338 has similar numbers but slightly better seat counts for the other parties and slightly worse for the NDP.
C 219
L 68
B 40
N 14
G 2
The pop vote numbers are basically the same between CBC and 338 but 338’s seat projection for the NDP is below the likely range estimated by the CBC. So obviously their seat count algorithms are not on the same page. I wasn’t aware of the CBC aggregator… it will be interesting to compare results going forward.
I was reading on the CBC app today that if an election was held today, the Conservatives would win 218 seats, Liberal 64, Bloc 38, NDP 21, and Green 2.
Of course we are going to have to disagree on this, but given where the numbers are at I think the best case scenario is a narrow minority for the Conservatives (> L + N but still a minority) that convinces the Tories that Poilievre isn’t the golden boy they think he is but also gives the other two parties a clear signal they need new leadership.
In fairness, Singh has done fairly well in leveraging his influence but he’s had a good run and I think the NDP could use a fresh pair of eyes. The Liberals need some time in opposition and a new leader.
(Unfortunately as things stand Poilievre is doing pretty well at the golden boy thing…)
Thanks for the perspective on Alberta. That makes sense to me.
Re. a Liberal-NDP merger I wouldn’t have thought it was a likely prospect but then I wouldn’t have thought the demise of the Liberal party as we know it was a likely prospect either. I’m not really convinced that what we’re seeing federally and in Ontario is anything other than a blue moment within the scope of ordinary politics, but I thought it was interesting that Maher seemed to be endorsing SPK’s view that there was a long term trend against the Liberals at work. (Though as I was saying he didn’t seem convinced that the trend would necessarily benefit the NDP as currently constituted, which is rather odd since these consequences seem to be two sides of the same coin.)
Why do you resist?
We only want what is best for you... to make life better for all ordinary people.
You too will become one with The Collective Politics.
Lower your shields and surrender your fundraisers.
Your biological and political distinctivess will be added to that of our own.
Thanks for the perspective on Alberta. That makes sense to me.
Re. a Liberal-NDP merger I wouldn’t have thought it was a likely prospect but then I wouldn’t have thought the demise of the Liberal party as we know it was a likely prospect either. I’m not really convinced that what we’re seeing federally and in Ontario is anything other than a blue moment within the scope of ordinary politics, but I thought it was interesting that Maher seemed to be endorsing SPK’s view that there was a long term trend against the Liberals at work. (Though as I was saying he didn’t seem convinced that the trend would necessarily benefit the NDP as currently constituted, which is rather odd since these consequences seem to be two sides of the same coin.)
Why do you resist?
We only want what is best for you... to make life better for all ordinary people.
You too will become one with The Collective Politics.
Lower your shields and surrender your fundraisers.
Your biological and political distinctivess will be added to that of our own.
Somewhere in bleak, Laurentian suburbia...
BLANK-EYED MONOTONE CHILD: Mother. Read me a story.
TERRIFIED MOTHER: S-s-sure, honey. Wh-what would you like to hear?
CHILD: THIS one.
MOTHER: W-well, I...don't know. We-we've read that story every day this past week. Isn't there another one?
CHILD: No.
MOTHER: B-but...
CHILD: Read it. NOW!!
MOTHER(almost in tears): Okay.
Mouseland was a place where all the little mice...
Thanks for the perspective on Alberta. That makes sense to me.
Re. a Liberal-NDP merger I wouldn’t have thought it was a likely prospect but then I wouldn’t have thought the demise of the Liberal party as we know it was a likely prospect either. I’m not really convinced that what we’re seeing federally and in Ontario is anything other than a blue moment within the scope of ordinary politics, but I thought it was interesting that Maher seemed to be endorsing SPK’s view that there was a long term trend against the Liberals at work. (Though as I was saying he didn’t seem convinced that the trend would necessarily benefit the NDP as currently constituted, which is rather odd since these consequences seem to be two sides of the same coin.)
Why do you resist?
We only want what is best for you... to make life better for all ordinary people.
You too will become one with The Collective Politics.
Lower your shields and surrender your fundraisers.
Your biological and political distinctivess will be added to that of our own.
Somewhere in bleak, Laurentian suburbia...
BLANK-EYED MONOTONE CHILD: Mother. Read me a story.
TERRIFIED MOTHER: S-s-sure, honey. Wh-what would you like to hear?
CHILD: THIS one.
MOTHER: W-well, I...don't know. We-we've read that story every day this past week. Isn't there another one?
CHILD: No.
MOTHER: B-but...
CHILD: Read it. NOW!!
MOTHER(almost in tears): Okay.
Mouseland was a place where all the little mice...
I love the reference. Thank you for lightening the political atmosphere.
While agreeing that Trudeau needs to go I’m not sure the next election is winnable for the Liberals with or without him and there’s not much point in going to trouble of selecting a new leader and then burning them on an election that the Liberals are probably going to lose badly regardless. I seriously wonder if any of the likely candidates want the job right now. (We’ll see soon enough if the Liberals decide to prove me wrong - I suppose they could decide their best prospect of holding P to a minority is to have someone else at the helm.)
My one comforting thought about Poilievre is that the Liberals and NDP both doubtless have thick files on him that they haven’t really put to serious use yet. He has curiously proven to be effective to an extent many of us didn’t really expect but I would be shocked if he hadn’t accumulated a large number of soundbites that could be used against him at the appropriate time.
I can't wait for the Election so we can elect the NDP in Ottawa Centre. My present (Liberal) MP keeps sending me junk mail.
I assure shipmates that all MPs send junk mail. Known as the Householder, this phenomenon was born in the 1970s-- it was usually a roughly printed document folded over, but in the 1980s the House committee increased it to up to 10 pages, and it went from a constituency office bulletin to including party-supplied bumph on the issue du jour. In the Mulroney era, an enterprising NDP assistant of my acquaintance worked with a Conservative assistant to set up a private company which produced householders on contract. Friends of mine in constituency offices debated the point of the householder; I have heard MPs say that it was the only way in larger ridings where their name would be known, given the weakness of local media, and I suppose there is truth in that.
I think I am one of the few readers of the genre, and carried on an interesting discussion with the late and much-mourned Paul Dewar on an historical blunder in one of his householders. Being Paul Dewar, he studied the issue and made a gracious apology to his readers and a note of thanks to me for pointing it out.
Sadly, those halcyon days are past. IME Augustine you are too generous. Today householders are one step in class above fundraising emails (the very lowest of the low, aka "Those little !&*@$# e-mails, I am referring to NDP fundraising emails here).
You can ask, according to Commons rules, respondents how they intend to vote and send the form back to the MP on the House of Commons' tab. That is a poll.
My former MP Rick Norlock ( CON, Northumberland--Quinte West) was cited by the Toronto Sun for being the most mail-happy MP in Canada. He was mailing at the Commons expense too. His householders were so frequnet and so ignored that the Campbellford post office had to withdraw use of the recycling bin for thw public the post office box room; when he sent out a mailer the place looked like a blizzard.
They may have been noble once, but now they are just hackery.
I'm not sure that they ever classified as noble; in the days when library and city hall numbers were on a calendar page may have been when they were most useful. Like cat videos, they are a genre and are as liable to study and comment as any other.
An enquiry has unearthed a polisci student preparing a paper for the next Learneds on societal change in Québec householders... I hope that she got generous funding, enough to pay for a stream of negronis up to her carrel.
Yasir Naqvi 's Canada Day householder featured a map of Canada which omitted PEI and the Yukon. Losing one jurisdiction is a printing error but two smacks of carelessness.
So you are voting NDP to restore the honour of the Yukon?
I know, obviously you’re not, but this is getting a bit pointless. We used to actually have productive discussions on these threads.
Well, as recently as two days ago, there was discussion about the potential results of the next federal election. So I wouldn't say it's been like eons of nostalgia and trivia on topics such as eg. householders.
And ON that subject, I'm not sure exactly what is meant by that term. Is a householder basically just a political brochure sent by each MP to their constituents?
Back to current politics, I'll observe that Jagmeet Singh seemed more agitated by the punk calling him a "corrupted bastard" the other day, then he was by the old man telling him to dress like a "Canadian" in 2019. Personally, speaking as a white dude who wears the standard western sartorial outfit, I woulda thought the racially based taunt was more offensive than the generic "You're all a buncha crooks"-type rhetoric of the former.
