If there’s enough helium to fill them, what makes them dangerous?
And ‘impractical’ depends entirely on the metrics by which you measure - I find the ridiculous amount of emissions generated by getting stuff across the planet in hours instead of days or weeks ‘impractical’, myself.
Weather. They’re completely fair weather vehicles, which reduced their commercial value to almost nothing.
I would have thought Singh might have done this before now.
Oh, dear! I would have thought that the progress made on pharmacare, child care, and dental care would have been enough to keep the agreement going.
Especially seeing as how the polls indicate that it will be a Conservative majority government - from an NDP standpoint and from my own personal point of view, that’s an utter disaster!
I’m leaving the country next week in any case…
I guess it’s not like another agreement could be made in the future. Possibly with the NDP as a senior partner. But maybe even that won’t be possible. Poilievre is popular, partly due to the alternatives.
Remember, this is politics. It’s just a way of the NDP getting their priority items in the next budget.
Forcing an election right now with a non-confident vote would be a slaughter for the Left and Singh knows that.
That’s what is weird about it to me. The whole reason for the NDP to do this deal in the first place is so they could get some legislation passed that never would have passed otherwise. Well, what’s going to happen now? The government will fall on the next confidence vote, Trudeau is going to get creamed and the Conservatives will form a government that has no interest in dental care or pharmacare for all or anything that actually helps people. Is this some strategy to make people suffer through a Conservative government so that they will be more sympathetic to the NDP after a few years of having various rights and entitlements taken away?
Which government has violated the charter rights of its citizens and had reporters arrested illegally and who has suffered having record high food bank usage and homelessness, rampant drug use, and high housing and food prices? I imagine not being able to afford food keeps the government-funded dental system affordable. Perfect liberal/ndp sense in that.
I’d love to see Singh have his moment and snatch control from both of them. He’ll have to come hard at them both and not let up. Might make for an interesting contest anyway.
If, as you seem to be implying, the cost of food is what’s keeping a government-funded dental system affordable, you’ll have to prove it.
This sounds like a Conservative/Pierre Poilièvre talking point which I haven’t encountered before. What I have encountered many times is M. Poilièvre’s assertions against carbon pricing, commonly referred to as the ‘Carbon Tax’. What he ignores completely is that it represents 0.15% of current inflation according to the Bank of Canada - if M. Poilièvre wants to dispute that finding, I need to see some hard evidence. (And I love the idea of someone with a Bachellor’s degree in Economics from a right-wing biased university taking on the head of the Bank of Canada.) The auditor general’s report considered no alternatives to carbon pricing, M. Poilièvre has been reprimanded for not mentioning that, but he continues to cherry-pick and quote the passages that say that carbon pricing will have an effect on the economy. He fails to mention how many households benefit from the rebates, he fails to talk about the damage from floods, wildfires, storms, droughts, he fails to mention that emissions are down.
And he completely fails to mention what he proposes in its place, and how long it will take to implement. Nevertheless, his ‘Axe the Tax’ catchphrase is extremely popular with people who have poor critical thinking skills. I think “Axe the Facts” would be a better descriptor for M. Poilièvre’s position.
I thought Singh wanted the agreement to continue, so that he could collect his pension, for which he is eligible at the end of February, 2025. An early election, and a personal defeat, could be costly for him.
That has certainly been the accusation from Pierre Poilièvre. Ironically, M. Poilièvre has been eligible for his own pension since the age of 31, when he was in two minority Conservative governments propped up by other parties, often the NDP.
I agree. But apparently Singh now says that they’ve basically accomplished nothing.
This is simply a political move at this point.
I’m implying that you won’t get calories if you don’t eat food. Thus minimizing the need to use a dental plan. Better yet, the resulting scurvy would remove people’s teeth making it even easier to fund a dental plan. Hmmm. This might explain the purpose of legalizing drugs. Meth removes teeth as well. Liberal economic policy logic in action.
Anyhoo, the key point was the poster’s assertion that rights would be taken away under the Conservatives, while the proven violators of people’s rights are the Liberals, backed by the NDP.
