Only one point - the challenges facing Carney failed to include defence. Defence is one of the key functions of the Federal Government, it has been neglected for decades, and it will seriously dent public finances. Indeed, the math doesn't work absent epic deficits.
In passing, I recall a comment from somewhere recently that the Feds don't have a revenue problem they have a spending problem. OK, what do you cut to reduce the deficit? In the Cdn context that question reminds me of the medieval conundrum as to the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
One easy one is to walk back on the income tax reduction give away that the Libs and Cons presented. It's a start.
So ...... keep spending the same insane amounts of spending, with the same insane level of taxation, not to mention the incredibly stupid ever expanding deficit, THEN borrow more money, this time from the public - who have to pay it back anyway? Do I have that right?
Sean, please, but NO. Cut some of the spending. Oh, say 100,000 swivel servants, say, all the damned consultants, you know, all the insane things that we have been spending money on.
Hi. The state of the CF was abysmal when I signed up 40 years ago. Infrastructure was already old and crumbling. It is a trillion times worse now. My boy serves now. I get regular updates which leave me shaking my head. Because, Ken, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than firing 100,000 civil servants and cutting spending to do it. It needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with a mind on the new and very real dangers to this country's security. (Think Canada circa 1939 and war clouds are gathering.) Canada has freeloaded for too long on the defense file. We don't just need to buy or build tanks, we need new buildings and barracks that aren't crumbling and a navy without mold on their ships. The Liberals and Conservatives: it's on them because all of this happened under their watch while in government. Also, please don't caps lock words. I care not to be yelled at thanks.
I agree with both of you. 100K is not a solution but would certainly be a good start leading to an actual trend and way of thinking. We need to stop believing that governments are here to do everything for us. Not sure about anyone else but I know that I can’t afford servants and with government’s pay and perks I certainly can’t afford the top drawer staff that they provide. Whenever a government program is announced you have to remember that likely close to half the money allotted will go to administering that program. I also believe that defence should move way up the scale of importance and this shortcoming as you mention is hardly new and has been an omission from both parties (proportionately) over the decades. Whining and bitching at election time for “more” is not sustainable. Eventually we will need to pay off the credit card before the credit tap runs dry.
I got some mild entertainment reading that the Flatliners (formally known as the NDP) had a delicate high wire act balancing its commitment to rural working class people and the uppity, uptown white collar progressives.
???? I’m not sure that’s how things turned out. The flight of blue collar workers from the NDP to the Conservatives (kinda like the flight of investment capital from Canada) was because they were abandoned by the NDP in the pursuit of the utopian world of race/gender/identity politics. I bet if a hall full of railroaders in Elmwood-Transcona were asked about the race and gender wars and how it influenced the federal NDP, the language might not pass the censors.
For some reason the NDP never seemed to understand why working class people couldn’t identify with their lofty goals of equity and diversity. They also seemed to think that nostalgia would give them cover while they play acted as champions of the workers.
Speaking from personal experience with the elections process, the Elections Canada process to register as a candidate is cumbersome and archaic, notwithstanding the gimmick of the Longest Ballot Initiative. You can have hundreds of friends within a riding and it will still be a logistical nightmare to collect 100 wet ink elector signatures within a 2-week period, in between your work shifts, while various friends are on vacation, missing the messages you send them, lacking a printer at home, or lacking the time to print-sign-scan a document. If you want on the ballot as a candidate for a non-establishment party, you will almost certainly be required to knock on strangers' doors to ask for help.
If it is important to prevent further stunts like with what happened with the Carleton ballot, a non-intrusive means to do so would be to limit the number of candidates that an Official Agent can attach their self to. But a better way to improve the candidate registration process would be to create a for/against petition system where there is a timeline where citizens can petition against a candidate's inclusion on the ballot, and the prospective candidate only needs as many supporting signatures as opposing ones.
(I know one of the Carleton gimmick candidates, Blake Hamilton, and I can assure you that the stunt was intended to protest the current electoral system. Carleton was targeted because of Poilievre's known opposition to electoral reform.)
I still cannot understand the protest. I understand these people don't like the First-Past-The-Post by how does having a 100 candidates prove that system is bad?
It's just a gimmick to grab attention. The stunt certainly succeeded in getting attention and getting people to lookup a group that would otherwise be ignored. But it is an open question in my mind whether the attention was worth the criticism and pushback.