Mileages vary, but I do wonder if his more recent reaction a sign of greater frustration on Singh's part. Granted, the man in 2016 did seem to be offering what he viewed as friendly criticism, whereas the guy the other day was clearly hostile.
One thing that was pretty funny was how the tough-talking dude didn't have the guts to actually repeat his insults to Singh's face, and said the heckling came from "someone behind me".
And icing on the cake: the guy was wearing a Leafs cap.
To wind up the tangent, a householder is a pamphlet sent by an MP to their constituents which is paid for and posted out of the MPs budget, that is, on the public dime. The customary ration is one mailing per address or household, hence the name. The blatantly partisan nature of these mailings at the public's expense gives them their dubious reputation.
Jagmeet was in high spirits yesterday after the NDP won Elmwood--Transcona. The party has noticed a new spring in his step.
Back to current politics, I'll observe that Jagmeet Singh seemed more agitated by the punk calling him a "corrupted bastard" the other day, then he was by the old man telling him to dress like a "Canadian" in 2019. Personally, speaking as a white dude who wears the standard western sartorial outfit, I woulda thought the racially based taunt was more offensive than the generic "You're all a buncha crooks"-type rhetoric of the former.
Mileages vary, but I do wonder if his more recent reaction a sign of greater frustration on Singh's part. Granted, the man in 2016 did seem to be offering what he viewed as friendly criticism, whereas the guy the other day was clearly hostile..
I don’t know, but as an isolated incident obvious blatant intolerance might be less upsetting than an actual accusation of wrongdoing. Or as you say maybe he was just in a different frame of mind.
...as an isolated incident blatant intolerance might be less upsetting than an actual accusation of wrongdoing.
Yeah.
5c PSYCHIATRY ALERT
Yeah, I'm guessing that helpfully-intended "advice" from soft racists is something Singh had gotten used to by 2019, given his previous career as a lawyer working with all types of clientele. And so he would possibly have had a templated strategy ready for dealing with the old guy.
Whereas "corrupted bastard" is two words with only a negative connotation, was shouted outta the blue with an angry voice in Singh's work environment, and kinda hits directly at his professional reputation(*).
Interesting to read @Sober Preacher's Kid's doubtlessly informed description of Singh as "in high spirits" as of late. The opposite of my initial impression from the exchange with the Leafs fan, but admittedly a street-brawling posture can be read in different ways. (Always viewed as a sign of strength in Chretien's case, but Mulroney's outbursts usually came off as entitled. For example.)
The writ will drop in NB today. We will go to the polls on Oct 21. The big question is Holt able to hold the Francophone ridings and win a handful of southern anglophone seats. Many former PC MLAs are not running due to their opposition to Higgs leadership. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-election-starts-1.7327170
Looks like a really close race. Wouldn’t mind seeing Higgs on his way out and it sounds like some in his party feel the same way. Do you think the Greens will support the Liberals in a no-confidence vote if they end up holding the balance of power?
If it's a minority situation, yes, I believe the Greens will support the Liberals. I don't see any room for growth for the Greens other than the 3 seats they currently hold.
Looks like a really close race. Wouldn’t mind seeing Higgs on his way out and it sounds like some in his party feel the same way. Do you think the Greens will support the Liberals in a no-confidence vote if they end up holding the balance of power?
They have so sufficiently established their record as Contrahiggsians that the question is not will they, but on what terms.
It would be interesting to see what they would do in the unlikely case that they actually won. It would keep column-writers and prognosticators quivering for weeks to come.
So as part of Project Doomscroll I’ve been looking up the people actually responsible for 338 and the CBC poll aggregators and they seem to be both quite likeable people who do a YouTube feature together called The Numbers. I won’t link to it but Google will find it for you easily (or at least it should, given that they own YouTube….). They did a feature on the by-elections - they thought the BQ win in Montreal was a surprise, the NDP win in Manitoba much less so.
On a related note, the event giving rise to the Montreal by-election was David Lametti’s departure, which doubtless was related to his being shuffled out of cabinet as Minister of Justice and AG (though in fairness the direction of the causality could go either way). I’m a bit puzzled by that particular departure, well before the current conflagration.