Look, I hope I am wrong. The reason I am worried about it is because I just received a Disability Tax Credit, which is going to be a life-changing thing for me and will enable me to participate in things such as buying a house. But it is exactly the kind of thing Conservatives hate. I could very easily see a Conservative government deciding arbitrarily that I am not entitled to this because they simply do not have the same beliefs around what a disability is. Getting the DTC was difficult, painful and expensive and I do not want some moralizing Conservative deciding that my problem is that I am lazy and I could do anything if I just put my mind to it. I got enough of that in grade school and I failed grade school (or more accurately grade school failed me) because of that kind of useless moralizing. I do not want to vote for a government that thinks bad things only happen to people who deserve it.
Everything Pollivere says comes across to me as being aimed at hurting people. Specific people, including me. Like I said, I’d love to be wrong. I’m pretty sure I’m going to find out one way or another. Don’t mistake me for a Trudeau fan. I just don’t share the irrational hatred of him that seems to thrive in every part of the country.
I don’t know which “proven violations” of people’s rights you are referring to but assuming it is something to do with the Freedom Convoy, ask yourself how a Conservative government will react when angry truckers do the same thing to them.
Cite please?
This video will serve as well as anything else to illustrate why I can’t stand Pierre Poilievre - he calls Jagmeet Singh “Sellout Singh” four times in the course of 73 seconds, calls ending the NDP-Liberal agreement a ‘stunt’, and refers three times to the ‘costly’ carbon tax while wearing an ‘Axe the Tax’ t-shirt. All fresh red meat to his base.
Except his basis for calling Mr. Singh a ‘sellout’ is gone - if there’s an election and Mr. Singh is not re-elected, he’ll lose his pension, which was Mr. Poilievre’s made-up accusation in the first place. Mr. Poilievre was the one calling for Mr. Singh to ‘tear up’ the agreement - now that he’s done what Mr. Poilievre wanted, it’s a ‘stunt’. And Mr. Poilievre seems to think that if he says it often enough, it will become a fact that the carbon tax is costly and the cause of inflation. Never mind that the facts do not support that assertion.
And this schoolboy debate tactic of making up a nickname and repeating it is just tiresome. It reminds me of my wife’s uncle Don, who came up with zingers like ‘You need to stand a little closer to the razor’, or ‘Do you like that better than music?’, and repeated them over and over and over. It’s also very much like Donald Trump, and not in a good way.
See for yourself - Poilievre calls Singh's decision to end NDP-Liberal agreement a 'stunt' | CBC.ca
Singh runs a different party, and he must distinguish it from the Liberal Party at some point to be able to run an effective campaign in 2025. He can’t just be effectively a Liberal until the writ is dropped. He doesn’t look great as it is, criticizing the Liberals while in any sense that matters being one of their backbenchers, but he’d look wayyyyy worse if he kept this up until next September.
There is nothing stopping him from arranging independent deals for legislation for the next year - which is in fact precisely what he plans to do, at LEAST long enough to qualify for a full pension, but probably right up to the scheduled election.
You’re talking as if Singh isn’t protecting his pension anymore, but of course he is. He WILL NOT bring down the government before 2025 and probably won’t at all. There is no benefit to the NDP in doing this. Cancelling the “deal” doesn’t actually change anything. They will continue to ensure the government stands.
So what’s stopping them, again, from continuing to make deals?
That also wasn’t the whole reason. They also needed to avoid another election; the NDP never has enough in the coffers, and stringing things out for four years helps them build up campaign funds. If in fact the Conservatives will cancel the (very modest) dental and pharmacare plans - which I suspect they won’t, but it’s possible - then they’ll cancel them, but maintaining this unofficial deal doesn’t change that.
In truth, though, probably not a lot will change. People doomsay every time a Conservative government might get elected but they rarely change very much because taking benefits away is bad for electoral prospects.
PP first calls for Singh to bring down the government, then…shockingly, calls it a stunt, when he says he will!
What a joke PP is!
In light of the investigation into Tenet Media and their connection to Russia, I was delighted to see this article in The Beaverton - Ezra Levant furious to discover he could have been getting money from Russia this whole time - The Beaverton