Good bit of hypocrisy here
Lets be VERY clear on the facts folks. if you want to say that Singh should’ve called an election then YOU must say WHEN YOU WOULD DO IT and WHY YOU WOULD DO IT THEN. No retrograde logic too. You should justify it without any bullshit hindsight.
Would you call it back in June? When The Tories went all-in on these bogus “SellOutSingh” attack ads? Would you do it in Sept, when Singh tore up the NDP-Liberal agreement (and he only became eligible for pension a month or two ago in Feb)? Don’t keep this to yourself. Tell us. When and why?
I see ZERO reason why anyone would kill the government any day before the Royal Assent of Bill C-64 (Pharmacare Act) on Oct 10th, or why they would not seek to milk Trudeau for as long as possible while he fights Freeland for Liberal party dominance. If you see it, then SAY IT. And why. Bring those facts. Put yourself right in Singh’s shoes so we can judge.
Easy to say now, eh? We ALL know this now.
I don’t care about Singh and a pension. All I know is that I’m fully qualified to be a Senator, and am looking forward to taking my seat in the Senate.
I’d also like a pony.
(That is, it’ll never happen. I still think I’d be a good Senator though.)
Ah, should have touched on this also. Yes, I’ve also noticed a lack of signs on front lawns and on public lands. I don’t know why.
I walked three blocks to the corner store today, and saw one sign in total. It was for the Conservative candidate. Driving through the city the other day, I saw about an equal distribution of Conservative and Liberal signs, but very few; and no NDP, or others.
I think we’ve got six candidates in my riding (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, PPC, Christian Heritage, and an Independent). Being Alberta, I’m sure we will go Conservative, but it’s almost as if the NDP, PPC, and the others have given up, based on the signage.
French Language debates are tonight, it will be interesting to see what PP and Blanchet will do to tear down Carney. I’m expecting an attack fest, however they could surprise me and take a different tack. Either way this is my advice for both debates:
Carney’s job is clear, just keep doing what he’s doing. Go light on the policy/promises, go heavy on the “stable daddy” vibes. Just don’t do anything radically stupid. People don’t know you and they WANT to like you.
Side note: The race is almost over and I don’t think anything will happen tonight or tomorrow night that can push the polls fast enough to sink the Liberals. I’m sticking my neck out and reiterating my previous prediction that if nothing happens before the debate Carney will win, the only thing at stake now is if he gets a majority or minority government.
My advice to PP is to stick to facts and policy. No attacks, no slogans, all smiles, and be human. We know who you are and what you stand for, your only job is to surprise us by being affable.
My advice to Singh, Blanchet, Pedneault is all the same; be ruthless. Attack, attack, attack. You need to show that you are relevant, capable, and ready. The spotlight isn’t on you, so jump up and scream. Once you’ve gotten the attention of the audience make your case… and you better make a good one. For God’s sake, stand out.
Extra advice to Singh, focus on attacking PP and not Carney. Carney will “get his” from all sides, you do something different. By attacking PP, Singh can:
- stand out and
- get extra lefty cred
Who knows, perhaps this will shock sleepy lefties out of their zombie trance and switch back to you. You’re dying in the polls anyways, take risks, and also if this is your last election… you know you want to humiliate PP in front of national television. Go have fun, be petty and get your revenge.
But I never said he should have called an election.
Greens are out. They didn’t qualify (there is a requirement of running a near full slate of candidates. The Greens claimed they had the numbers, but failed at getting close). First the commission allowed them anyways… now they have flipped.
Carney’s misfortune here; this REALLY helps PP, Blanchet, and Singh. They now all have better chances at standing out. The Greens must be crying for not getting all their candidates in, ah well.
The Green Party deliberately dropped some candidates for “Strategic reasons.” The commission didn’t flip.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/leaders-debate-commission-green-party-removed-1.7511447
I agree with this decision. Rules are rules, and they have to set some kind of criteria for participation.
