Conservatives won't commit to working with Liberals on legislating end to strike

[CdnFox]

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/conservatives-wont-commit-to-legislating-end-to-strike

'Justin Trudeau has increased the public service budget by $21 billion ... and he still hasn't been able to solve this problem,' Conservative MP Stephanie Kusie said

“The strike that we are witnessing here today is a complete result of the incompetence of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government,” Kusie, the party’s Treasury Board critic, told reporters.

“Canada is broken, and this is just simply another example.”

Public servants, Kusie said, are being squeezed by Canada’s affordability crisis, just like everyone else.

“Justin Trudeau has increased the public service budget by $21 billion, in addition to adding and spending $22 billion on outside consultants, and he still hasn’t been able to solve this problem and to come to an agreement in this negotiation.”

 

The ndp has already said they won't. The bloc isn't enough to get it done on their own.

Justin has painted himself into a bit of a  corner here and is in danger of pissing off not only the public but the largest union.

And he's taking serious hits for the fact that yes - he's spent 50 billion more on the service and consultants, it's STILL not working right, and now they want a raise he can't afford.

I guess just trying to buy your way to popularity wasn't a good idea after all.

[Army Guy]

I don't here PP coming to the aid of PSAC either, frankly PSAC is not the most popular in Canada right now, PSAC needs to be told just how good they got it, compare to the average worker in Canada. frankly i would like the government to legislate them back to work, and back to the office, don't like that here is your pink slip, lots or ordinary Canadians would love to slip into one of these jobs with all the benefits... Maybe thats all they need is shown some reality...

[Moonbox]

On 4/22/2023 at 7:40 PM, Army Guy said:

I don't here PP coming to the aid of PSAC either, frankly PSAC is not the most popular in Canada right now, PSAC needs to be told just how good they got it, compare to the average worker in Canada. frankly i would like the government to legislate them back to work, and back to the office, don't like that here is your pink slip, lots or ordinary Canadians would love to slip into one of these jobs with all the benefits... Maybe thats all they need is shown some reality...

I agree with most of that, but here's the problem: 

If the NDP won't support back-to-work legislation, and PP won't either, there are only two possible outcomes to this strike.  Either the Liberals will cave to the union and enrich their already over-the-top compensation, or we'll have a long and expensive strike and maybe (but doubtfully) the union will eventually cave. 

This is like a tragic comedy, with Pierre Poilievre endlessly (and mostly fairly) criticizing Justin's overspending , but when the latter finally looks ready to take a more fiscally disciplined stance on something, the former refuses his support in lieu of backing him into a corner.  What do you think the end result is going to be?  With no other options, do you think Trudeau is going to cave to the union, or try to wait out a long and expensive strike against what is probably a good chunk of his constituency? 

This, I think, tells us exactly the sort of politician that PP is.    

  

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

This, I think, tells us exactly the sort of politician that PP is.    

 

Hogwash.

First off he hasn't said he won't support back to work legislation. He's said he won't commit to it and trudeau has to clean up his own mess. Which is fair.

Second - the only thing it would confirm if he didn't is that he IS a politician not what kind. Politicians aren't there to boost the opposing parties without a good reason. He's under no obligation as the opposition to ride to the aid of the liberals. THey have refused to co-operate or work together on DOZENS of issues.  Not helping them here means that they learn WHY it's important to co-operate with others and not treat your deal with the NDP as if you have a majority. 

If the libs want help then they should learn to cooperate once in a while. So far they've done the opposite.

And the contract will be up again in the near future, so all pierre has to do is win the next election and then refuse to give them any more raises for a while. At the rate he's going he'll win an actual majority and that shouldn't be a problem.

In the meantime justin can wear it. This is his mess to clean up, he's created the toxic enviornment in the house that exists today, now he's going to have to deal with it and defend his decisions.