Francis Fox has died. I'd say he's best remembered for having to resign after forging his girlfriend's husband's signature on a request for an abortion in 1978, but even that would only be relative to total obscurity.
Egad. That’s a name I haven’t heard for a long time. I see from his Wikipedia entry that he actually had fairly extensive continued involvement in politics after that, though I don’t think any of that would have come to mind if I hadn’t looked it up.
Interesting article which has some effect on my sister's employment. Speaking as an ex- union president, I always thought the place of work fell under Management Rights?
Egad. That’s a name I haven’t heard for a long time. I see from his Wikipedia entry that he actually had fairly extensive continued involvement in politics after that, though I don’t think any of that would have come to mind if I hadn’t looked it up.
The only two real-time memories I have of Francis Fox...
On holidays in Ottawa, early 80s, sitting in the gallery of the Commons. Fox walked into the chamber, and the person I was with said "That's Francis Fox, who got the hostages out of Iran."
Obviously wrong, but he did look quite a bit like Ken Taylor.
Around the same time, there was a moral panic about the Playboy Channel being televised via "Pay TV", as it was called, and Fox as Minister Of Communications was involved with the relevant decisions. A cartoon in the Sun had Fox in his office on the phone with a leering grin on his face, saying "Of course, I'm totally opposed to the PLAYBOY channel!", while he reads a copy of Penthouse.
Presumably a reference to his reputation for sexual wrongdoing. And on THAT note, I woulda thought that forging someone else's signature on a legal document was enough to get you banned from politics forever, but I guess not.
Interesting article which has some effect on my sister's employment. Speaking as an ex- union president, I always thought the place of work fell under Management Rights?
Yes and no. I'm in the middle of this right now with my Public Service job. I live within a 10 minute biking distance of work in Ottawa as I thought I was going to be in office more than I was initially so I rented an apartment very close to work.. For a heavily document-based jobs like mine it is entirely possible to do the work remotely and do it very well.
I don't find the in-person arguments persuasive as there are equal counter arguments on the remote side.
My department no longer has enough desks or office space for every employee five days a week.
The union tried to entrench work from home during the last contract negotiations but failed.
It became clear to everyone during the pandemic that structuring work so that you had a 40 minute commute just to be warehoused was unnecessary and could be dispensed with. It was possible to reclaim that time. Society didn't need to spend those resouces and the government wanted the real estate savings. It could also decentral7ze the Public Service.
Niw we have the Chamber of Commerce types who bemoan the fact that change has passed their business by, to which I talk to every laid-off factory worker from the 1980's and cry me a river. This has combined with supervisor insecurity that employees are being lazy and stealing from them if not directly supervised to produce a perfect storm against new work arrangements. There is a cost for everything and the pandemic made it clear that there was a cost to working in person. Sadly this viewpoint is not popular now.
I fear that a certain type of manager is far too common in the Public Service. If they are not physically present to ensure that staff are unhappy and uncomfortable under their eyes, they assume that no work is being done, or can be done. Supervisor insecurity is a polite polysyllabic description.
Looking back at my quarter-century of serving Our Glorious Late Sovereign in the Public Service, my most useful and substantial contribution took place when managers were off at their staff meetings. Perhaps 20% of my time at the office was wasted by interminable sessions where notes from meetings were being read aloud to us. While I lived but 30 minutes on foot from my office, I regarded with dismay the hour-long commuting drives undergone by many of my colleagues.
I understand the arguments for remote work; about 90% of my role requires me to be onsite. Barring a clause negotiated in the CA is the place of employment covered under the ubiquitous Management Rights clause?
I understand the arguments for remote work; about 90% of my role requires me to be onsite. Barring a clause negotiated in the CA is the place of employment covered under the ubiquitous Management Rights clause?
It’s a good question - I studied Employment and Labour Law way back when so I have a general idea of what you’re talking about but I have no idea what the answer is. I suspect we will find out soon enough…
In other news, although my employer requires some onsite presence this gets overridden by the requirement to stay home if you have respiratory symptoms - which after coming down with two separate colds in the last six weeks is something I appreciate!