I expect that this group will be at work again in the upcoming by-election.
I hope your podcast comes after the Presser of Herr Leader. The Presser this morning was refreshing in a couple of ways: His French is so bad that even me, who only knows French to the tune of "Le match ce soir and Canadiens sont la" can understand him. Nice metaphor with the hockey sweater, but the lame stream media only focussed on Orange Man Bad, and not Net Zero (and the failure of the Grid in Spain and Portugal), On Line Harms Act, No Pipelines Act, Tanker Ban Act.... No, just Orange Man Bad, thought Catherine Leveque and the PM has a belly laugh during the the performance. Thankfully, no threatrial breathing pauses with the PM, for a change.
The result of an unserious election where one side kept trying to talk about real problems, though their solutions were often either whispered or absent, and the other side just screamed about a more or less fictional "crisis" that they were somehow in some unspecified way better at solving, and the latter narrative won.
Forty percent of Canadians say healthcare, which I take to mean only free healthcare that Other People pay for, is their top priority. If that’s not a recipe for a brain drain of the young productive classes — those very Other People — to the United States, I don’t know what is. I wonder how long before those young people tell us Boomers, “Use the equity in your real estate to pay for your own medical care before you go raising taxes on us. If you have more wealth than you will need, share it among other old people. As for your own children, inheritances should be enjoyed, not counted on.”
For more than 50 years I've been paying for healthcare for 'Other People', having been lucky enough to not need much health care over that time. It's not just people my age who have greater need of health care. Advances in health care over my lifetime have done two things - increased the cost & increased people's life expectancy. Babies born with life threatening illness 50 or 60 years ago now grow up to lead healthy productive lives. There's a cost to that & I don't begrudge paying that cost.
You may not object, and neither do I. But young people may well object. When we were young we paid (lower) taxes for free health care but we were still able to save to buy a house. Young people have their own views on life, and about the inter-generational wealth transfer, just as our views when we were young differed from the views of our grandparents.
You can’t be sure that a young person getting his first good paycheque won’t say, “Holy crap! No one ever asked me if I was willing to pay taxes like this. Where does it all go? No wonder my older friends are still living with their parents.” If he wants to do something about high taxes, it could get ugly.
Since young and skill is no match for age and treachery, we Boomers can outvote the efforts of young people to stop paying for our healthcare for a while yet. But they won’t like us for it.
I don't want to pay for my healthcare, you don't want to pay for your healthcare; in fact, no one want to pay for their healthcare. We all want it for free. But free is terrifically costly, particularly when we keep letting in the world and the newcomers don't pay a lot of taxes for a number of years. The result is that our healthcare system is becoming increasingly threadbare and over time, I forecast that more and more aspects of the system will become user pay.
It seems to me that so many people who don't want to pay anything themselves yell, "I don't want American style healthcare!" but they don't say anything about, say, French style, German style, Swedish style, etc. but all those countries make user payment (at least to a certain extent) an integral part of their healthcare systems.
So, yes, we may find that we will have to mortgage our homes to pay for some treatments. Not at all what I want but that is where we are heading.
As Boomers we are responsible for this unrealistic expectation of "free" healthcare which isn't at all free.
As for young people moving to the US, if I was younger I expect that I would carefully consider doing that as well, if only for economic reasons.
Yes, it's too easy for many Canadians to look south at the health care horror stories there & pat ourselves on the back when we compare our system to theirs. We need to stop that & reform our system by using best practices from around the world. We also need to acknowledge that our geography will mean that something that works cost-effectively in a small European country may not work well for those living in rural/remote areas.
You are right that what works in that small European country may not work in our geography. Bit, it might work.
My point is simply that other countries have found that incorporating an element of user pay in some way can be quite productive and does not necessarily equate to inequality. Simply put, the issue is not "American style" or "the current blessed Canadian single payor," the latter of which is inaccurate in any event.
We simply have to look at what works best for the most people and leave behind the ideology on either side of that debate.
I would value a report card of statistical government performance (GDP, unemployment, productivity etc) in some user-friendly format based on the performance inherited at election time.
This could go a long way towards converting runny bullshit into firm bullshit.
Re. the statement "This is ugly stuff.". I call utter bullshit on that statement. What is Ugly Stuff is for the feds to increasingly systematically and legalistically and entirely deliberately strangulate the West. THAT is Ugly Stuff.