 

 

[ExFlyer]

On 4/22/2023 at 7:40 PM, Army Guy said:

I don't here PP coming to the aid of PSAC either, frankly PSAC is not the most popular in Canada right now, PSAC needs to be told just how good they got it, compare to the average worker in Canada. frankly i would like the government to legislate them back to work, and back to the office, don't like that here is your pink slip, lots or ordinary Canadians would love to slip into one of these jobs with all the benefits... Maybe thats all they need is shown some reality...

While many Canadians were laid of, cut hours, lost jobs, etc, public servants got to go home and basically sit there and get full pay.

Add to that the fact they had no expenses, be it no daycare, no gas to go to work, no bus passes, not lunches, not employment expenses etcand they have the nerve to say they are hard off?? Oh and while the pandemic was going on, they got a raise. "Their pay is about 9% higher than comparable private-sector workers’. They have far better benefits, longer vacations, much richer pensions after fewer years of work and, as we were reminded during the pandemic, face almost no risk of layoff."

Sorry, tough to feel bad for PSAC.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-dear-federal-workers-heres-why-youre-despised

 

[Moonbox]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Hogwash.

First off he hasn't said he won't support back to work legislation. He's said he won't commit to it and trudeau has to clean up his own mess. Which is fair.

Okay, fair, so let's see what he does. 

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Politicians aren't there to boost the opposing parties without a good reason.

Sure, but then if you don't support concessions to grossly overpaid public servants, could we not agree that back-to-work legislation for essential services is a good reason?  

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He's under no obligation as the opposition to ride to the aid of the liberals. THey have refused to co-operate or work together on DOZENS of issues.  Not helping them here means that they learn WHY it's important to co-operate with others and not treat your deal with the NDP as if you have a majority. 

They already know that from the concessions they've already made to the NDP, and the NDP has remained very on-brand.  Of course they're going to support union workers.  They always do and it's why I've never even considered voting for them.  That being said, if Trudeau's only chance of averting disaster is going to be caving to those unions, he's going to take it. 

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If the libs want help then they should learn to cooperate once in a while. So far they've done the opposite.

Except for all the times they've cooperated with the NDP.  

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And the contract will be up again in the near future, so all pierre has to do is win the next election and then refuse to give them any more raises for a while. At the rate he's going he'll win an actual majority and that shouldn't be a problem.

What you're saying here is that we should let the government lose the battle today, so that they can fight the next battle, years later, on worse ground.  That's a terrible solution, especially considering public sector compensation almost never goes down.  

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

In the meantime justin can wear it. This is his mess to clean up, he's created the toxic enviornment in the house that exists today, now he's going to have to deal with it and defend his decisions.

Justin will cave and "cooperate" with the NDP.  The unions will get what they want.  Canada's finances will be worse off, but hey, as long as Pierre Poilievre has something else to criticize then I guess it's worth it?  

[CdnFox]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/422781/Public-service-strike-Union-fed-up-with-pace-of-talks-asks-Trudeau-for-help

Public-service strike: Union 'fed up' with pace of talks, asks Trudeau for help

The head of the union representing thousands of striking public-service workers called on the Prime Minister to get involved in negotiations on Saturday as he decried the slow pace of talks with the federal Treasury Board.

Chris Aylward, national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said the union presented a package of proposals on Thursday, but the union had yet to receive a response by Saturday afternoon.

 

Welp - if trudeau wasn't 'wearing' it before, he's gonna now.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

Sure, but then if you don't support concessions to grossly overpaid public servants, could we not agree that back-to-work legislation for essential services is a good reason?  

It depends. The devil is in the details.  Tomorrow? No - i woudln't agree. 2 months from now when people are in real trouble? Then he may have to.  Frankly - even the threat of it may be very helpful.  "This has been going on forever - if the union and the liberals cannot come to an agreement by next week then we will be forced to step in and support back to work legislation to end this for Canadians"

Now both sides know the clock is ticking and they may get serious.

So - we'll see how he plays it and what the details are.