Anyway, current projection:
Liberal 193
Tory 121
Bloc 20
NDP 8
Green 1
The Bloc picked up a few seats; expect a little more bounce after Thursday.
Their stated reason doesn’t match their failure to get 90% (your cite).
On Tuesday, co-leader Jonathan Pedneault told CBC News that the party had pulled about 15 candidates out of the race in a “strategic decision” not to run them in ridings where the party thinks Conservatives will likely win.
Dropping 15 candidates would still keep the Greens above the 90 per cent threshold set out by the debates commission, but even after accounting for those 15 candidates, the party is still not running candidates in another 96 of the remaining 343 ridings up for grabs.
It was my understanding that this was a flip as the commission previously allowed them despite this (much to the VOCAL protests of the Tories). Something is afoot. But not our problem. The debates will be more exciting with less irrelevancy now.
I agree. I appreciate the Green Party’s sincerity, but run 343 candidates, guys.
The person I was responding to made a statement without ANY evidence. Any problem with that? No, you probably agreed with what they said, so you took them at their word.
I posted a link, the first one that I found that didn’t require me to disable my adblock software. It would take you 5 seconds to find similar on google from more ‘reliable’ sources. You will also find articles on Liberals/NDP, etc making the claim their signs are being damaged. Yet it is the Conservative that is lying for some reason. Forgetting the fact that we’ve had 9 years of scandals and human rights violations from the current government to prove who are the actual liars.
Your partisanship is unbelievable along with your unwillingness to remove the beam from your eye is deplorable.
Personally, I would do it when I had the best chance of having my party be the official opposition. There are benefits for being in that position rather than just gettting a few concessions from the current government. I would be critical of the government, but if they did something I really found objectionable I’d bring them down which would give me the opportunity of explaining why and why we, the NDP, are a better choice than the Liberals. AND I’d do it before I was qualified for the pension to allay that accusation that I’m primarily delaying it for that reason.
But that requires some form of principles of which I’m pretty sure Singh lacks given his actual actions. It also requires some foresight given that Trump was elected in 2024 and you’d know the chaos he’d cause. The lack of both is why he is likely a dead duck politically.
I live in the Nepean riding. I can’t speak to the number of stolen signs, since they are missing, but there seem to be a similar number of broken, bent, and vandalized signs on both sides. Due to Mark joining the party late, Barbara had a 1-2 week head start getting her signs on the streets/lawns. I now see a pretty even mix of red and blue signs in my Neighbourhood. I have only seen one orange sign while out walking the dog.
Turn it on its side and give it to the NHL champion
Actually, my position is, roughly, “a pox on all their houses, and the nation-state and capitalism, too, though I do see degrees of difference between the parties and do not advocate electoral abstentionism, while still working for the commonwealth of toil and worker-managed industry.”
For the win! Nice!
Still fighting the 19th century workhouses, huh? Haven’t figured out that the creativity required, and rewarded, in the 21st century information age isn’t built throught committee, government regulation, or union representation? That those factors are just constraints on that creativity (Note: I’m not assigning good or bad to it, just that, imho, it is the driving factor), but in themselves don’t actually add value and in many cases drive it to other locations in the world where it is less constrained.
The parable of the monk and the samurai comes to mind, but I have hijacked this thread enough. I apologize to the Dope.
Au contraire.
I’m an academic. My union is fighting to address the issues of precarity. Less precarious = more able to be creative and productive; more precarity = more stress, more demands on my time just to keep employed and have a roof over my head.
This is part of the lie that committees and regulation are inherently bad, that constraints are inherently bad. No: it is very much context dependent. Some regulations are pointless red tape, or are responding to historical circumstances but are no longer functional. Others are just trying to keep people from squeezing the productive humans in the economy until they are broken.
I’ve worked for a lot of people who would merrily kill the goose that laid the golden egg if they could just get one extra egg for THIS quarter.
(But it’s possible that you think that higher education is a waste unless we’re actually doing specific job training.)
At Apr 16th