RE. the Bullshit Bulletin - Not with sadness, but with relief.
With sadness we do note that the stinking lying county-destroying Liebrano Sleazoids are back in government, in factual majoriy. This will be for us much worse than before.
Congrats! For your Bullshit Bulletin you have been awarded a degree from the University of Bullshit. BS, MS, Ph.D.--BullShit, More Shit, Piled High and Dry
Enjoyed your no-nonsense, fair and insightful take on the election and its results. So happy that I'm a subscriber and most importantly, to know that there are good, honest and unbiased journalists setting the example for the next generation of media providers. Thank you!
Eligible Alberta voters are roughly 30% for separation, the same number as Quebec. Though Quebec separatists have a stable base and Alberta is more volatile depending upon the events of the moment. Alberta has three choices: 1. Stay within confederation and get screwed over with Liberal net zero policies while subsidizing Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces with $billions, 2. Separate from Canada and go it alone 3. Separate from Canada and become the 51st State of the U.S.
4) Stay within Canada and do everything possible - and impossible - to minimize Feds influence on the provincial economy and development.
It must be noted that currently AB and SK premiers stance towards the separation is lukewarm at best, and I am sure their stance is based on a thorough familiarity with their electorate. They know that in reality, despite the hot separatist talk, the support for separation is not solid enough in terms of numbers and endurance to reach such a critical mass that it would be a realistic task. Got to have at least 60% solid and enduring, from election to election, coming from the grassroots and nowhere else.
Thanks for the mention of choice #4 which is the most realistic for the majority of Albertans.
Still doesn't preclude Alberta having its own police force or making referendums easier to do. Everything in AB is NOT about separation, as some people insist it is.
As an Albertan I welcome the change in the rules on calling a referendum. It is not that I am specifically a separatist but, rather, that I am a democrat and I believe strongly that we Albertans should have a mechanism to allow us to hector and bully the government of the day if they ignore pressing issues. If one of those issues is a desire for separatism then go get the petitions signed, boys and girls, and then convince me either for or agin.
Democracy is messy but if it is out in the open it is quite useful, messy or not.
As for the police force, it seems to me that the RCMP are choosing to get out of acting the civil policing end of things quite deliberately from what I read. It is not yet actual federal policy but it certainly seems to be heading that way. At that point, there will be no alternative but a new police force.
And finally, you are quite correct that not everything here is about separatism but it certainly has enough proponents that it cannot be ignored as a potential issue. Having said that, it is simply one of the issues that we must deal with.
Good points. As for the RCMP a retired member I know explained that he agreed that a provincial force is needed even if it starts as a shadow force as presently configured. Ottawa controls the placing of officers and all other higher level decisions. If Alberta needs (say) 10 new officers due to population growth the request goes into the bucket with all the other provincial asks. So we get 6 new officers. Will it cost Alberta more? Certainly. But at least we would not be ceding control for another thing that Ottawa does poorly. As for staffing most RCMP would likely jump at the chance of establishing roots in a community and not be transferred around the country while receiving better pay. He indicated that most officers that leave the force now move to city policing for these reasons.
That’s not no.4 it’s an addendum to no.1. But I agree. Fight for similar treatment as Quebec and more powers for the provinces in general. Less power for feds.
Thank you the Line team. Slight objection to the command that PP must call Fanjoy. This is such a nothing/trivial issue, who gives a flying F? Fanjoy won, thats congratulations enough. PP needs to go. Feel badly for him, but his image/brand is toxic and wont change.
Not like the eminently classy Carney talking about representing all Canadians in his grandiose acceptance speech and then sneeringly agreeing with someone shouting about how great it will be to work with Bruce (Pierre's replacement). If you want to call out Pierre (and I agree he should have called), call out Carney's utter lack of class as the winner as well. When he denigrated Pierre in this way, he denigrated 41% of voters too.
How about a BS Bulletin a year from now (or whenever) calling out the parties for their broken election promises (if any)?
Only one point - the challenges facing Carney failed to include defence. Defence is one of the key functions of the Federal Government, it has been neglected for decades, and it will seriously dent public finances. Indeed, the math doesn't work absent epic deficits.
In passing, I recall a comment from somewhere recently that the Feds don't have a revenue problem they have a spending problem. OK, what do you cut to reduce the deficit? In the Cdn context that question reminds me of the medieval conundrum as to the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
One easy one is to walk back on the income tax reduction give away that the Libs and Cons presented. It's a start.
