If anyone was wondering Danielle was essentially copying pasting a milder version of what Marjorie Taylor Greene said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-donald-trump-shooting-b2580000.html

The Georgia Republican congresswoman baselessly alleged there’s a conspiracy afoot, insisting “Democrats wanted this to happen” and have “wanted Trump gone for years and they’re prepared to do anything to make that happen.”

After attacking Democrats for repeatedly calling Trump a threat to democracy, she soon blasted the party with more extreme rhetoric, calling the country’s polarized politics a “battle.”

“We are in a battle between GOOD and EVIL,” she wrote on X on Sunday.

“The Democrats are the party of pedophiles, murdering the innocent unborn, violence, and bloody, meaningless, endless wars.

In case anyone needs a recap:

Presidential candidate calling for people to second amendment their politics into reality for almost a decade. Someone took them up on that suggestion.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith — who once told former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson she wished he would put a federal cabinet minister in his “crosshairs” — called on “progressive” politicians to temper their language Monday after former U.S. president Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt.

I don’t think there’s enough time for the Liberals to seperate themselves from Trudeau at this point. If that was the direction they were going they should have done it a year ago.

I think twelve years later it pretty agreeable that compensation alone is not what stopping Canadians from having decent MP’s and in itself there’s a lot of sitting MP’s that’s probably not even worth minimum wage.

Fun chart I made:

Source data

Median Income: Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas

MP Compensation: Indemnities, Salaries and Allowances

109 second video from 2012. This is going to be a rather long summary for a short video,

• Video starts off by saying the one thing political pundits agree on is slashing the MP’s pensions
• Pierre qualified for a full pension at 31 because he got elected straight out of school
• How he’s done nothing but is a expert in everything
• We’d avoid people like this in real life but the House of Commons is crawling with them

• He wants better MP’s
• Taking off to Ottawa for 6 to 7 years is bad for the career and family
• Are we going to attract better MP by making the job less desirable
• End with “say when it comes to MPs instead of all of us piling on and lowering the bar let’s aim high for a change”

I’m not talking about overall atheism rates. More so extremely overtly religious people seem to be on the rise where as the same people used to be a bit toned down.

I have noticed people becoming more religious in the last year or so.

I don’t think the Liberal are willing to sacrifice their entire future as the one of the two alternating parties in order to gain a few more seats.

338 on a federal level projects them for 67 seats and 24% ± 3% on the popular vote. That translates to 85-91 seats which is a decent gain.

However this would mean the Liberal will likely never get anything close to majority again. I would also believe they would slowly dwindle in popularity with a rise of smaller parties. That’s a lot give up for 24 more seats for 4 years.

It’s plausible that Trudeau could want to push through voting reform as one last move to salvage something since him losing the next election likely spells the end of his political career.

The problem is the Liberals as a whole. It pretty predictable Conservatives are going to do a horrible job and by the 2029ish election the tables will be flipped and Liberal will only need to campaign on not being a disaster of a party like the incumbents.

The ballot seemed like it was setup for failure although the turnout(42.2%) was also mediocre as usual.

-

As posted yesterday. At this point news outlets is purposely just churning a specific narrative.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-liberals-will-not-release-names-of-parliamentarians-accused-of/

The Public Safety Minister insisted that federal law prevents the government from releasing further information about the people at the centre of those allegations, and he urged party leaders to instead get their own classified briefings and said Canadians should have confidence that police can investigate and lay charges when warranted.

So far, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has declined to accept a briefing, saying it would muzzle him. Instead, he says the names should be released by the government.

Ultimately it is the current government saying no.

The rest the parties could easily pass a bill where NSICOP has full access to everything and if any of the members of found be using the information for political advantage they would be significantly prosecuted, but as usual I think this is more about theatrics then making things better.

