And of course, all these folks so concerned that Singh might get a pension also ignore that PP has already qualified for that same pension. So if PP loses his seat, or is tossed from the party following a loss, he rides off into the sunset with a golden pension far better than any other Canadian gets.
Now understand, I think all this bleating about MPs pensions is bullshit, but if you’re going to whine about corrupt politicians because of it, at least be consistent.
No doubt it would’ve been better for the NDP to have called the election back then. However we know why he didn’t. Trudeau was getting creamed in the polls so Singh saw that he could milk him for a lot of policy concessions. Why not, eh? This way the NDP can point to their recent record whenever the election gets called. There is NO WAY anyone could have predicted that:
I can safely say that Singh should’ve called the election ONLY WITH HINDSIGHT. Back then, nah. Plus after PP started paying out serious money to sling personal attacks (and sicking the worst loonies) after him… Singh would NEVER DO ANYTHING to help PP; just out of sheer spite. Make it personal and people will bite their own tongue just to spit blood in your eye.
Not that PP cared, he felt that he didn’t need a working relationship with the NDP with the record poll numbers the CPC had (and the hate Trudeau had). It was almost a different world back then.
I like to think that PP never got over being mocked by Rick Mercer about this issue 15 years ago (getting a pension at 30 with 0 previous work experience nor higher education).
I was unaware that PP had the power to bring down the government back then, but for his own selfish reasons did not. If you want to argue the conditions for achieving a pension in parliament are unfair or overly generous, then do so. The only relevance to Singh is his support of the government long past its sell by date.
PP has a bachelor of arts. Are you saying that if someone doesn’t have higher education they shouldn’t get a pension? Or that being in Parliament isn’t work?
You say that so casually.
Do you know the last time the Grits got six or more seats in Alberta? 1940! They got 7 seats that year. That’s not within living memory for Albertans today.
Since 1940, there has been one election where the Liberals got 5 seats, 4 elections where they got 4 seats, 5 elections where they got 2 seats, 2 elections where they got 1 seat, and 13 elections where they got 0 seats. In other words, in over half the elections since 1940, the Liberals got 0 seats.
Of course, with redistribution, six seats isn’t as big a proportion of the total number of Alberta seats as it was back then.
In 1940, Alberta had 17 seats, so 7 seats was 41.2% of the Alberta representation in Parliament. Six seats would have been 35.3%.
This election, Alberta has 37 seats, so 6 seats would be 16.2% of the Alberta representation.
Do you know the last time the Liberals had 16.2% or greater percentage of Alberta seats?
1968, when 4 seats out of 19 amounted to 21.1%. You’d have to have been born in 1947 to have voted in that election. (Voting age in 1968 was 21).
Six Liberal seats in Alberta would be both the largest number of Liberal seats for this generation of voters, and the largest percentage of Liberal seats for this generation of voters.
Albertan Conservatives would be drinking heavily that night. Their electoral world would be shaken.
Full details:
| Election year | # of Alberta seats | # of Liberal seats | %age |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1940 | 17 | 7 | 41.2% |
| 1945 | 17 | 2 | 11.8% |
| 1949 | 17 | 5 | 29.4% |
| 1953 | 17 | 4 | 23.5% |
| 1957 | 17 | 1 | 5.9% |
| 1958 | 17 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 1962 | 17 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 1963 | 17 | 1 | 5.9% |
| 1965 | 17 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 1968 | 19 | 4 | 21.1% |
| 1972 | 19 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 1974 | 19 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 1979 | 21 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 1980 | 21 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 1984 | 21 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 1988 | 26 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 1993 | 26 | 4 | 15.4% |
| 1997 | 26 | 2 | 7.7% |
| 2000 | 26 | 2 | 7.7% |
| 2004 | 28 | 2 | 7.1% |
| 2006 | 28 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2008 | 28 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2011 | 28 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2015 | 34 | 4 | 11.8% |
| 2019 | 34 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2021 | 34 | 2 | 5.9% |
| 2025 | 37 | 6 * | 16.2% * |
*Hypothetical at this stage
Booting out their leader then running (and winning, bafflingly enough) on correcting their own party’s mistakes is the Alberta conservative’s bread and butter.