For me, I think the government should sell Defense Bonds like in WWII to bankroll rebuilding the CF.
So ...... keep spending the same insane amounts of spending, with the same insane level of taxation, not to mention the incredibly stupid ever expanding deficit, THEN borrow more money, this time from the public - who have to pay it back anyway? Do I have that right?
Sean, please, but NO. Cut some of the spending. Oh, say 100,000 swivel servants, say, all the damned consultants, you know, all the insane things that we have been spending money on.
Hi. The state of the CF was abysmal when I signed up 40 years ago. Infrastructure was already old and crumbling. It is a trillion times worse now. My boy serves now. I get regular updates which leave me shaking my head. Because, Ken, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than firing 100,000 civil servants and cutting spending to do it. It needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with a mind on the new and very real dangers to this country's security. (Think Canada circa 1939 and war clouds are gathering.) Canada has freeloaded for too long on the defense file. We don't just need to buy or build tanks, we need new buildings and barracks that aren't crumbling and a navy without mold on their ships. The Liberals and Conservatives: it's on them because all of this happened under their watch while in government. Also, please don't caps lock words. I care not to be yelled at thanks.
I agree with both of you. 100K is not a solution but would certainly be a good start leading to an actual trend and way of thinking. We need to stop believing that governments are here to do everything for us. Not sure about anyone else but I know that I can’t afford servants and with government’s pay and perks I certainly can’t afford the top drawer staff that they provide. Whenever a government program is announced you have to remember that likely close to half the money allotted will go to administering that program. I also believe that defence should move way up the scale of importance and this shortcoming as you mention is hardly new and has been an omission from both parties (proportionately) over the decades. Whining and bitching at election time for “more” is not sustainable. Eventually we will need to pay off the credit card before the credit tap runs dry.
I got some mild entertainment reading that the Flatliners (formally known as the NDP) had a delicate high wire act balancing its commitment to rural working class people and the uppity, uptown white collar progressives.
???? I’m not sure that’s how things turned out. The flight of blue collar workers from the NDP to the Conservatives (kinda like the flight of investment capital from Canada) was because they were abandoned by the NDP in the pursuit of the utopian world of race/gender/identity politics. I bet if a hall full of railroaders in Elmwood-Transcona were asked about the race and gender wars and how it influenced the federal NDP, the language might not pass the censors.
For some reason the NDP never seemed to understand why working class people couldn’t identify with their lofty goals of equity and diversity. They also seemed to think that nostalgia would give them cover while they play acted as champions of the workers.
Speaking from personal experience with the elections process, the Elections Canada process to register as a candidate is cumbersome and archaic, notwithstanding the gimmick of the Longest Ballot Initiative. You can have hundreds of friends within a riding and it will still be a logistical nightmare to collect 100 wet ink elector signatures within a 2-week period, in between your work shifts, while various friends are on vacation, missing the messages you send them, lacking a printer at home, or lacking the time to print-sign-scan a document. If you want on the ballot as a candidate for a non-establishment party, you will almost certainly be required to knock on strangers' doors to ask for help.
If it is important to prevent further stunts like with what happened with the Carleton ballot, a non-intrusive means to do so would be to limit the number of candidates that an Official Agent can attach their self to. But a better way to improve the candidate registration process would be to create a for/against petition system where there is a timeline where citizens can petition against a candidate's inclusion on the ballot, and the prospective candidate only needs as many supporting signatures as opposing ones.
(I know one of the Carleton gimmick candidates, Blake Hamilton, and I can assure you that the stunt was intended to protest the current electoral system. Carleton was targeted because of Poilievre's known opposition to electoral reform.)
I still cannot understand the protest. I understand these people don't like the First-Past-The-Post by how does having a 100 candidates prove that system is bad?
It's just a gimmick to grab attention. The stunt certainly succeeded in getting attention and getting people to lookup a group that would otherwise be ignored. But it is an open question in my mind whether the attention was worth the criticism and pushback.
I expect that this group will be at work again in the upcoming by-election.
