Come on, all politics aside this Trump level lazy tweet.
Its a fund raiser that is for a campaign, not for Pierre himself to buy Gucci suits. Its basically a work function to generate revenue.
Then to contrast with a guy who travels on business and pleasure in the most uppity of places, because he just happens to be a free movie festival, also to plug himself, it's just dumb.
Hosting $5000 a plate fundraising dinners means you are beholden to the “elite” as much as the next party. So do proclaim the other guy is beholden to the elites while speaking to the elites is hypocritical at best.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Justin isn't allowed to appear at one of the most internationally recognized festivals we have in this country?
Interesting take.
But also demonized for not appearing at the Calgary Stampede.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
But also demonized for not appearing at the Calgary Stampede.
Maybe he should have a $5000/plate dinner at the Royal Yacht Club and complain about elites. He's just not allowed to smile, otherwise he might get roasted for it.
NDP's position has been pretty consistent. Yes they supported the current Liberal carbon policy indirectly through the Confidence and Supply agreement, but again that is the lesser of two evils than the CPC doing nothing on the climate change front. But the NDP have been saying they don't agree with the current set up for a lot longer than today.
No...it really hasn't. Quite the opposite.
If we look at the few times NDP supposedly broke rank with the Liberals, the heating oil exemption looking to expand the exemption to all heating was a measure motioned by the Conservatives. The heating oil exemption that largely caters to Atlantic Canada was extremely unpopular even within NDP and Liberal ranks and likely caught the NDP offguard as carbon tax was now deemed by the Liberals as a selective tax. The NDP got itself in a rock a hard place, and chose the common sense choice and voted with the Conservatives on this one instance.
Yet if we look back, the NDP voted against heating carbon tax exemption in 2022 when it was not as politically controversial.
Your 2021 example the NDP is stating it wanted the tax to go further and get rid of loopholes...not quite what you are insinuating. It's quite literally the opposite of wanting to get rid of it.
The April 15 2024 article is also actually quite critical of the NDP's stance and ambiguity towards the carbon tax, again this is after they voted to keep the April 1 carbon tax increase and their history of backing the Liberals.
Quote:
However, specifics of that plan are less clear. Singh was asked at least nine times by reporters if his vision of a fairer plan includes a carbon price on gasoline.
Singh did not clearly answer.
That's exactly the problem with Singh. He will say whatever he feels gives him votes and claiming to be different from the Liberals, yet they were joined at the hips to them. "Do as I say not as I do". Right now the carbon tax is extremely toxic. He has always looked to campaign how the NDP climate change plan will go further than the Liberal. Only very recently has the ambiguity towards the carbon tax itself occur. Today is the first time he has made a direct allusion that he opposes the consumer carbon pricing.
If you ask me, I think Singh has 100% every intention of keeping a carbon tax ideologically, especially on gasoline. It is just extremely unpopular right now, and the NDP is simply biding for time to say "our plan is better than the Liberals, and fairer and mumble mumble on carbon pricing, will keep you posted"
If you can show me something (2019-2022) where he states the carbon tax unfairly punishes Canadians and workers and he would have a plan with a different approach without including carbon tax / carbon pricing, I am all ears.
Putting a price on carbon has been an
important tool in efforts to drive emissions
reductions. We will continue with carbon
pricing while making it fairer and rolling back
loopholes this Liberal government has given to
big polluters. But we also recognize that carbon
pricing won’t be enough to tackle the climate
crisis. Further action is needed.
I mean... they even used the same Singh canoing photo 2019 and 2021, enough for a columnist at the CBC to take notice and how consistently vague they are.
Firebot who literally just yesterday posted a link to an announcement by the CPC that indicated they were changing their long term policy stance on something for the better is now complaining about another party saying that they’re considering changing their policy stance on something for the better.
But it’s not for partisan reasons because firebot would never use a partisan bias as motivation for what he posts.
It’s just getting old man. Unless your goal is to be anointed as the least credible poster on the board I would suggest reconsidering your approach for whatever it is you’re trying to accomplish here.
On the other hand relative GDP changes to other nations is indicative of an issue. I think the Australia comparison is a good one to follow as you have resources based moderate sized economies. Also the comparison to where we sit in OCED is also a reasonable methodology. So I agree GDP is an imperfect measure but the trends in GDP are a negative indicator for Canada.
Not necessarily, unless you account for demographics. Australia is a younger country than Canada, with a very large 25-45 age group relative to the rest of its population. Canada, on the other hand, is older and has a pretty large (and growing) 65+ demographic that provides little productive capacity. An aging population will tend to depress GDP per capita as a smaller and smaller share of the population is of working age. That's the main reason why we have such high immigration targets.
If you account for that difference by looking at GDP per worker, then almost all of the discrepancy in GDP per capita growth between the two countries disappears. And at the same time, Canada's median real wage growth has been about 40% higher than Australia's has been in that time period.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Firebot who literally just yesterday posted a link to an announcement by the CPC that indicated they were changing their long term policy stance on something for the better is now complaining about another party saying that they’re considering changing their policy stance on something for the better.
But it’s not for partisan reasons because firebot would never use a partisan bias as motivation for what he posts.
It’s just getting old man. Unless your goal is to be anointed as the least credible poster on the board I would suggest reconsidering your approach for whatever it is you’re trying to accomplish here.
I take it you are quite unhappy with the latest NDP news?
If you check back (belsarius quoted me), I did state I don't believe the CPC to be genuine at all.
But hey, I can vouch for voting for the Liberals (Trudeau even) and the provincial NDP. Somehow having issues with the Liberal-NDP coalition government makes me a large C partisan I guess. Can you say you have voted multiparty across different spectrums?
If we look at the few times NDP supposedly broke rank with the Liberals, the heating oil exemption looking to expand the exemption to all heating was a measure motioned by the Conservatives. The heating oil exemption that largely caters to Atlantic Canada was extremely unpopular even within NDP and Liberal ranks and likely caught the NDP offguard as carbon tax was now deemed by the Liberals as a selective tax. The NDP got itself in a rock a hard place, and chose the common sense choice and voted with the Conservatives on this one instance.
Yet if we look back, the NDP voted against heating carbon tax exemption in 2022 when it was not as politically controversial.
Your 2021 example the NDP is stating it wanted the tax to go further and get rid of loopholes...not quite what you are insinuating. It's quite literally the opposite of wanting to get rid of it.
The April 15 2024 article is also actually quite critical of the NDP's stance and ambiguity towards the carbon tax, again this is after they voted to keep the April 1 carbon tax increase and their history of backing the Liberals.
That's exactly the problem with Singh. He will say whatever he feels gives him votes and claiming to be different from the Liberals, yet they were joined at the hips to them. "Do as I say not as I do". Right now the carbon tax is extremely toxic. He has always looked to campaign how the NDP climate change plan will go further than the Liberal. Only very recently has the ambiguity towards the carbon tax itself occur. Today is the first time he has made a direct allusion that he opposes the consumer carbon pricing.
If you ask me, I think Singh has 100% every intention of keeping a carbon tax ideologically, especially on gasoline. It is just extremely unpopular right now, and the NDP is simply biding for time to say "our plan is better than the Liberals, and fairer and mumble mumble on carbon pricing, will keep you posted"
If you can show me something (2019-2022) where he states the carbon tax unfairly punishes Canadians and workers and he would have a plan with a different approach without including carbon tax / carbon pricing, I am all ears.
I mean... they even used the same Singh canoing photo 2019 and 2021, enough for a columnist at the CBC to take notice and how consistently vague they are.
Well touché, guess you are right after all. They are consistent. Are they going to use the same picture for this next election?
I'm confused.. you seem to be arguing that the NDP is now against the carbon tax based on the articles you posted, but those articles don't say that at all. He is against the Liberal methodology, which he has been consistently against the entire time he has led the party. And because of how the carbon tax is viewed right now, plus the fact that they don't have a full plan ready, he is not commenting on it.
Quote:
We want to see an approach to fighting the climate crisis where it doesn't put the burden on the backs of working people, where big polluters have to pay their fair share,
This doesn't say he is against the tax, just against the burden being on the common man moreso than industry, which is what he has been saying for the last 4 years.
The NDP are an opposition party, so I would expect he would be against a lot of the things the Liberals were doing, simply because they were in a Confidence and Supply agreement doesn't change that. They were not "joined at the hip", they were in a mutually beneficial arrangement that has now run its course.
Just because they disagreed on some things didn't make it enough to cancel the whole agreement, especially since that meant putting the CPC in charge. You really have a hard time with the concept that the NDP would rather prop up a Liberal government than cede full control to a CPC government.
He is playing politics, because he is a well, politician. Plus it is really humorous that you are mad at Singh for "saying whatever to get votes" a couple days after you post an article where PP did the same thing with the back to work legislation (which you even acknowledged was probably just to get votes). That's their jobs, to get votes.
I would totally support him if he did scrap the carbon tax, I don't think it's very effective at all, but the result would be some pretty severe corporate regulations on emissions that people like you would be even more upset with.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
Last edited by belsarius; 09-12-2024 at 03:28 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
I'm confused.. you seem to be arguing that the NDP is now against the carbon tax based on the articles you posted, but those articles don't say that at all. He is against the Liberal methodology, which he has been consistently against the entire time he has led the party. And because of how the carbon tax is viewed right now, plus the fact that they don't have a full plan ready, he is not commenting on it.
They have always claimed to be against Liberal methodology because they want to pretend that they are different from the Liberals. They've never had a full plan. Yet ideologically they are both very similar in most subjects and why they have continuously supported the Liberal carbon plan (as you said, the lesser of two evils).
It just so happens prior to 2024 the NDP platform always included and supported carbon pricing, and one that eliminated loopholes.
This has clearly changed and the messaging is clearly different despite the continued vagueness about Liberal methodology being bad.
Also...did I somehow miss the part where I stated that Poilievre is being genuine and not doing this for political gain?
Poilievre did his move for political gain. I also understand full well why the NDP would rather prop up a Liberal government versus ceding control to the CPC.
Difference between the CPC and NDP here is one party leader is leading the polls and smells opportunity to grab more votes, while the other party leader is in a panic trying to save his position and stop the bleeding. While both are irregular stances of the party, both have different reasonings for doing so.
I take it you are quite unhappy with the latest NDP news?
I don’t make a habit of calling things a potential change for the better if said change makes me unhappy.
Quote:
If you check back (belsarius quoted me), I did state I don't believe the CPC to be genuine at all.
That’s kind of irrelevant, you presented what they said in a positive light but questioned the sincerity, perhaps in some vain attempt to present yourself as non-partisan. The motive or sincerity isn’t really known by any of us, all we know is that they actually said it.
Quote:
But hey, I can vouch for voting for the Liberals (Trudeau even) and the provincial NDP. Somehow having issues with the Liberal-NDP coalition government makes me a large C partisan I guess.
It’s your posting that makes you come off as partisan. No one cares who you voted for in the past because it doesn’t change what you’re saying right now, nor does it absolve you from being held accountable for your more recent behaviour.
Quote:
Can you say you have voted multiparty across different spectrums?
Firstly, I don’t vote for parties I vote on issues that I think are important. Secondly, no I have not only ever voted for a single party.
It’s starting to look like your goal may actually be to be anointed the least credible poster on the forum. To each their own I suppose.
They have always claimed to be against Liberal methodology because they want to pretend that they are different from the Liberals. They've never had a full plan. Yet ideologically they are both very similar in most subjects and why they have continuously supported the Liberal carbon plan (as you said, the lesser of two evils).
It just so happens prior to 2024 the NDP platform always included and supported carbon pricing, and one that eliminated loopholes.
This has clearly changed and the messaging is clearly different despite the continued vagueness about Liberal methodology being bad.
Also...did I somehow miss the part where I stated that Poilievre is being genuine and not doing this for political gain?
Poilievre did his move for political gain. I also understand full well why the NDP would rather prop up a Liberal government versus ceding control to the CPC.
Difference between the CPC and NDP here is one party leader is leading the polls and smells opportunity to grab more votes, while the other party leader is in a panic trying to save his position and stop the bleeding. While both are irregular stances of the party, both have different reasonings for doing so.
