Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Wormius

The eligibility criteria is the eligibility criteria, period. Unless this was a huge issue when PP and his colleagues were about to qualify for theirs, then why bring it up for anyone else?

I think the “why” was explained pretty clearly in the post you quoted.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I don't quite understand the logic of bringing up Poilievre and his pension as somehow being an argument to be had as a rebuttal to Singh's situation.

He's been an MP since 2004 and beat a favoured incumbent doing so. He has been an MP for 20 years including several as a cabinet minister and now opposition leader. If an argument is to be made on which MP in the house has earned a pension, he is pretty much one of the worst targets you go can go for.

Liberal MPs from their 2015 majority win including Trudeau have earned their pension years ago and they do not come in question or in discussion when pension is mentioned.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Ne...%20(final).pdf

Jagmeet Singh has not secured his pension as of yet. He personally will get it in February 25 2025 for winning a by election seat back in Feb 25 2019 and tenured for 6 years. Singh moved to Burnaby and got appointed to a safe NDP riding in Burnaby South 2 years after becoming NDP leader

Securing a pension through tenure is absolutely a motivation for an MP to stay long to secure it. Who wouldn't want a pension for 6 years+ of work? I sure as heck know if I had a few months to go to secure one, I would try to make it. The early 2 year term 2021 election gave a unique opportunity for MPs to potentially qualify for one if only the election date was pushed by 1 extra week without the need to get re-elected.

Many current MPs who won their seats in 2019 have not earned a pension as of yet on tenure. The NDP and Liberals voted to change the election date back a week to Oct. 27, 2025 on the claim it would interfere with Diwali yet coincidentally get many Liberals and NDP MPs unlikely to get re-elected the tenure needed to secure their pension should elections be held at the last moment. This unpopular move caused backlash aimed at the NDP by constituents and they have since reversed their push.

This sneaky attempt by Liberals / NDP to assure themselves pensions while facing a potential major defeat is where Singh's own pension eligibility started getting talked about. Singh is in jeopardy of losing his seat at the moment with the current situation in Burnaby, riding changes and polling. It is unlikely he will stay as leader with another election disappointment.

It's most certainly also a vulnerability where his motives can be questioned by opposing parties because the NDP has opened themselves up to criticism. Peter Julien talking of looking at potential of non confidence in late February or early March (coincidentally after Singh would have secured his pension) even when faced with this complete debacle is not helping the optics at all.

Singh is quite wealthy and questioning his motivation on prolonging an election to secure his pension could certainly be argued against and a totally valid argument to shut down the discussion.

But bringing up an MP of the other political spectrum who have clearly earned it per the rules as a whataboutism to one who has clearly not earned it yet by the rules is quite a poor take.

So while I agree with you that PP and other MPs pension dates don’t matter to the question of is Singh trying to secure his pension I think you are missing or understating a key point to the question. You state correctly that Singh is quite wealthy.

So how much is Singh worth? I see numbers that range from 5 million to 78 million. Nothing what I would say is reputable. The NPV of his pension is 500k. Even in the low end case his pension doesn’t materially affect his future standard of living.

I’d argue shifting election dates by a week to allow for new MPs to qualify for pensions after 6 years is perfectly reasonable. They served two terms, that’s the gist of the program. Managers ensuring they employees don’t get screwed by arbitrary dates makes them good managers.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Wormius

The eligibility criteria is the eligibility criteria, period. Unless this was a huge issue when PP and his colleagues were about to qualify for theirs, then why bring it up for anyone else?

It wasn't an issue until the Liberals / NDP voted in an election date on the pretense of Diwali that would meet the eligibility criteria for without being re-elected, opening up Singh's own eligibility as a vulnerability. Singh's situation is unique in that he got in via a by-election and is personally impacted with an early election.

2 years ago this was not a topic.

The NDP (and Liberals) have made it a topic with their actions. The NDP have made their bed here.

Poilievre doesn't enter in the conversation as he's been an MP for 20 years.

[PepsiFree]

I think the point is that conservatives seem to have no issue with Conservatives earning their pensions but seem to want to make a stink when anyone else does, especially when they’re trying to demonize everyone else for not caving in to their temper tantrums around having an election right now.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Goriders

So in a nutshell you are saying alt right conspiracies revolve around:

- WEF influencing or forming sovereign state policies
- vaccination rights
- climate change influence on policies

I guess how I would handle those issues since they have become very ideologically driven on both sides of the spectrum is being able to see through the dogma and make the best decisions based on the facts in hand rather than level of lobbying without trampling on people’s rights.

This in a nutshell is why being a political leader is one of the tougher jobs. No matter what decision is made 50% of the people will be unhappy. If you can find a path where both sides are moderately happy or moderately unhappy you have probably done your job. Almost impossible these days with all of the biased media platforms once again on both sides of the spectrum.

I would guess PP if elected will be taking a sharp turn on all three from what the liberals have been doing. Right or wrong I think the majority would agree that continuing down trudeau’s current path would not be a good strategy.. So there will definitely be change. There has to be.

But in my opinion canada has way bigger problems than those items. We are quickly lowering our standard of living by generating large amounts of debt via multiple avenues and sabotaging our industries abilities to generate revenues. If that doesn’t get addressed first none of the other items will really matter. Or they will certainly become less of a priority. That is probably going to be his main focus if he gets elected. At least that would be my guess from listening to him.

Hopefully I didn’t miss anything.

BTW I have no idea what sealioning is.

That's why the term was underlined - I provided a link so you wouldn't even have to Google it.

$50K debt per capita is not that important (and that's the total, and Poillievre promising tax cuts means he's unlikely to be able to do anything about it without massive service cuts). Drop the average condo price 10% from $500K to $450K and you've done about as much for young people as eliminating the national debt. And $50K of debt is even less important to a kid who dies from a preventable disease because Poillievre backed their moron parents' idiocy.

Maintaining an evidence-driven stance toward policy is far more important to me. If you don't have the right process for making decisions you have nothing. And it creates financial rewards. Carbon-taxes are evidence-based. Vaccinations are evidence based. Globalism is evidence-based. You say you would see through the dogma and make decisions based on facts on hand but the facts on hand support the Liberal position. The alt right positions Poillievre backs are based on fabrications. You say without trampling on people's rights but the most important right is the right to life (without it, no other right is relevant) and anti-vaxxers jeopardize that right. Meanwhile, Poillievre attacks trans people who aren't a threat to anyone, and the journalists who keep our politicians honest.

It's not the carbon tax that is killing investment in energy infrastructure. It's the moratoriums and regulatory delays and uncertainty. I do agree that it's a problem but I'm not sure even Poillievre would be willing and able to do anything about it in the face of resistance from the likes of BC and Quebec.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Wormius

The eligibility criteria is the eligibility criteria, period. Unless this was a huge issue when PP and his colleagues were about to qualify for theirs, then why bring it up for anyone else?

Because government should have fallen months ago? For what reason does the NDP keep propping it up? Singh tells Trudeau to resign but won't defeat the government himself? If he gives an acceptable answer, nobody would be talking about Singh's pension.

PP won 4 elections before he got his pension, and in 2010 there was a conservative majority so nothing to talk about, as with the case with most other MPs.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Fires his loyal second in command and then jokes about it in front of her colleagues. Pretty much sums the guy up.

She was not loyal enough to support and present his GST cut + cheque plan. If you reach a point of irreconcilable differences as they did then what other course of action is there than firing ways? And then yes, humour is good way to acknowledge the situation without it becoming a funeral. He's still the leader of the Liberal party and what you see there is a politician politicking. You don't make your concession speech until you've actually lost. This is a total nothingburger.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Because government should have fallen months ago? For what reason does the NDP keep propping it up? Singh tells Trudeau to resign but won't defeat the government himself? If he gives an acceptable answer, nobody would be talking about Singh's pension.

PP won 4 elections before he got his pension, and in 2010 there was a conservative majority so nothing to talk about, as with the case with most other MPs.

Can we stop asking why the NDP isnt calling an election. The answer is obvious and makes logical sense. Singh also gave a very sensible answer to the question.

You’d have to be intentionally ignoring the reasoning to still have this question.

I don’t understand is different then I don’t want to understand.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I wouldn't be using a byelection with voter turnout of 16% to conclude anything, other than there's a ton of voter apathy right now.

But he was talking about the bielection. We all know all them gays are huge rightwingers!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

Can we stop asking why the NDP isnt calling an election. The answer is obvious and makes logical sense. Singh also gave a very sensible answer to the question.

You’d have to be intentionally ignoring the reasoning to still have this question.

I don’t understand is different then I don’t want to understand.

Conservative supporters are really upset at Singh, and Trudeau. They propose various solutions that work best-est for Conservatives, while claiming the opposition would be dumb not to do them, because then it wouldn't be a good outcome for Conservatives. When you view all their comments throguh this lens, it's much easier to understand why they don't understand. They have one lens. You will not get through.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Goriders

So in a nutshell you are saying alt right conspiracies revolve around:

- WEF influencing or forming sovereign state policies
- vaccination rights
- climate change influence on policies

I guess how I would handle those issues since they have become very ideologically driven on both sides of the spectrum is being able to see through the dogma and make the best decisions based on the facts in hand rather than level of lobbying without trampling on people’s rights.

This in a nutshell is why being a political leader is one of the tougher jobs. No matter what decision is made 50% of the people will be unhappy. If you can find a path where both sides are moderately happy or moderately unhappy you have probably done your job. Almost impossible these days with all of the biased media platforms once again on both sides of the spectrum.

I would guess PP if elected will be taking a sharp turn on all three from what the liberals have been doing. Right or wrong I think the majority would agree that continuing down trudeau’s current path would not be a good strategy.. So there will definitely be change. There has to be.

But in my opinion canada has way bigger problems than those items. We are quickly lowering our standard of living by generating large amounts of debt via multiple avenues and sabotaging our industries abilities to generate revenues. If that doesn’t get addressed first none of the other items will really matter. Or they will certainly become less of a priority. That is probably going to be his main focus if he gets elected. At least that would be my guess from listening to him.

Hopefully I didn’t miss anything.

BTW I have no idea what sealioning is. Maybe I was.

The conservative disdain for the WEF is entirely based on the conspiracy theories around it, and then masking with cheap explanations that sound rational.

A conference about the exchange of ideas and policies isn't anything new. Argue all you want about the efficacy of these things, but to plaster so much anti-WEF crap on their party platform is entirely dog whistle.

By trying to defend that, people look like shills

Also, i think you just sealioned, sealioning

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Conservative supporters are really upset at Singh, and Trudeau. They propose various solutions that work best-est for Conservatives, while claiming the opposition would be dumb not to do them, because then it wouldn't be a good outcome for Conservatives. When you view all their comments throguh this lens, it's much easier to understand why they don't understand. They have one lens. You will not get through.

Its like watching a reality game show like Survivor and Big Brother. All the people think other's decisions are dumb and bad for their game.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think the point is that conservatives seem to have no issue with Conservatives earning their pensions but seem to want to make a stink when anyone else does, especially when they’re trying to demonize everyone else for not caving in to their temper tantrums around having an election right now.

Clearly that is not the discussion at hand but it's ok you've had a long few days of excessive posting and may be getting confused. I will help you out.

If the eligibility criteria for a pension is 6 years, and someone does not have 6 years of tenure, should they be eligible to get a pension? Surely you can answer this. It's a very black and white answer.

Pension eligibility became a discussion when it was not one prior...once again because Liberals / NDP voted to move the election date where MPs unlikely to get elected would be eligible and get enough tenure for a pension they previously did not.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Conservative supporters are really upset at Singh, and Trudeau. They propose various solutions that work best-est for Conservatives, while claiming the opposition would be dumb not to do them, because then it wouldn't be a good outcome for Conservatives. When you view all their comments throguh this lens, it's much easier to understand why they don't understand. They have one lens. You will not get through.

It’s extra funny when they act like what’s transparently good for Conservatives and only Conservatives is actually good for the NDP. Like shhh, nobody will notice.

Originally Posted by Firebot

Clearly that is not the discussion at hand but it's ok you've had a long few days of excessive posting and may be getting confused. I will help you out.

If the eligibility criteria for a pension is 6 years, and someone does not have 6 years of tenure, should they be eligible to get a pension? Surely you can answer this. It's a very black and white answer.

Sorry I post too much for you. I know reading is not your biggest skillset so it must be pretty anxiety inducing.

[puffnstuff]

I wish all the 'but Singhs pension' folks cared one iota about pps foreign interfence problems, his lack of a security clearance, his Harper/IDU issues and his slogans instead of actual policies stupidity.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

I wish all the 'but Singhs pension' folks cared one iota about [B]pps foreign interfence problems, his lack of a security clearance[/bg], his Harper/IDU issues and his slogans instead of actual policies stupidity.

Ha, I forgot about that. Makes the anti-WEF stuff incredibly disingenuous when he refuses to look at the real foreign influence problems.

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s extra funny when they act like what’s transparently good for Conservatives and only Conservatives is actually good for the NDP. Like shhh, nobody will notice.



Sorry I post too much for you. I know reading is not your biggest skillset so it must be pretty anxiety inducing.

I passively follow along in this thread to read political opinions but how are you not banned??. You are an antagonistic A$$hole.

I don't even care if I get banned saying that, you are insulting to anyone who has a difference of opinion to yours. Not one of your takes leads to thoughtful discussion, just mud slinging.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

I passively follow along in this thread to read political opinions but how are you not banned??. You are an antagonistic A$$hole.

I don't even care if I get banned saying that, you are insulting to anyone who has a difference of opinion to yours. Not one of your takes leads to thoughtful discussion, just mud slinging.

Sir this a Wendy’s.

[Erick Estrada]

The mods have allowed him to behave this way for years so don't expect things to change.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The mods have allowed him to behave this way for years so don't expect things to change.

Perhaps you can give him some tips on bullying people over DM to hide it from the mods. Can’t go calling people an a-hole in public, best to be sneaky.