I understand the arguments for remote work; about 90% of my role requires me to be onsite. Barring a clause negotiated in the CA is the place of employment covered under the ubiquitous Management Rights clause?
I would say so, PSAC would say no as it's a central condition of work that should be negotiated and consulted on (more on that in a minute). The truth is collective agreements didn't foresee this sort of development where everyone worked from home.
The Clerk of the Privy Council (the head of the Public Service) made an annoucement in 2021 that hybrid work was to be the new normal for everyone going forward. At tht time they were going to dispose of a large amount of office space. Note that the Province of Ontario went even further and drastically cut back its offices in downtown Toronto.
Treasury Board did not negotiate much over remote work in the PSAC negotiations even though PSAC wanted to. There was a bare-bones Letter of Understanding signed saying that Telework was not a right, even though the Clerk said it was the new normal.
Then this year Treasury Board brought out the 3-day a week mandate in response to what were clearly seen to be political pressures. I was in those Town Hall meetings. A large part of the problem is that Treasury Board has been quite variable in its positions on remote work and has openly reversed itself. If it had kept a consistent line there would have been much less fuss. Employees had taken the Public Service at its word in 2021 that three days a week remote was the permanent new normal but that proved ephemeral.
I should add that my department is now taking employee attendance each day. Managers and Team Leaders have to fill out a report for the Exec level stating where a person is, in the office, authorized remote work day, on leave or on development courses with your employee ID. The execs say this is to generate overall statistics only. The employees feel this is toxic paranoia and says that top management doesn't trust its employees.
In other news, Doug Ford says he wants to build a tunnel under the 401 to expand capacity. This is such a stupid idea that it should cost him the next election. Unfortunately I suspect the real purpose of this is to attack the Liberals and the NDP for saying it is a stupid idea. Sigh.
We will eventually see if Policy 713 violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is already one case before the courts. The most heinous part of the post was the candidate's comparison of the previous policy 713 with the residential school system.
On a completely different note, in the BC election, the Conservative candidates in my riding and the ridings surrounding me are ducking interviews and pretty consistently skipping all-candidates forums. I don't know whether they are extremely confident or extremely arrogant. Either way, it doesn't seem to me to be a great look.
On the other hand, given how little attention people seem to pay to provincial elections, perhaps they're simply being efficient with their time.
On a completely different note, in the BC election, the Conservative candidates in my riding and the ridings surrounding me are ducking interviews and pretty consistently skipping all-candidates forums. I don't know whether they are extremely confident or extremely arrogant. Either way, it doesn't seem to me to be a great look.
On the other hand, given how little attention people seem to pay to provincial elections, perhaps they're simply being efficient with their time.
Does anyone happen to know why the BC United Party suddenly became so unelectable? I don't follow BC politics that closely anymore, and only found out about their collapse and merger into the Conservatives about a month ago.
Poilievre has just stated that if Israel bombs Iran's reactors, it will be "a gift by the Jewish state to humanity."
How do you begin to unpack this.
The full quote, from the Toronto Sun:
“The idea of allowing a genocidal, theocratic, unstable dictatorship that is desperate to avoid being overthrown by its own people, to develop nuclear weapons is about the most dangerous and irresponsible thing that the world could ever allow,” Poilievre said.
“And if Israel were to stop that genocidal theocratic unstable government from acquiring nuclear weapons, it would be a gift by the Jewish state to humanity.”
Yeah, I know he was justifying the attacks as for the benefit of a safe world. Still not sure if that would be the result, and, as far as I know, even the militantly pro-Israel Biden administration hasn't endorsed an Israeli bombing.
And calling Israel "the Jewish state" when "the Israeli state" would be the usual option is pretty suggestive.
On a completely different note, in the BC election, the Conservative candidates in my riding and the ridings surrounding me are ducking interviews and pretty consistently skipping all-candidates forums. I don't know whether they are extremely confident or extremely arrogant. Either way, it doesn't seem to me to be a great look.
On the other hand, given how little attention people seem to pay to provincial elections, perhaps they're simply being efficient with their time.