Looking at the previous article about this that has more quotes: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberal-government-blocking-over-1000-documents

I did find most of the quotes under the section “NSICOP’s access to relevant documents” of the actual National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Annual Report 2023

For anyone looking at which part National Post decided to omit:

9. Despite this unprecedented access, obstacles remained in accessing all relevant information. Notwithstanding the four Cabinet documents, federal departments and agencies withheld or refused the disclosure of over a thousand documents, in whole or in part, on the basis that they were Cabinet confidences. Specifically, close to a quarter of these documents were withheld in their entirety. The Committee is concerned that some departments and agencies may be inappropriately using claims of Cabinet confidences to avoid disclosing information to the Committee.

10. The Committee was pleased to note that, further to its comment on this issue in its Annual Report 2022, the government has begun to identify which relevant documents are being withheld and on what basis, including claims of Cabinet confidence. This has allowed it to conclude that there are many such claims being exercised for each review. The Committee reiterates the comments made in its Special Report on the National Security and Intelligence Activities of Global Affairs Canada in asking the government to address this issue. It continues to state that while a legislative change to the definition of Cabinet confidence is desirable, in the near term, a clear statement of policy that NSICOP should be barred from receiving only core Cabinet secrets would go some way to addressing the issues being experienced. Specifically, such a statement could outline that information withheld from the Committee under section 14(a) of the NSICOP Act would be limited to that which is provided directly to Cabinet or ministers attending Cabinet committee meetings and which reveals options, Cabinet deliberations or discussions of these meetings.

Really the question would any of these other parties allowed unfettered access to all their document from National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians which does include opposition MP’s.

I think the generational angle is substantially over stated. Sure on a average the older generation is much more likely to own but there plenty that’s getting hit real hard with the inflation brought on by housing prices.

It’s much more accurate to frame it as the government sacrificing the have nots for the haves. In which case there’s no waiting it out as long as a substantial part of Canadian is convinced high housing prices is a good thing.

The Public Safety Minister insisted that federal law prevents the government from releasing further information about the people at the centre of those allegations, and he urged party leaders to instead get their own classified briefings and said Canadians should have confidence that police can investigate and lay charges when warranted.

As long as things are thoroughly investigated I’m good with just having the other parties have access to the information at the current time to make sure there’s no favourism.

When Trudeau said he would keep housing prices high I wondered what his levers were.

Aside from lowering prime rates it would be:

• Increasing RRSP withdraws(HBP)
• Creating additional accounts just to pump money into housing(FHSA)
• Increasing amortization for uninsured mortgages
• Bring back programs like The First-Time Home Buyer Incentive to share equity in housing

I think people can read through these bio’s of the BoC board and understand regardless of whom put these people in power their income and asset composition is quite different from the average Canadian.

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/about/board-of-directors/

The Board is composed of the Governor, the Senior Deputy Governor and 12 independent directors appointed to three-year renewable terms by the Governor in Council (the Cabinet). The Deputy Minister of Finance is an ex officio non-voting member of the Board.

Cabinet of Canada

The dream team with pictures is anyone is into that type of thing: https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/cabinet

The issue is it seems that even if proven guilty they won’t commit to releasing the details or a additional investigation.

There may still be police investigations into these allegations, the ministers said, and details could eventually be released as part of that process.

But that raises the question of whether the voting public will know who’s alleged to have engaged in such conduct before the next federal election, which is expected sometime in 2025.

They don’t even want to properly address any of it.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc sidestepped a question about the report’s conclusion that certain unnamed parliamentarians inappropriately worked with foreign actors.

“I think as a matter of principle, it’s unwise to speak about specific elements that may involve individuals,” LeBlanc said.

He also said the “government respectfully disagrees” with some of NSICOP’s findings, without offering any specific concerns about what the committee found.

even make the slightest attempt to fix the housing problem in this country. None really want to fix the cost of living either.

There won’t be much affordability with housing prices the way they are.

I also rank voting reform over housing. Without voting reform the only plausible flip on housing policies won’t come for decades until things get way worse for more Canadians.

I think the answer is like housing in which case no party really has any desire to even attempt fix it so people should be voting for something they’d plausibly even attempt do.