True. With PP hitching his wagon to the SOCAL-right, he will see deflation of the strength of his brand when his ‘Trump-lite’ playbook becomes laughable after a Dem win in the USA. So, he’s frantic to force an election now while he’s polling higher.
I would smile if I heard Singh respond with your first sentence.
That’s why there’s a difference in riding sizes… 1 vote per person shouldn’t mean that Windsor-Québec should decide fishery issues for Newfoundland… So a riding on the rock has less people, because it has unique needs based on its location and geography that might be better served by giving them more of a say than ridings in London Ontario, which might have very similar needs across the city. In essence, more people don’t necessarily mean more unique issues. There’s a limit to that of course - but the general ‘needs’ are outlined by law and adjusted without gerrymandering - which is not terrible, but maybe could be improved with more representation in the dense ridings - after all, there’s increase concerns within the cities these days.
Well, MMP breaks down when you realize you need to define geographic areas of ridings that you need to lump together so that you can get the ratios right. An example elsewhere in the post points out lumping Victoria’s 4 seats and the rest of Vancouver Island’s 3 seats. If all lumped together, you can get the ratios of actual votes to match the representations of the MPs pretty good - but ultimately someone has to sort of ‘fix it in post.’ If 80% vote for party X in all 7 ridings (which, without looking at the data, I will concede in advanced has never bloody happened) you’re going to take one of those ridings and hand it off to an MP that didn’t win to represent the collective 15-20% that voted the second place party that might be popular there. Which riding gets the MP not elected in the riding? Of course, we need to keep ridings because the population density is very skewed in Canada. If you take a look where people live, you’d realize without ridings, in a true PR setting, the Windsor-Québec City corridor would forever run the rest of Canada. Why try to get votes anywhere else? Do you really want to give Alberta another reason to say that Ottawa has no mandate in their province?
Another option is to drastically increase MPs (that seems like a terrible idea) so that if the riding is 55% for party X and 45% for party Y, you can have 2 MPs from both parties and not add any advantage to anyone to help in forming government. It would almost be a better idea to have a run-off vote until you reach a true majority instead of a plurality in a riding.
“Did you know that salt and malt vinegar is not a traditional way to dress your French fries in the United States?”
“What the f#$% is wrong with them?”
I’d argue the opposite for one reason only - so that I can identify idiots, bigots and terrible people on sight. Any person in government that is causing me problems and showing religious garb? Kick it up to a supervisor if I think I can tie it to poor decision making based on goat-herder values from over 2000 years ago.
offensive. Next year another huge initiative to change something else. This type of thing is literally endless as everything is changing all the time. Sounds like a waste of tax $ to me.
Changing a name isn’t stupid, unless done for stupid reasons. If you have the money - get it done. It also doesn’t have to be done all at once. Start small with new document templates, create a reasonable budget for replacing signs…
Speaking as someone that resides in what was once the Province of Canada (Upper Canada or Canada West) and renamed themselves something else native - we named ourselves after the Huron word for ‘Great Lake’ and that ignores the fact that we’re only talking one of the 4 great lakes that border us on one side of the province… There’s way more to the province than the Hurons and way more than just that one lake. Seriously, get a huge list of place names that are underutilized by all the different nations out there, find something that is easier to spell than Saskatchewan, and send it around for approval.
The ONLY downside is that you’re throwing out a lot of ‘brand recognition.’ I made the argument that the Law Society of Ontario should not have renamed themselves from the Law Society of Upper Canada because they have been called the LSUC for over 200 years. It’s like if The Bay decided to go close all their stores under that banner and exclusively work under the name Saks Fifth Avenue - I don’t think it would work out well for them, and it might not work well for BC.
Conflict of interest? Say it ain’t so…
There’s listings for some pretty intensely expensive properties at 550 Park Avenue. I saw one for over $10M with its own gym. I don’t know - maybe we’re getting a deal out of this. Tough to say with Sask Today putting together such a terrible article.
I mean, wouldn’t the safest place to continue doing concerts would be Australia, where they actually have pretty stringent gun laws?
Y’all need Jesus^H^H^H^H^H^H Robertson screws.___
This is democracy in action. Voting happened, MPs were elected, and a government was formed. Did the Premier need to put ‘secrets’ in the Mandate letters? No. Did he? Yes. Because you and I don’t have the right to see those secrets, we don’t get to see those letters. If this, and a lot of other good reasons not to vote CPC, end up changing the votes so another party forms the government, maybe the government then won’t have secret mandate letters.
“Everything we’ve done (bugger all) hasn’t worked, so we’ll allow these companies to merge and reduce competition further with ‘enforceable’ conditions attached that everyone recognizes won’t do a thing.” Have they thought of nationalization? Competition with a crown company? A giant surtax on their ludicrous profits? Heavy regulation? A license/board scheme where their plans and prices need approval before making offers?
I wouldn’t mind writing, but I’d first have to find a date…
Actually, the US has screwed up titles just a little bit more as well, but in reverse! While “Esquire” is a courtesy title in the UK, and can be used the same way in Canada, there are specific individuals that might use Esquire in Commonwealth countries in place of Mister based on position or status. In the USA, lawyers have started using “Esquire” meaning ‘passed the bar in their state.’
We have systems for that. We can join the various ‘teams’ of people doing the punching and we can, as a group, demand that they change their practices - next convention the group votes on replacing ball punches with a hearty ‘punchbuggy’ to the shoulder. Several leaders run and make promises on how hearty to make that shoulder-punch, and we select someone for the next election between face, neck and shoulder. You don’t get to complain about where the 3 parties are punching if you aren’t in there telling them to change their target - otherwise you got party die-hards saying things like “we’ve always punched to the neck, and that’s what Canadians want.”
I’m sure if you looked into the etymology of ‘sanitation engineer,’ it might have seen its creation in parody of the US practice of euphemistically calling their programmers lofty titles like ‘software engineer.’ The idea is that you don’t need to call yourself by your actual title if you’re ashamed of it, you just need to call yourself a “(name of industry) engineer” and that becomes a catch-all for all position names in the industry even when it’s not helpful to anyone trying to communicate the actual requirements. A Marine Engineer and a Hull Technician are two very different jobs, and a lot can get wet if I’m looking for the latter but they’ve hung their shingle out as the former.
11 years is a long time for some things, and too late for other things. It’s a bold statement about a goal line I expect to shift by constant small movements by this party as reality doesn’t match their enthusiasm, and broad leaps by another party when they get a chance.
certainty
I like this one the best. A dilemma is not necessarily that there’s no good options, but rather the decision is difficult. Think of the time traveler killing Hitler problem: if you kill Hitler too early, he isn’t globally hated anymore when time plays out, and you’re just a murderer. Too late, and you’ve allowed so many people to die just to justify that he deserves to die… Where’s the ‘right time?’ There’s a giant spectra of time that you can make as a justification of when to kill Hitler.
Already started. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/elmwood-transcona-conservative-byelection-strategy-1.7326238 They tried to make “Sellout Singh” a thing. It’s right out of the playbook of “Dementia Don.”