Does anyone happen to know why the BC United Party suddenly became so unelectable? I don't follow BC politics that closely anymore, and only found out about their collapse and merger into the Conservatives about a month ago.
Since the 1940's BC has had room for two parties, the CCF/NDP and the Free Enterprise Party, variously the original Liberal/Conservative Coalition, Social Credit, the revived BC Liberals/United and the revived Conservatives. They are all substantially the same party. What we just saw was really a leadership race in disguise.
Comments
C 219
L 68
B 40
N 14
G 2
The pop vote numbers are basically the same between CBC and 338 but 338’s seat projection for the NDP is below the likely range estimated by the CBC. So obviously their seat count algorithms are not on the same page. I wasn’t aware of the CBC aggregator… it will be interesting to compare results going forward.
As you say this is all subject to change…
All good, as long as the Conservative number stays above 200!
In fairness, Singh has done fairly well in leveraging his influence but he’s had a good run and I think the NDP could use a fresh pair of eyes. The Liberals need some time in opposition and a new leader.
(Unfortunately as things stand Poilievre is doing pretty well at the golden boy thing…)
Why do you resist?
We only want what is best for you... to make life better for all ordinary people.
You too will become one with The Collective Politics.
Lower your shields and surrender your fundraisers.
Your biological and political distinctivess will be added to that of our own.
Somewhere in bleak, Laurentian suburbia...
BLANK-EYED MONOTONE CHILD: Mother. Read me a story.
TERRIFIED MOTHER: S-s-sure, honey. Wh-what would you like to hear?
CHILD: THIS one.
MOTHER: W-well, I...don't know. We-we've read that story every day this past week. Isn't there another one?
CHILD: No.
MOTHER: B-but...
CHILD: Read it. NOW!!
MOTHER(almost in tears): Okay.
Glad you liked it. Credit to @Sober Preacher's Kid for the general scenario.
While agreeing that Trudeau needs to go I’m not sure the next election is winnable for the Liberals with or without him and there’s not much point in going to trouble of selecting a new leader and then burning them on an election that the Liberals are probably going to lose badly regardless. I seriously wonder if any of the likely candidates want the job right now. (We’ll see soon enough if the Liberals decide to prove me wrong - I suppose they could decide their best prospect of holding P to a minority is to have someone else at the helm.)
My one comforting thought about Poilievre is that the Liberals and NDP both doubtless have thick files on him that they haven’t really put to serious use yet. He has curiously proven to be effective to an extent many of us didn’t really expect but I would be shocked if he hadn’t accumulated a large number of soundbites that could be used against him at the appropriate time.
I assure shipmates that all MPs send junk mail. Known as the Householder, this phenomenon was born in the 1970s-- it was usually a roughly printed document folded over, but in the 1980s the House committee increased it to up to 10 pages, and it went from a constituency office bulletin to including party-supplied bumph on the issue du jour. In the Mulroney era, an enterprising NDP assistant of my acquaintance worked with a Conservative assistant to set up a private company which produced householders on contract. Friends of mine in constituency offices debated the point of the householder; I have heard MPs say that it was the only way in larger ridings where their name would be known, given the weakness of local media, and I suppose there is truth in that.
I think I am one of the few readers of the genre, and carried on an interesting discussion with the late and much-mourned Paul Dewar on an historical blunder in one of his householders. Being Paul Dewar, he studied the issue and made a gracious apology to his readers and a note of thanks to me for pointing it out.
You can ask, according to Commons rules, respondents how they intend to vote and send the form back to the MP on the House of Commons' tab. That is a poll.
My former MP Rick Norlock ( CON, Northumberland--Quinte West) was cited by the Toronto Sun for being the most mail-happy MP in Canada. He was mailing at the Commons expense too. His householders were so frequnet and so ignored that the Campbellford post office had to withdraw use of the recycling bin for thw public the post office box room; when he sent out a mailer the place looked like a blizzard.
They may have been noble once, but now they are just hackery.
An enquiry has unearthed a polisci student preparing a paper for the next Learneds on societal change in Québec householders... I hope that she got generous funding, enough to pay for a stream of negronis up to her carrel.
I know, obviously you’re not, but this is getting a bit pointless. We used to actually have productive discussions on these threads.