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

They already know that from the concessions they've already made to the NDP, and the NDP has remained very on-brand.  Of course they're going to support union workers.  They always do and it's why I've never even considered voting for them.  That being said, if Trudeau's only chance of averting disaster is going to be caving to those unions, he's going to take it. 

Probably. Trudeau is a really bad choice as leader.

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Except for all the times they've cooperated with the NDP.  

But they need the cpc's help now. And they've never done that with them.

And as far as the ndp goes - they've never co-operated with them, they just buy them out right. "we'll give you this for that".  but they ignore the ndp on issues where there isn't a deal.

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

What you're saying here is that we should let the government lose the battle today, so that they can fight the next battle, years later, on worse ground.  That's a terrible solution, especially considering public sector compensation almost never goes down.  

Well first, it doesn't need to 'go down'. It can stay where it is and even go up a little and we'll be fine, thanks to inflation.

And of course -there's other options a PP gov't may pursue if necessary. I wonder how much of what those 100 thousand people do could be privatized?

But - yes, it's the second best scenario. the first best would  be to have a solid gov't in power today who had the knowledge and experience to deal with these people and keep the package fair.  But the voters chose not to do that.

Elections have consequences.

 

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Justin will cave and "cooperate" with the NDP.  The unions will get what they want.  Canada's finances will be worse off, but hey, as long as Pierre Poilievre has something else to criticize then I guess it's worth it?  

No - i think they shouldn't have elected  Justin last time. That was the better option. But - it's what the people chose. Now the people have to live with that choice.

If they don't like the choice they can choose another gov't in the future.

It's amazing to me that you're blaming Pierre Pollievre for the fact that justin got elected by the people. Not his fault.

And people do have to learn - you pick a bad leader, you may have to live with bad results.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I agree with most of that, but here's the problem: 

If the NDP won't support back-to-work legislation, and PP won't either, there are only two possible outcomes to this strike.  Either the Liberals will cave to the union and enrich their already over-the-top compensation, or we'll have a long and expensive strike and maybe (but doubtfully) the union will eventually cave. 

This is like a tragic comedy, with Pierre Poilievre endlessly (and mostly fairly) criticizing Justin's overspending , but when the latter finally looks ready to take a more fiscally disciplined stance on something, the former refuses his support in lieu of backing him into a corner.  What do you think the end result is going to be?  With no other options, do you think Trudeau is going to cave to the union, or try to wait out a long and expensive strike against what is probably a good chunk of his constituency? 

This, I think, tells us exactly the sort of politician that PP is.    

  

 

Perhaps there is a chance that PP can use that position to ram through something that the Conservatives are keen on, that tactic is what has kept the NDP on the board all this time.

But really i think he is looking at the long game which is to take power, one way to do that is let Justin come up with his own solutions, which he is not very good at.... It is way to early to see what direction this will go...if Justin does legislate them back to work , then he loses more of his power base, if he caves and pays them PP can use that as another poor example of spending...and if it is not settled, perhaps it will pressure the NDP coalition into doing something stupid, breaking up and maybe we get another election ... What would you do in this case...there does not seem to be a good option. 

[Moonbox]

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It depends. The devil is in the details.  Tomorrow? No - i woudln't agree. 2 months from now when people are in real trouble? Then he may have to.  

If ports close and we're losing $200M/day in trade, 2 months will be expensive.  

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Probably. Trudeau is a really bad choice as leader.

Sure.  He always was.  

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But they need the cpc's help now. And they've never done that with them.

It takes two to cooperate though, doesn't it?  

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And as far as the ndp goes - they've never co-operated with them, they just buy them out right. "we'll give you this for that".  but they ignore the ndp on issues where there isn't a deal.

It's cooperating, regardless of however you choose to frame it.  

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well first, it doesn't need to 'go down'. It can stay where it is and even go up a little and we'll be fine, thanks to inflation.

