated about 4 years ago.  His wife, Sophie, agreed to continue periodic appearances in return for still living in luxury on the taxpayer’s dime. Their separation was announced now because Justin thought it could be used to his advantage.   Justin tried to milk the sympathy vote by presenting himself as a single parent and using his children as political props.

None of this worked and the party is quickly losing patience with Justin.  He must turn this around quick so he needs something before the party jettisons him.  It appears that Justin has decided to pin his hopes on Universal Basic income (UBI).  I know this because CTV told me.

In Canada the media and in particular CTV serve the liberal party.  When the Liberals want to sell something stupid they turn to media who then often turn to another liberal ally, Canadian academics.  That brings us to this morning and this CTV article.  CTV was highlighting a new Canadian study “proving” that homelessness can be solved by simply giving people money.  Normal people understand what an enormously bad idea this is but according to CTV and academia we are all wrong.  Homeless people will not waste the money they did not earn.

“They did not spend more money on alcohol or drugs, contrary to what people believe, and instead they spent the money on rent, food, housing, transit, furniture, a used car, clothes. It’s entirely the opposite of what people think they’re going to do with the money.”

In fact, according to CTV and academia, this small application of UBI was so successful the program needs to be expanded even beyond Canada’s borders.

Now that the study is complete, the plan is to replicate it and expand it to other cities in Canada and the U.S.

I know you must be a shocked as me to find out that when you give drug addicts money they don’t spend it on drugs.  That is certainly what CTV wants you to believe but there is a slight problem with that conclusion.  The study did not include drug addicts or the mentally ill who make up most of the homeless population.

The study did not include people who are street-entrenched or who have serious addictions or mental health issues, Zhao noted, adding people who fit that criteria do not make up the majority of homeless people.

The gas lighting by Canadian academia continues.  They carefully selected their subjects to get the answer the liberals paid for.  I bet the researchers were just happy that for once they did not need to prostitute themselves for climate change.  The net result is however the same.  This is fraudulent research done solely to support a political candidate and ideology.

Trudeau is using the media to get Canadian’s accustomed to the idea of UBI before he announces it.  Canadians are about to get UBI not because it works or because we can afford it.  UBI is coming because a struggling corrupt politician is running out of options.

1 reply
  1. Derek
    Derek says:

    UBI is welfare. Like welfare, UBI will be a massive driver of inflation. There are so many problems with this silly ideal.

    If you give people money for doing absolutely nothing, how much more are you going to have to pay people to perform the most mundane, menial jobs? Every level of the workforce will have to have their compensation adjusted upwards. Those costs will be passed on to the consumer through increased costs of goods and services.

    The same people will still be competing for the same pool of housing in the same cities. If everyone suddenly has more money, the rents will immediately rise.

    So what exactly will this expensive welfare handout accomplish?

Comments are closed.