Well, as recently as two days ago, there was discussion about the potential results of the next federal election. So I wouldn't say it's been like eons of nostalgia and trivia on topics such as eg. householders.
And ON that subject, I'm not sure exactly what is meant by that term. Is a householder basically just a political brochure sent by each MP to their constituents?
Back to current politics, I'll observe that Jagmeet Singh seemed more agitated by the punk calling him a "corrupted bastard" the other day, then he was by the old man telling him to dress like a "Canadian" in 2019. Personally, speaking as a white dude who wears the standard western sartorial outfit, I woulda thought the racially based taunt was more offensive than the generic "You're all a buncha crooks"-type rhetoric of the former.
Mileages vary, but I do wonder if his more recent reaction a sign of greater frustration on Singh's part. Granted, the man in 2016 did seem to be offering what he viewed as friendly criticism, whereas the guy the other day was clearly hostile.
One thing that was pretty funny was how the tough-talking dude didn't have the guts to actually repeat his insults to Singh's face, and said the heckling came from "someone behind me".
And icing on the cake: the guy was wearing a Leafs cap.
Jagmeet was in high spirits yesterday after the NDP won Elmwood--Transcona. The party has noticed a new spring in his step.
I don’t know, but as an isolated incident obvious blatant intolerance might be less upsetting than an actual accusation of wrongdoing. Or as you say maybe he was just in a different frame of mind.
Yeah.
5c PSYCHIATRY ALERT
Yeah, I'm guessing that helpfully-intended "advice" from soft racists is something Singh had gotten used to by 2019, given his previous career as a lawyer working with all types of clientele. And so he would possibly have had a templated strategy ready for dealing with the old guy.
Whereas "corrupted bastard" is two words with only a negative connotation, was shouted outta the blue with an angry voice in Singh's work environment, and kinda hits directly at his professional reputation(*).
Interesting to read @Sober Preacher's Kid's doubtlessly informed description of Singh as "in high spirits" as of late. The opposite of my initial impression from the exchange with the Leafs fan, but admittedly a street-brawling posture can be read in different ways. (Always viewed as a sign of strength in Chretien's case, but Mulroney's outbursts usually came off as entitled. For example.)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-election-starts-1.7327170
They have so sufficiently established their record as Contrahiggsians that the question is not will they, but on what terms.
It would be interesting to see what they would do in the unlikely case that they actually won. It would keep column-writers and prognosticators quivering for weeks to come.
On a related note, the event giving rise to the Montreal by-election was David Lametti’s departure, which doubtless was related to his being shuffled out of cabinet as Minister of Justice and AG (though in fairness the direction of the causality could go either way). I’m a bit puzzled by that particular departure, well before the current conflagration.
The only two real-time memories I have of Francis Fox...
On holidays in Ottawa, early 80s, sitting in the gallery of the Commons. Fox walked into the chamber, and the person I was with said "That's Francis Fox, who got the hostages out of Iran."
Obviously wrong, but he did look quite a bit like Ken Taylor.
Around the same time, there was a moral panic about the Playboy Channel being televised via "Pay TV", as it was called, and Fox as Minister Of Communications was involved with the relevant decisions. A cartoon in the Sun had Fox in his office on the phone with a leering grin on his face, saying "Of course, I'm totally opposed to the PLAYBOY channel!", while he reads a copy of Penthouse.
Presumably a reference to his reputation for sexual wrongdoing. And on THAT note, I woulda thought that forging someone else's signature on a legal document was enough to get you banned from politics forever, but I guess not.
Yes and no. I'm in the middle of this right now with my Public Service job. I live within a 10 minute biking distance of work in Ottawa as I thought I was going to be in office more than I was initially so I rented an apartment very close to work.. For a heavily document-based jobs like mine it is entirely possible to do the work remotely and do it very well.
I don't find the in-person arguments persuasive as there are equal counter arguments on the remote side.
My department no longer has enough desks or office space for every employee five days a week.
The union tried to entrench work from home during the last contract negotiations but failed.
It became clear to everyone during the pandemic that structuring work so that you had a 40 minute commute just to be warehoused was unnecessary and could be dispensed with. It was possible to reclaim that time. Society didn't need to spend those resouces and the government wanted the real estate savings. It could also decentral7ze the Public Service.