Except it's already bad, and already costing us far more than it should, and letting future inflation chip away at it is just passing the buck.  Public sector workers often have very sticky entitlements.  The more they get, the more they seem to expect. Paying them even more now, on the assumption that we can then freeze wages for the next 10-15 years and not have that result in major labour action is just selling ourselves out in the future.  

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And people do have to learn - you pick a bad leader, you may have to live with bad results.

Except we just bite our nose to spite our face if we're backing the government into a corner and another bad decision.  This is an opportunity for Pierre Poilievre to actually show some leadership and prove that actually gives a shit about our public finances beyond sloganeering a point-scoring.  It's not like the union gets forced back to work and all of the sudden people figure Trudeau's a great fiscal manager all of the sudden.  

[Moonbox]

20 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Perhaps there is a chance that PP can use that position to ram through something that the Conservatives are keen on, that tactic is what has kept the NDP on the board all this time.

Yes.  This is an opportunity for the adults to come to the table and do something useful and productive, rather than the standard political maneuvering.  

20 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

if Justin does legislate them back to work , then he loses more of his power base, if he caves and pays them PP can use that as another poor example of spending...and if it is not settled, perhaps it will pressure the NDP coalition into doing something stupid, breaking up and maybe we get another election ... What would you do in this case...there does not seem to be a good option. 

How does he legislate them back to work with a majority opposition against him?  Either he caves (and the NDP gets what it wants), or the conservatives will have to support back-to-work legislation.  

If I was Pierre Poilievre, and I actually cared about public finances above scoring zingers and frothing up the base, this is the sort of issue I'd actually push for cooperation on and show the more moderate Canadians who he needs to win the next election that he can be a pragmatic and effective leader a la Harper, rather than...what he's been doing so far.  

If the strategy is just to let it all burn so that he can swoop in as the savior after the fact...well he's proving exactly what his critics say about him.  

Edited April 24, 2023 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

If ports close and we're losing $200M/day in trade, 2 months will be expensive.  

Yeah. Like i said, elections have consequences.

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

It takes two to cooperate though, doesn't it?  

Yes - and trudeau has not.  The CPC has on numerous occasions and numerous issues said they would be willing to compromise only to have the door slammed in their face.

So - here we are. Why would they work with a party that has decided they don't have to work with them? Let them sleep in the bed they made.

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

It's cooperating, regardless of however you choose to frame it.  

No, it's equivalent exchange.  If you sell something to someone for money you call them your 'customer' or your boss, not your 'cooperator'

 

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

Except it's already bad, and already costing us far more than it should, and letting future inflation chip away at it is just passing the buck. 

So next time elect a gov't willing to deal with it.

Look - you keep wanting the fact that trudeau is the gov't to somehow be the cpc's fault. It is not. It never will be. The cpc is not the the gov't in power

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

 

Public sector workers often have very sticky entitlements.  The more they get, the more they seem to expect. Paying them even more now, on the assumption that we can then freeze wages for the next 10-15 years and not have that result in major labour action is just selling ourselves out in the future.  

yeah - it's bad.  ANd it's even WORSE becuase trudeau has added TONNES of them to the workforce. He's greatly expanded those workers so now every dollar they get in a raise costs even more. 

So - DON'T HIRE LIBERALS.

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

Except we just bite our nose to spite our face if we're backing the government into a corner and another bad decision.  This is an opportunity for Pierre Poilievre to actually show some leadership and prove that actually gives a shit about our public finances beyond sloganeering a point-scoring.

 

no - it is not.

If PP Loses the next election because people blame him for "taking away the unions right to strike", then we get FOUR MORE years of trudeau's bad decisions. which is LITERALLY billions  more expensive.

And we all know that if he does step in, he'll be forced to wear it as a negative. Even trudeau will use it against him down the road.

So why would he throw his political career AND the country's best interests long term out the window to save this loser?

It would be stupid. And PP may be many things but stupid isn't one of them .