I hope your podcast comes after the Presser of Herr Leader. The Presser this morning was refreshing in a couple of ways: His French is so bad that even me, who only knows French to the tune of "Le match ce soir and Canadiens sont la" can understand him. Nice metaphor with the hockey sweater, but the lame stream media only focussed on Orange Man Bad, and not Net Zero (and the failure of the Grid in Spain and Portugal), On Line Harms Act, No Pipelines Act, Tanker Ban Act.... No, just Orange Man Bad, thought Catherine Leveque and the PM has a belly laugh during the the performance. Thankfully, no threatrial breathing pauses with the PM, for a change.
The result of an unserious election where one side kept trying to talk about real problems, though their solutions were often either whispered or absent, and the other side just screamed about a more or less fictional "crisis" that they were somehow in some unspecified way better at solving, and the latter narrative won.
Forty percent of Canadians say healthcare, which I take to mean only free healthcare that Other People pay for, is their top priority. If that’s not a recipe for a brain drain of the young productive classes — those very Other People — to the United States, I don’t know what is. I wonder how long before those young people tell us Boomers, “Use the equity in your real estate to pay for your own medical care before you go raising taxes on us. If you have more wealth than you will need, share it among other old people. As for your own children, inheritances should be enjoyed, not counted on.”
For more than 50 years I've been paying for healthcare for 'Other People', having been lucky enough to not need much health care over that time. It's not just people my age who have greater need of health care. Advances in health care over my lifetime have done two things - increased the cost & increased people's life expectancy. Babies born with life threatening illness 50 or 60 years ago now grow up to lead healthy productive lives. There's a cost to that & I don't begrudge paying that cost.
You may not object, and neither do I. But young people may well object. When we were young we paid (lower) taxes for free health care but we were still able to save to buy a house. Young people have their own views on life, and about the inter-generational wealth transfer, just as our views when we were young differed from the views of our grandparents.
You can’t be sure that a young person getting his first good paycheque won’t say, “Holy crap! No one ever asked me if I was willing to pay taxes like this. Where does it all go? No wonder my older friends are still living with their parents.” If he wants to do something about high taxes, it could get ugly.
Since young and skill is no match for age and treachery, we Boomers can outvote the efforts of young people to stop paying for our healthcare for a while yet. But they won’t like us for it.
You nailed it, Leslie.
I don't want to pay for my healthcare, you don't want to pay for your healthcare; in fact, no one want to pay for their healthcare. We all want it for free. But free is terrifically costly, particularly when we keep letting in the world and the newcomers don't pay a lot of taxes for a number of years. The result is that our healthcare system is becoming increasingly threadbare and over time, I forecast that more and more aspects of the system will become user pay.
It seems to me that so many people who don't want to pay anything themselves yell, "I don't want American style healthcare!" but they don't say anything about, say, French style, German style, Swedish style, etc. but all those countries make user payment (at least to a certain extent) an integral part of their healthcare systems.
So, yes, we may find that we will have to mortgage our homes to pay for some treatments. Not at all what I want but that is where we are heading.
As Boomers we are responsible for this unrealistic expectation of "free" healthcare which isn't at all free.
As for young people moving to the US, if I was younger I expect that I would carefully consider doing that as well, if only for economic reasons.
Yes, it's too easy for many Canadians to look south at the health care horror stories there & pat ourselves on the back when we compare our system to theirs. We need to stop that & reform our system by using best practices from around the world. We also need to acknowledge that our geography will mean that something that works cost-effectively in a small European country may not work well for those living in rural/remote areas.
You are right that what works in that small European country may not work in our geography. Bit, it might work.
My point is simply that other countries have found that incorporating an element of user pay in some way can be quite productive and does not necessarily equate to inequality. Simply put, the issue is not "American style" or "the current blessed Canadian single payor," the latter of which is inaccurate in any event.
We simply have to look at what works best for the most people and leave behind the ideology on either side of that debate.
just watched Carney's press conference. I must say that he's a likeable guy. Also actually answers questions! Maybe there's hope.
That's it ? You did not pay attention to the aplenty of info available about him out there?
Carney is a coolant. Tastes "sweetly", but will kill you. By the end of the fall Canada will be saying "what the hell did we do to ourselves? ".
I would value a report card of statistical government performance (GDP, unemployment, productivity etc) in some user-friendly format based on the performance inherited at election time.
This could go a long way towards converting runny bullshit into firm bullshit.
Re. the statement "This is ugly stuff.". I call utter bullshit on that statement. What is Ugly Stuff is for the feds to increasingly systematically and legalistically and entirely deliberately strangulate the West. THAT is Ugly Stuff.