Niw we have the Chamber of Commerce types who bemoan the fact that change has passed their business by, to which I talk to every laid-off factory worker from the 1980's and cry me a river. This has combined with supervisor insecurity that employees are being lazy and stealing from them if not directly supervised to produce a perfect storm against new work arrangements. There is a cost for everything and the pandemic made it clear that there was a cost to working in person. Sadly this viewpoint is not popular now.
Looking back at my quarter-century of serving Our Glorious Late Sovereign in the Public Service, my most useful and substantial contribution took place when managers were off at their staff meetings. Perhaps 20% of my time at the office was wasted by interminable sessions where notes from meetings were being read aloud to us. While I lived but 30 minutes on foot from my office, I regarded with dismay the hour-long commuting drives undergone by many of my colleagues.
It’s a good question - I studied Employment and Labour Law way back when so I have a general idea of what you’re talking about but I have no idea what the answer is. I suspect we will find out soon enough…
In other news, although my employer requires some onsite presence this gets overridden by the requirement to stay home if you have respiratory symptoms - which after coming down with two separate colds in the last six weeks is something I appreciate!
I would say so, PSAC would say no as it's a central condition of work that should be negotiated and consulted on (more on that in a minute). The truth is collective agreements didn't foresee this sort of development where everyone worked from home.
The Clerk of the Privy Council (the head of the Public Service) made an annoucement in 2021 that hybrid work was to be the new normal for everyone going forward. At tht time they were going to dispose of a large amount of office space. Note that the Province of Ontario went even further and drastically cut back its offices in downtown Toronto.
Treasury Board did not negotiate much over remote work in the PSAC negotiations even though PSAC wanted to. There was a bare-bones Letter of Understanding signed saying that Telework was not a right, even though the Clerk said it was the new normal.
Then this year Treasury Board brought out the 3-day a week mandate in response to what were clearly seen to be political pressures. I was in those Town Hall meetings. A large part of the problem is that Treasury Board has been quite variable in its positions on remote work and has openly reversed itself. If it had kept a consistent line there would have been much less fuss. Employees had taken the Public Service at its word in 2021 that three days a week remote was the permanent new normal but that proved ephemeral.
I should add that my department is now taking employee attendance each day. Managers and Team Leaders have to fill out a report for the Exec level stating where a person is, in the office, authorized remote work day, on leave or on development courses with your employee ID. The execs say this is to generate overall statistics only. The employees feel this is toxic paranoia and says that top management doesn't trust its employees.
Unsurprisingly, I agree with her. Both are unacceptable examples of government taking parental authority away.
How do you begin to unpack this.
On a completely different note, in the BC election, the Conservative candidates in my riding and the ridings surrounding me are ducking interviews and pretty consistently skipping all-candidates forums. I don't know whether they are extremely confident or extremely arrogant. Either way, it doesn't seem to me to be a great look.
On the other hand, given how little attention people seem to pay to provincial elections, perhaps they're simply being efficient with their time.
Does anyone happen to know why the BC United Party suddenly became so unelectable? I don't follow BC politics that closely anymore, and only found out about their collapse and merger into the Conservatives about a month ago.
Well, I wouldn't have worded it like that, but I would not want one of the world's largest terrorist-supporting countries to have nuclear weapons.
The full quote, from the Toronto Sun:
“The idea of allowing a genocidal, theocratic, unstable dictatorship that is desperate to avoid being overthrown by its own people, to develop nuclear weapons is about the most dangerous and irresponsible thing that the world could ever allow,” Poilievre said.
“And if Israel were to stop that genocidal theocratic unstable government from acquiring nuclear weapons, it would be a gift by the Jewish state to humanity.”
And calling Israel "the Jewish state" when "the Israeli state" would be the usual option is pretty suggestive.
Since the 1940's BC has had room for two parties, the CCF/NDP and the Free Enterprise Party, variously the original Liberal/Conservative Coalition, Social Credit, the revived BC Liberals/United and the revived Conservatives. They are all substantially the same party. What we just saw was really a leadership race in disguise.