At least that means a less conservative (ie LPO) Ontario premier...
But with the US electing swinging to what we laughably refer to as the left, I wonder if it could cause the CPC trouble in the upcoming election. Could hope for a coalition government...
But with the US electing swinging to what we laughably refer to as the left, I wonder if it could cause the CPC trouble in the upcoming election.
No. We lag behind the US's shifts here, which is why it's important to PP to get the election rolling before the year is out. While he'd still probably win an election next year, in all likelihood it would be a much smaller victory should the Yankees actually send any kind of message rebuking the naked fascists running this year.
Tories will be even pissier than usual if there was a legit coalition government, hell it's even in the wording of what Pierre sent Jagmeet, that the s&c is propping up something that wasn't elected and the like, literally the same shit they did back in the Harper years.
At least that means a less conservative (ie LPOOLP) Ontario premier…
Eh, I'm not sure Crombie is much less conservative than Ford. I feel if she becomes Premier, we're going to have to wait another cycle of shifting right-then-left until we have a chance at an actual progressive government.
I think it is certainly arguable, it's fairly standard political hyperbole. Singh must remember not three months ago Bill c_58 came into effect, banning scabs (replacement workers) from being brought in during a strike or lock out.
The claim "proven again and again he will always cave to corporate greed" is, frankly, demonstrably false.
Yes, and while I am a liberal who generally supports the Liberals in Canada, I absolutely will vote to keep Pierre out of power, whatever that means at the time. I have no real animosity with social democrats.
Yes, they did, and it's arguable still. Given how many downstream jobs and the lives attached to them would be hurt by a sustained lock out of our dual member rail oligopoly I think binding arbitration is a preferrable option.
Binding arbitration is often opposed by both employers and employees, for different reasons. Amongst employers it's because Canadian arbitrators don't take ability to pay / fund into consideration when determining compensation and benefit changes, and so actually favor employees more.
If there's that much of an issue, then rail employers should actually acknowledge the power of the union, negotiate, and fucking deal. The state stepping in to kill collective action here, because it might affect people over there is done not to protect the people over there, but to ensure they don't get any ideas of their own.
The problem is that the LPC has little or no bench strength. