Queenmandy85

Your flippant response tells me you are not serious. I really won't lable anyone a troll, but your lack of respect and tendency to pretend to respond in pretend riddles makes it difficult to take you seriously. I have patiently tried to help you but it is late and the Bluejays are behind 5-2.

I believe he will step down. He will want to go out a winner. As a replacement, the first name that comes to mind would be Minister Freeland, but, for some reason, women do not fair well in federal politics. All the best ones are in the CPC. I hear Minister Champagne wants it. Personally, if I were a grit, I would sit this leadership campaign out. Mr. Poilievre is going to win and who ever is leading the Liberals will have a short term in the leader's office. Historically the Liberals wind up with a person they cannot resist, a sure fire winner who quickly fizzes out. John Turner and Paul Martin spring to mind. I don't see anyone in cabinet who can right the ship. Sometimes, someone comes to the surface we never expected. Better stock up on popcorn.

I don't know what you mean by funny tokens. A federal general election in Canada is actually 338 different elections. You are electing a Member of Parliament in your riding. So, the parties who nominated them, unless they are independents, receive votes from the electors in that riding. So, their total votes determine who will sit in Parliament for that riding. I am not sure what you mean by "based on their total vote, the full count of votes given to them by the citizens." That is how it works now. How is that different from what you are advocating? If you can let us know what the "funny words" are, I will endeavour to avoid them if I can.

This is a specific example Thank you. You should ask yourself if you are comfortable in your professional life offering transparency in your dealings? Is the person you are negociating with comforable doing that? When you are recruiting someone to run in your riding in the next election, it is something you will want your candidate to work towards.

You are right. I do not understand how I limited your choice. You do not give specific examples of what you want. Which parties are you referring to? How were they denied an honest and fair opportunity? Please take pity on this old man and answer as though you are speaking to a child. Even when I was younger, I wasn't the sharpest knive in the drawer.

I stand corrected on one point (it probably should be one of hundreds ?). 24 Sussex was purchased for Prime Minister St. Laurent, not Mike Pearson.

The 10 year old child is not deciding to make life altering decisions. As you correctly say below, it has been with them since birth. A child who's gender personality is different from their body is not a matter of a decision. It is who they are. The problem is some parents lack the knowledge that enables them to provide the appropriate support. It seems to me that Premier Smith has always been supportive of the LGBTQ community. I stand to be corrected on that, but that has been my impression.

That is what I said. It is you who has to decide, not me. You already have that. All the votes are counted, and none thrown away. If you are more into parties rather than candidates, there are 16 registered federal political parties in Canada and others which are not registered. I am sure any one of them would happily welcome your support and may even nominate you as a candidate. It is you who decides whom you wish to support and go out door-knocking for.

The story I heard was that, after becoming Prime Minister, Mike and Marion Pearson were living in a small apartment in Ottawa crammed with all of their possessions. Pictures stored under the bed etc. A group of Liberal bigwigs were embarrassed that Canada did not have a residence for the PM, so they pushed for the acquisition of 24 Sussex. It was a dump then and it never got better because the optics of renovating it were always bad. (The old "Who does he think he is?...Flipping elitist") So we have come from a PM living in a cardbord box of an apartment to being homeless and living in the boss's shed. ?

Yes, but voting is only a part of your obligations. We need to participate in the recruiting of candidates, the campaign for the nomination and then the campaign in the election. After that, we need to maintain contact with whomever is elected. If your MP does not know your needs and interests, you can't expect them to deal with them.

I guess I'm thick. I still don't understand what it is that you want government to do. In the past, you have said, if I understand correctly, that you refuse to exersise your right to select one of your neighbours to sit in Parliament. Yet, you complain about the people who have been selected by your neighbours to sit in Parliament on you behalf. You can't have it both ways. I don't have a problem if you are happy to let other peope do all the heavy lifting for you, but it is unfair to complain about the result if you don't want to make the effort. Canada is pretty close to being a democracy. We have the opportunity to nominate our neighbours, people we know and trust. We have the means to see them elected. In Canada, your candidate doesn't need to be rich to be elected. If you chose her carefully, donations will cover the campaign expenses. The key is to choose a candidate of merit, who will attract support and that means volunteers to identify the vote and get out the vote. It isn't rocket science.

Sorry, I missed addressing this sooner. Would you have the government run roughshod over the interests of voters who don't want increased density and new neighbours in their neighbourhood. I am not saying they are right to feel that way, but they do vote and they do have rights. Government should be sensitive to them.

I asked what interests are NOT being represented. You still haven't answered that question. What specific issue is it that you wish to be addressed?

You are still avoiding answering the question, what views of the voters are not being represented. There are four groups of MP's in Parliament who represent the views and interests of our diverse population. What are they missing? On a side note, you seem to be fixated on "democracy." Democracy is a great system of government if the voters are well educated. That isn't quite the case in Canada. Our voters, myself included, are demonstrably weak in the fields that matter, math, science, economics and geography. MP's and Ministers have access to that kind of expertise, but the voters who select the MP's do not. Why do some voters resist the measures put in place to deal with the pandemic or climate change? Ignorance. Voters are smart, but we lack the education to make informed decisions. We are fortunate in Canada because every voter has the opportunity to participate in the nomination and election process. When a voter doesn't bother to participate, then they deserve the result if they don't like it.

If that is the kind of MP you have, just remember, you hired her. It is on you and me. But what interests are not being represented?

I don't think you can blame him for the rats and mold the Harpers left behind...or the Pearsons for that matter. ?

I'm still not clear on what specific change you are referring to. You see PR as a means to a change but not what the change should be.I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth. What would you like to see the government accomplish that it is not attempting to do already, given the limitations they face?

The party's position on whether or not to support a bill is decided in caucus. Party solidarity is an effective means to advance the party's standing. Caucus is the place where MP's have the freedom to tell the leadership to pound sand. If an MP is willing to put career ahead of principle, his constituants elected the wrong person. If you want an MP with the integrity to vote their conscience rather than the party line, PR is not the way to go. Many MP's seem to forget they are in the drivers' seat. If they withhold their support of the leader, the leader has to resign.

They say housing is going to be a major issue in the next election. It is ironic that the Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition lives in a nice house (Stornoway) while the Prime Minister is homeless and couch surfing in the Governor General's shed in the back yard.

I understand this point of view. I am frustrated because I see our wilderness as the feature that defines Canada. I guess I am the voice in that wilderness.

While all this is very entertaining, you could benefit from a tutorial on how to conduct an argument. I give you the argument skit from Monty Python. All in good fun. Have a good weekend, my friend. ?

Some of what you say comes under provincial and municipal jurisdiction. Other than that, it’s food for thought. I think you underestimate the value of the advice of the senior civil service. I still have to wonder, if Poilievre‘S plan is workable, why hasn’t it been implemented before now?

Having been in cabinet previously, Mr. Poilievre understands that what he is demanding of the Prime Minister is unrealistic. He will come into office and sit down with his senior civil servants and run his plan by them. They will have been through all this before and know what actually works and what doesn't. They will point out that "red tape" is actually the regulations that protect the consumer from having their new home falling down around their ears due to shoddy workmanship. (Remember the leaky condos?) We are short about 1.5 million homes. We are short thousands of trades peope to construct these homes. Overcoming that deficit will take decades and a trillion dollars. Consumers do not have that kind of money. The fact is, the government does not have a plan and, if Mr. Poilievre does, he is not sharing it. You say he is going to keep it a secret for the next two years while tens of thousands of people are living on the streets. Does Mr. Poilievre not wonder why his ideas haven't been tried before? When my dad was a newly graduated engineer from UBC in 1929, he was hired by CM&S (Tek Cominco) in Trail. They sat him down and told him that they realized he knew more than they did, but they liked doing things their way. So, when you see something we are doing wrong, tell us, BUT DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING! My brother was hired by Cominco in 1968 and they gave him the same speech. Then, I was hired as a summer student in 1972, I got it too. It must be supremely frustrating for thenior civil servants that when all these new ministers come in knowing a lot more than the people who have been doing it for years, they can't give the same speech to them. There are some issues that are very complex. Any action you take to solve a problem carries a lot of unforseen negative consequences.

That's WHY he believes what he's saying. So lets take one issue, housing, that PP has promised to fix and fix it now. How does he plan to do that? He says housing has doubled in price under the current government. How does he plan to correct that? He points out we have a lot of people who need homes. How does he plan to fix that with out adding to inflation or the tax burden. Where will we find the trades people? And for the record, I have never denied that I am a m0ron. ?

If PP doesn't follow the same policies, he will run into problems. By the next election, inflation should be back under control, but that is in the Bank of Canada's jurisdiction. I would hope that PP will curtail immigration drastically and start building dozens of nuclear power plants, but I've been in the rodeo enough that all the promises that are made are swept away by events. Spikes in inflation follow every calamitous plague and war. They are global in scope. It happened in the 1350's, and so on into the "roaring" twenties. The housing crisis will take decades to resolve. We have more people than homes. That drives up the prices. We are running out of land in urban centres where people want to live. It is cheaper to pay people to leave the country than to spend a trillion dollars to build massive apartment buildings to house people. They are called projects. Dens of crime. But no government can get away with paying people to leave in order to drive down the population. You don't believe Clark is a Red Tory? He brought in measures to privatize the state owned oil company and support Israel. His budget to eliminate the deficit he inherited from Trudeau, failed because the Ralliement Creditiste under Real Caouette(what you call the CPC or Social Credit) broke their promise to support the budget. MacDonald was not afraid to have the government involved in free enterprise when the CPR was being built. Pierre Polievre will win the next election. It is easy to perform infront of reporters yelling "I want to go to work have get homes for people." Sure. He will magically axe the carbon tax and yet come up with a trillion dollars to build 1.5 million homes in Toronto and Vancouver. Of course pouring that kind of money into a system where we don't have enough trades people won't be inflationary. Is he planning to pave over our wilderness, the very thing that defines Canada? His promises are so unrealistic that it is obvious deception. These are the things the grits are going to call him out on in the next election. What specifically do you believe he will do differently than Trudeau?