Not that you will acknowledge it, but I just sense wild hypocrisy from your attacks on Singh for “being in it for the pension”. I, personally, think its a plus to PP for bothering to return to university to complete a BA via distance education while in office, but here’s a quote from yourself not 48hrs ago.
By your own stated words PP, your candidate, wouldn’t have qualified for even teaching a drama class.
My issue isn’t the education, its the ‘Drama’ class. Nothing about it is relevant to the role of PM, and in my experience those in such roles aren’t the most serious of people and it showed in the dressup while in India. The only thing missing there was the black face.
I was answering someone else claiming that Carney was getting his vote over PP because of his education. My response was that it only seemed important now that your guy has the education. There is no doubt that Carney has great credentials and even greater experience in finance. On that he ‘wins’ over PP. It didn’t seem relevant that the previous PM’s education was so much greater than the clown that replaced him.
What do you mean hypocrisy? He had ample opportunity to bring the government down after complaining about them all the time. He did nothing. And now there is an election for which he will likely lose his seat, but he made it long enough to qualify.
Singh took political actions that at least suggested he was avoiding triggering an election to ensure his pension would be secured. He withdrew formal support once his pension was no longer in jeopardy. I can’t read the man’s mind but his behaviour matches that motivation. That’s what the “Singh and his pension” criticism was about. No one was just randomly saying based on nothing that Singh was only interested in a pension.
I agree Poilevre is a terrible choice for PM but let’s at least be clear about the facts.
Not that it probably makes a difference but I was under the impression that he was a French and Math teacher at Westpoint Grey Academy and was subbing for a drama teacher.
Here’s something I’ve noticed: In my area, there seem to be a lot fewer lawn signs in front of people’s houses. Like, less than 10% the usual, maybe? There are still signs along the major roads, but almost none where people have to request (or at least allow) signs to be posted. Even my next-door neighbour, who has had Conservative signs up for every election I can remember for the last 25 years, doesn’t have a sign.
Has anyone else noticed this? They do have signs, so I don’t think it’s just a lack of sign availability because of the early election. I wonder if there’s less engagement, or maybe everyone figures everyone else has already made up their minds about who to vote for?
I mean, we’re less than a week away from the early polling days, and I can’t remember any previous Federal election with so little engagement at this point.
I’m not sure I’d read too much into that. I noticed dramatically fewer Trump signs in the rural eastern US during the run up to the 2024 election. That did not turn out to be the cause for hope I took it to be.
I wouldn’t say it’s “Hope” I’m feeling. With the way the Trump administration has screwed around, I’d have expected a lot more engagement. Low voter turn out could screw us.
Where I live, any signs that aren’t conservative end up being vandalized. I, and some neighbours I’ve talked with, don’t want any signs up in my yard that will attract criminals.
Yes, don’t want to attract criminals.
The Western Standard is a right wing paper founded by right winger Ezra Levant and its coverage needs to be read with that in mind. The story offers no evidence that Liberals and their ilk tore down the signs apart from the Conservative candidate’s accusation.
The ridiculous thing about these allegations is that it completely ignores that typical NDP voters did not and do not want Singh to do anything to further the cause of the Conservative Party of Canada. They much prefer a Liberal minority government with the NDP holding the balance of power to any sort of Tory government. NDP voters would have been pissed as hell at Singh if he’d brought down the government unless it was swinging way far to the right.
But it couldn’t be that bog standard political calculus that kept Singh from bringing down the government, it must be his pension. 
That’s fine and it’s also a logical conclusion, but the fact remains that his behaviour coincided with his financial interest, whereas observed Poilevre got his pension back when he wasn’t in that sort of position isn’t the same thing.
Jackasses destroying signs happen in every election, and across the political spectrum.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-candidate-sign-vandalism-1.7510433
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/yellowhead-soma-signs-vandalized-1.7510260
So he should have acted against the wishes and interests of NDP supporters, in order to prove that he wasn’t following their wishes just because it was in his financial interest to do so? It’s a ridiculous argument.
I’m not saying what he should or shouldn’t have done, but pointing out the comparison doesn’t make sense.
(And his strategy didn’t work anyway.)