Fully agree with you here. Singh knows he is a dead man walking and is absolutely being vague on purpose. I just disagree that this is signaling a change in platform (flip-flop) of the NDP to be against the carbon tax as a whole - that seems to be the conservative messaging on how to interpret it.
I see it as someone who is about to lose their job and knows NOT to say the quiet part out loud (carbon tax will stay, but just get worse for the large emitters). Unlike the ANDP who decided the best time to announce a corporate tax increase was in the middle of an election....
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
Fully agree with you here. Singh knows he is a dead man walking and is absolutely being vague on purpose. I just disagree that this is signaling a change in platform (flip-flop) of the NDP to be against the carbon tax as a whole - that seems to be the conservative messaging on how to interpret it.
I see it as someone who is about to lose their job and knows NOT to say the quiet part out loud (carbon tax will stay, but just get worse for the large emitters). Unlike the ANDP who decided the best time to announce a corporate tax increase was in the middle of an election....
How do you interpret this move on the same day as Singh's statement?
“A lot of British Columbians are struggling with affordability, and the political consensus we had in B.C. has been badly damaged by the approach of the federal government decides to remove the legal backstop requiring us to have a consumer carbon tax in B.C., we will end the consumer carbon tax in B.C.,” Eby said.
Seems like quite the significant flip flop, no? Doesn't seem any more clear that the NDP has made a significant shift in their policy.
Seems like quite the significant flip flop, no? Doesn't seem any more clear that the NDP has made a significant shift in their policy.
Well that's the BC NDP so not really the same thing.. but I'll bite.
Its 100% political at this point. The conservatives are poised to defeat the BC NDP in the October election, and any sign of the residents of BC being penalized worse than the rest of the country (the removal of the federal backstop) will almost certainly doom them. I also see that Eby is not calling for the tax to be axed regardless, but focusing on the point that removal of the Federal backstop would unfairly effect his province.
Quote:
Eby said the province’s carbon pricing would remain unchanged unless the federal backstop was removed.
He added that he still believes a price on carbon “can be an effective tool.”
Still believes in the carbon pricing, but has to weigh that against the factors of other provinces having lower costs of living in comparison. BC's rebate is already smaller than the Federal one so it puts BC residents as at a serious disadvantageous if the other Provinces no longer have a tax.
But really, why are you so concerned about getting them in a "gotcha"? Shouldn't you be happy that they have "finally come around to a common sense approach?" and be giving them kudos?
Like honestly, when the CPC get into power and the first major national strike they have to deal with and PP actually backs up his words by not implementing back to work legislation, it would go a long way in my mind to opening up to them.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
Hosting $5000 a plate fundraising dinners means you are beholden to the “elite” as much as the next party. So do proclaim the other guy is beholden to the elites while speaking to the elites is hypocritical at best.
I don’t keep up with Pierre’s tweets, but I thought it was Jagmeet saying Libs were beholden, not Pierre?
Oh and I never said Trudeau can’t go to TIFF, I said to contrast him as a everyman is silly.
But really, why are you so concerned about getting them in a "gotcha"? Shouldn't you be happy that they have "finally come around to a common sense approach?" and be giving them kudos?
Like honestly, when the CPC get into power and the first major national strike they have to deal with and PP actually backs up his words by not implementing back to work legislation, it would go a long way in my mind to opening up to them.
This isn't a gotcha. For years they have backed the carbon tax / carbon pricing and includes it in their platform, never once complained about the consumer carbon pricing portion being a problem, with only vague about the Liberal plan being bad (or not doing enough) and that their plan is better.
The NDP did not have epiphany here. Whether Singh did his statement to help the BC NDP, or to give a boost to salvage one of the safest NDP ridings from turning Conservative, this was not done because he sees a better way, as they have not put a concrete plan and won't comment if it will have consumer carbon pricing.
Let's look at your stance on Poilievre and back to work legislation which is a totally fair stance. There is certainly no reason to take his word for it considering his past. I certainly wouldn't expect someone to vote for him because he just made a statement on the pilots until he backs up his words while in power. Actions speak louder then words. Conservatives have certainly given unions little reason to trust them, it take time and actions to build that trust.
