Canadian Politics Redux

And this is basically what I meant by the government we deserve. I suppose when the Conservatives take over from the Liberals criticism in this thread will shift to the Government instead of the Opposition, makes sense…not! (It’s not just the Liberals that get to quote Mike Myers, sorry.)

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/mark-carneys-long-track-record-of-mistruth

https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/watch-ttc-blames-12-year-old-boys-for-jokes-about-its-new-poo-crew

One does have to wonder why the change in policy wasn’t clearly stated in the Liberal election platform. Maybe they didn’t want to alienate Jewish voters before the election?

And will Parliament support this policy? I suppose maybe we’ll find out in September if the Liberal minority government is going to again disregard the will of Parliament, like they did with the green slush fund that we’ll probably never get a proper accounting for.

Elbows up!(?)

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-higgins-cousin-of-hostage-evyatar-david-speaks-out-about-the-dangers-of-appeasing-hamas?itm_source=index

One of the comments accompanying this column makes the very good point that the vast majority of the candidates have zero ties to the riding (but neither does Poilievre I hear the chorus sing), perhaps the answer is to only allow candidates that have some clear link to the riding.

As someone else points out, signing multiple nomination forms borders on fraud, since the signature implies one would vote for that specific candidate.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-taube-the-longest-ballot-committee-is-annoying-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-undemocratic?itm_source=index

And I agree,  any candidate should have to live in the riding they represent.  I would go on to say that a candidate should have had to live in the riding for a set amount of time. Not sure how long, 1 year, 5 years? But it would prevent parachuting candidates in

Parksy said:

@Darth...  Pierre Polievre called this longest ballot thing a 'scam' ... are you able to explain how? Legit curious. 

I wouldn’t call it a scam myself, but it does border on making a mockery of the rules, to say nothing of their misplaced targeting of Poilievre. The CPC has never to my knowledge pledged that an election would be our last under the FPTP model.

If you could provide a complete quote then the full context might make his meaning clearer.

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin said:

Parksy said:

@Darth...  Pierre Polievre called this longest ballot thing a 'scam' ... are you able to explain how? Legit curious. 

I wouldn’t call it a scam myself, but it does border on making a mockery of the rules, to say nothing of their misplaced targeting of Poilievre. The CPC has never to my knowledge pledged that an election would be our last under the FPTP model.

If you could provide a complete quote then the full context might make his meaning clearer.

It was apparently in a letter he wrote to Steve MacKinnon.  I'm trying to find the actual letter... thus far it's being reported only in quotes. 

I tried to find it on his social media as well but could not.  First time I've been down that rabbit hole in a while and I noticed he hasn't changed one bit.  Good luck in the next election, Conservatives. 

The closest I could get was that in the letter (and in press conferences I believe) he referred to the group as the “longest ballot scam”. Given the analysis in the column I posted and the group’s clearly negligible effect on the outcome they aren’t coming anywhere close to accomplishing their goals, their tactics are highly questionable and it’s been proven that they actually interfere with the smooth functioning of our voting process.

And yet I don’t want to live in a system where it’s no longer feasible for the average individual citizen to throw their hat into the ring. A single nomination signature seems a reasonable place to start though.