If the situation gets desperate he may have to step in but he would be an utter fool to do it now and then have the public and the liberals hold it against him later.

And it won't hurt the public to learn that elections have consequences either.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

While many Canadians were laid of, cut hours, lost jobs, etc, public servants got to go home and basically sit there and get full pay.

Add to that the fact they had no expenses, be it no daycare, no gas to go to work, no bus passes, not lunches, not employment expenses etcand they have the nerve to say they are hard off?? Oh and while the pandemic was going on, they got a raise. "Their pay is about 9% higher than comparable private-sector workers’. They have far better benefits, longer vacations, much richer pensions after fewer years of work and, as we were reminded during the pandemic, face almost no risk of layoff."

Sorry, tough to feel bad for PSAC.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-dear-federal-workers-heres-why-youre-despised

 

Once i retired i went to back to work as a civilian in Gagetown, and your right the benefits would make CEO jealous, 25 paid vacation days, plus 1 sick day per month paid which you could accumulate, no doctors note required if you used only 2 at a time, plus one week family time, which is one week, plus odds and sods, like Friday afternoons off,  or the occasional long weekend... just in days off thats 44 paid days off, plus medical and dental coverage, training is all paid for, it is one of the securest jobs you can have.  

The other day, i had borrowed some tools before the strike and went back on base to return them, i was stopped and asked for my ID card by one of the strikers, which was odd... they are allowed to hold up each car for up to 2 minutes if your military, the average wait time to get on base was 3 hours....if your not military they can refuse to let you on...

What i don't get is they beef is with Ottawa, not with those on the base, and yet as tempers flair it is the guys on the base that take the brunt of it, trust me waiting 3 hours to get on base tempers get testy... the same guys that these people have to work with or for once the strike is done...and the Union has threaten to move their protest to other areas to disrupt regular workers that is going to be making even more friends, and problems...It's not the government they are worried about it is regular Canadians who are not going to put up with this shit...

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yes.  This is an opportunity for the adults to come to the table and do something useful and productive, rather than the standard political maneuvering.  

No, it isn't. Even if PP does that it will be used against him politically.

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

If I was Pierre Poilievre, and I actually cared about public finances above scoring zingers and frothing up the base, this is the sort of issue I'd actually push for cooperation on and show the more moderate Canadians who he needs to win the next election that he can be a pragmatic and effective leader a la Harper, rather than...what he's been doing so far.  

And you'd lose the next election. And wouldn't you feel great about yourself having thrown away your career and handed justin the checkbook for another 4 years.

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

If the strategy is just to let it all burn so that he can swoop in as the savior after the fact...well he's proving exactly what his critics say about him.  

His strategy is to leave the gov't to the gov't. And if people don't like that gov't then offer them a choice next election.

It is beyond unfair and unreasonable to suggest that PP should throw away his career and toss his party under the bus to help the liberals and give them more of a chance to destroy the country.

This mess is the liberals own making. He might step in if it gets too bad, but pretending that not destroying his own career somehow makes him a bad person is beyond unreasonable.

 

[Moonbox]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes - and trudeau has not.  The CPC has on numerous occasions and numerous issues said they would be willing to compromise only to have the door slammed in their face.

Such as?  

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, it's equivalent exchange.  If you sell something to someone for money you call them your 'customer' or your boss, not your 'cooperator'

I think you need to look up what the word compromise really means.  Central to the whole concept are concessions.  You playing with words to suit your bias doesn't change that.  

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Look - you keep wanting the fact that trudeau is the gov't to somehow be the cpc's fault. It is not. It never will be. The cpc is not the the gov't in power

Where did I do that, exactly?  ?

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

yeah - it's bad.  ANd it's even WORSE becuase trudeau has added TONNES of them to the workforce. He's greatly expanded those workers so now every dollar they get in a raise costs even more. 