RE. the Bullshit Bulletin - Not with sadness, but with relief.
With sadness we do note that the stinking lying county-destroying Liebrano Sleazoids are back in government, in factual majoriy. This will be for us much worse than before.
Congrats! For your Bullshit Bulletin you have been awarded a degree from the University of Bullshit. BS, MS, Ph.D.--BullShit, More Shit, Piled High and Dry
Thanks for the BSB. I still think you should make a BS Chyron here at readtheline.ca ;)
Enjoyed your no-nonsense, fair and insightful take on the election and its results. So happy that I'm a subscriber and most importantly, to know that there are good, honest and unbiased journalists setting the example for the next generation of media providers. Thank you!
Eligible Alberta voters are roughly 30% for separation, the same number as Quebec. Though Quebec separatists have a stable base and Alberta is more volatile depending upon the events of the moment. Alberta has three choices: 1. Stay within confederation and get screwed over with Liberal net zero policies while subsidizing Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces with $billions, 2. Separate from Canada and go it alone 3. Separate from Canada and become the 51st State of the U.S.
4) Stay within Canada and do everything possible - and impossible - to minimize Feds influence on the provincial economy and development.
It must be noted that currently AB and SK premiers stance towards the separation is lukewarm at best, and I am sure their stance is based on a thorough familiarity with their electorate. They know that in reality, despite the hot separatist talk, the support for separation is not solid enough in terms of numbers and endurance to reach such a critical mass that it would be a realistic task. Got to have at least 60% solid and enduring, from election to election, coming from the grassroots and nowhere else.
Thanks for the mention of choice #4 which is the most realistic for the majority of Albertans.
Still doesn't preclude Alberta having its own police force or making referendums easier to do. Everything in AB is NOT about separation, as some people insist it is.
Some points, June.
As an Albertan I welcome the change in the rules on calling a referendum. It is not that I am specifically a separatist but, rather, that I am a democrat and I believe strongly that we Albertans should have a mechanism to allow us to hector and bully the government of the day if they ignore pressing issues. If one of those issues is a desire for separatism then go get the petitions signed, boys and girls, and then convince me either for or agin.
Democracy is messy but if it is out in the open it is quite useful, messy or not.
As for the police force, it seems to me that the RCMP are choosing to get out of acting the civil policing end of things quite deliberately from what I read. It is not yet actual federal policy but it certainly seems to be heading that way. At that point, there will be no alternative but a new police force.
And finally, you are quite correct that not everything here is about separatism but it certainly has enough proponents that it cannot be ignored as a potential issue. Having said that, it is simply one of the issues that we must deal with.
Good points. As for the RCMP a retired member I know explained that he agreed that a provincial force is needed even if it starts as a shadow force as presently configured. Ottawa controls the placing of officers and all other higher level decisions. If Alberta needs (say) 10 new officers due to population growth the request goes into the bucket with all the other provincial asks. So we get 6 new officers. Will it cost Alberta more? Certainly. But at least we would not be ceding control for another thing that Ottawa does poorly. As for staffing most RCMP would likely jump at the chance of establishing roots in a community and not be transferred around the country while receiving better pay. He indicated that most officers that leave the force now move to city policing for these reasons.
That’s not no.4 it’s an addendum to no.1. But I agree. Fight for similar treatment as Quebec and more powers for the provinces in general. Less power for feds.
Thank you the Line team. Slight objection to the command that PP must call Fanjoy. This is such a nothing/trivial issue, who gives a flying F? Fanjoy won, thats congratulations enough. PP needs to go. Feel badly for him, but his image/brand is toxic and wont change.
It is a very small issue, but it does reinforce impressions of Poilievre being graceless.
Not like the eminently classy Carney talking about representing all Canadians in his grandiose acceptance speech and then sneeringly agreeing with someone shouting about how great it will be to work with Bruce (Pierre's replacement). If you want to call out Pierre (and I agree he should have called), call out Carney's utter lack of class as the winner as well. When he denigrated Pierre in this way, he denigrated 41% of voters too.
Wrong on PP.
The NDP Did run in PPs riding, got a bit over 1200 votes
Really? I checked the list and didn't see NDP. Will check again. What was their name?
Ah, I stand corrected. I stupidly searched for NDP rather than for the full name spelled out. Thanks for the correction!