Singh's statement has been panned considering his longstanding message. He's not getting kudos, he's being outright ridiculed. Both the CTV and CBC panels absolutely roasted Singh on it.
"Incoherent"
"No credibility"
"No principles"
"His political antenna is bent beyond bent"
Just a few words from the panels
And you think we should give him kudos because he changed his stance out of desperation when he could have done it a year or two ago when inflation was peaking if he was genuine?
Last edited by Firebot; 09-13-2024 at 10:36 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
Its 100% political at this point. The conservatives are poised to defeat the BC NDP in the October election.
338 still has the NDP as most likely to win the most seats. Hopefully enough of the BC Greens support collapses to the NDP to counter the hicks in the interior and the Karens in the Vancouver suburbs.
Because the incoming “gotchas” are going to be petty and annoying, can we just get this out there now for when the Conservatives take power?
Yes they’re corrupt, yes they’re tied to elites every bit as the Liberals, yes they will do political maneuvering, as they have in the past, that will be self-fulfilling just like the current government.
That’s precisely why the continual loosening of norms and expectations that Canadians hold for their government is a problem. Stretching the bounds simply allows “the other guys” to do it too. The Libs couldn’t figure out where billions were lost to? Can’t wait to see what the Cons do in that dept.
Yes, we know.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
This isn't a gotcha. For years they have backed the carbon tax / carbon pricing and includes it in their platform, never once complained about the consumer carbon pricing portion being a problem, with only vague about the Liberal plan being bad (or not doing enough) and that their plan is better.
The NDP did not have epiphany here. Whether Singh did his statement to help the BC NDP, or to give a boost to salvage one of the safest NDP ridings from turning Conservative, this was not done because he sees a better way, as they have not put a concrete plan and won't comment if it will have consumer carbon pricing.
Let's look at your stance on Poilievre and back to work legislation which is a totally fair stance. There is certainly no reason to take his word for it considering his past. I certainly wouldn't expect someone to vote for him because he just made a statement on the pilots until he backs up his words while in power. Actions speak louder then words. Conservatives have certainly given unions little reason to trust them, it take time and actions to build that trust.
Singh's statement has been panned considering his longstanding message. He's not getting kudos, he's being outright ridiculed. Both the CTV and CBC panels absolutely roasted Singh on it.
"Incoherent"
"No credibility"
"No principles"
"His political antenna is bent beyond bent"
Just a few words from the panels
And you think we should give him kudos because he changed his stance out of desperation when he could have done it a year or two ago when inflation was peaking if he was genuine?
I don't think he deserves Kudos, I think he needs to be fired. Just a few pages ago I was ok with him, and I think I was pretty direct in that him getting an election called would really lose my support for him. And his recent actions have pointed us in that direction.
I also think this press conference was ill-timed, or if it was just answering a question, then he should have handled it better. But he didn't. Why the NDP doesn't have their own climate plan ready, even in a bare bones format is a huge failing.
My argument with you, is in the characterization that his position has changed. I still don't think it has, from day 1 he has been against how the Liberals carbon tax policy is set up and wants industry to pay a lot more than it does - but that doesn't mean that consumers should pay nothing.
He had entered an agreement, which to be fair to the Liberals, seemed to be working in good faith on both sides. In the CBC clip I totally agree with the bent antenna comment and he should have included it in the original C&S agreement, but he didn't. (who knows, maybe he tried and the Liberals shut that down).
I don't see any change in messaging that the NDP plan is not the Liberal one, and the other point I saw in that clips was that "It is unrealistic to expect the NDP to carry water for the Liberal plan". You can argue that he carried water during the terms of the agreement, and he did. He also supported a lot of other Liberal policies, and I am sure not all of them aligned with the NDP but he kept his side of the agreement in good faith.
His failing right now is honestly the same as the CPC, that there is no actual NDP plan. Him having no comment on whether his plan would include a consumer carbon tax, is not the same as axing the tax, so all sides are playing the politics game.. but Singh was dumb enough to leave himself open to attacks from the Liberals and the CPC.
Singh's time is over as leader of the NDP, especially with this debacle. He set himself up, and the other parties have no problem taking him to task for it.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
The Following User Says Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