You're right!  So if you're actually interested in solving or improving this problem, it stands to reason that you would support legislation that does that, and then oppose legislation that does the opposite.  We both know that the Conservative government would almost certainly push this legislation if they were the government, so it's beyond awkward if they're refusing to support it now in the hope that the Liberals will hang themselves on this issue.  The alternative is the Liberals cozy up further with the NDP, the union gets what it wants, and Canada's finances are worse off as a result. 

You're being optimistic if you think that the average voter is going to remember this several years from now and care about it as an election issue, especially considering the trajectory for overspending the Liberals took since taking office.  

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

Such as?  

The proposed firearms law, the statement on muslim hate, the gay deprogramming law (which they eventualy caved on), the internet censoring bill, etc etc etc.  ALL of which they offered to work together on to speed things up and be fair and ALL of which the libs shot them down on instantly without discussion and in many cases shut down debate as well.

 

Just now, Moonbox said:

I think you need to look up what the word compromise really means.  Central to the whole concept are concessions.  You playing with words to suit your bias doesn't change that.  

Sounds like you're the one playing with words.  If i buy something from you, it's a purchase. It's not a 'concession'.

Just now, Moonbox said:

Where did I do that, exactly?  ?

Every single post. You blame PP for the fact justin isn't going to handle this right.

Just now, Moonbox said:

You're right!  So if you're actually interested in solving or improving this problem, it stands to reason that you would support legislation that does that, and then oppose legislation that does the opposite. 

Not if it costs you your job AND allows for even WORSE decisions later.

As i said, it may get so bad that he's got no choice but it's not his fault justin chose to do that.

Just now, Moonbox said:

We both know that the Conservative government would almost certainly push this legislation if they were the government, so it's beyond awkward if they're refusing to support it now in the hope that the Liberals will hang themselves on this issue.  The alternative is the Liberals cozy up further with the NDP, the union gets what it wants, and Canada's finances are worse off as a result.

agreed. The conservatives would do the right thing. The liberals won't.  Next time vote conservative.

Just now, Moonbox said:

You're being optimistic if you think that the average voter is going to remember this several years from now and care about it as an election issue, especially considering the trajectory for overspending the Liberals took since taking office.  

Well if they don't care then why should Pierre? If this is how they want things then who are the CPC to argue?

You can't have it both ways.

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Sounds like you're the one playing with words.  If i buy something from you, it's a purchase. It's not a 'concession'.

Yes, if you actually sell me something, I am buying it.  Unless you can find a bill of exchange showing the Liberals buying anything from the NDP, you're just playing partisan word games.  

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Every single post. You blame PP for the fact justin isn't going to handle this right.

"Every single post"

Hmm...

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

agreed. The conservatives would do the right thing. The liberals won't.  Next time vote conservative.

Here you are agreeing that a conservative government would legislate the striking workers back to work (doing the right thing), but then you're excusing why it would make sense for Pierre Poilievre to prevent Trudeau from doing that same right thing.  ?

That's freaking awkward bud.  

[CdnFox]

37 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, if you actually sell me something, I am buying it.  Unless you can find a bill of exchange showing the Liberals buying anything from the NDP, you're just playing partisan word games.  

It's. Called. The. Confidence. Deal.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-deal-with-ndp-will-keep-trudeau-minority-in-power-for-3-more-years-1.5829116

what's wrong with you? You honestly didn't know the libs and ndp had an agreement? It's a tit for tat covering a wide range of issues.

37 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

"Every single post"

Hmm...

Hmmm indeed. Your feigned forgetfulness is a little silly.

37 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Here you are agreeing that a conservative government would legislate the striking workers back to work (doing the right thing), but then you're excusing why it would make sense for Pierre Poilievre to prevent Trudeau from doing that same right thing.  ?

You mean i'm explaining that if it was his job he would do his job, but as it's NOT his job and it IS justin's job he should leave it to justin.

Yeah.

37 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That's freaking awkward bud.  

Not at all.  You just want it to be because you're angry that the CPC won't sacrifice itself and throw their careers away to save justin like you want them to.

Justin is the gov't. It is up to him to solve this. Your argument is that he's not smart enough to do that and will turn out to be a bad leader - and therefore someone ELSE should do his job for him.

Nope. He has ignored the CPC's very reasonable requests to work together prior to this, he can live with his decisions. PP is absolutely correct to keep his powder dry and not commit and let justin stew on it.

And if you don't like how justin deals with it then don't blame PP, blame the people who voted for justin.

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's. Called. The. Confidence. Deal.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-deal-with-ndp-will-keep-trudeau-minority-in-power-for-3-more-years-1.5829116

what's wrong with you? You honestly didn't know the libs and ndp had an agreement? It's a tit for tat covering a wide range of issues.

First off, you don't know what tit-for-tat means.  That much is painfully obvious. 

Second, of course they have an agreement.  They both got something that they wanted, and both gave something the other side wanted.  That's literally the definition of a compromise.  That you refuse to see it as such is just your angry bias blinding you.  

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

First off, you don't know what tit-for-tat means.  That much is painfully obvious. 

Equivalent retribution? Seems to fit here.  Remember - i'm not responsible for your comprehension deficiencies.

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Second, of course they have an agreement.

Sure - now that i've explained it to you you've figured it out

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

They both got something that they wanted, and both gave something the other side wanted.  That's literally the definition of a compromise. 

No, that's literally not the definition of compromise.

Lets look at the definition.

compromise

noun

1. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

No concessions made.  IF you agree to do this, THEN we agree to do that. 

It's no different than 'if you give me your chicken i'll give you this pig'.  It's not a concession. Sorry

Wow - you're learning a lot of english today

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

That you refuse to see it as such is just your angry bias blinding you.  

 

Sure kiddo LOL!  You're the only one foaming at the mouth here

[Moonbox]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Equivalent retribution? Seems to fit here.  Remember - i'm not responsible for your comprehension deficiencies.

The NDP got revenge on the Liberals?  Or the Liberals on the NDP?  

?

You're embarrassing yourself again.  Go back to the dictionary and see if you can find something else.  

[Legato]

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Go back to the dictionary and see if you can find something else.  

Antidisestablishmentarianism. For the church of Trudeau

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The NDP got revenge on the Liberals?  Or the Liberals on the NDP?  

Tit for tat doesn't mean 'revenge'.

So lets go to the dictionary

tit for tat

noun

1. Repayment in kind, as for an injury; retaliation.
2. equivalent retribution, an eye for an eye, returning exactly what you get.
3. hat.

I'm not sure why "hat"  other than i've heard the phrase 'hat for a cat or a cat for a hat but nothing for nothing" before.

But setting that aside, it's not 'revenge', it's where they equally hurt each other.  And yep - that's absolutely true with that deal They both take serious damage of about equal amounts but - they maintain the status quo and stable gov't they both want at least until jagger's pension kicks in.

In any case it's definitely not compromise.

You're so cute when you think you've won a point and then it collapses on you LOLOLOL  And it's hilarious when you've realized you can't defend your points so you pick something trivial to try an d  "win" over

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, Legato said:

Antidisestablishmentarianism. For the church of Trudeau

Clearly a blackadder fan

Anti-distinctly-minty...

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Tit for tat doesn't mean 'revenge'.

So lets go to the dictionary

tit for tat

noun

1. Repayment in kind, as for an injury; retaliation.
2. equivalent retribution, an eye for an eye, returning exactly what you get.
3. hat.

I'm not sure why "hat"  other than i've heard the phrase 'hat for a cat or a cat for a hat but nothing for nothing" before.
 

Cockney rhyming slang.  Cockneys will sometimes refer to their hat as their "titfer".

Short for Tit for Tat = Hat

Edited April 25, 2023 by bcsapper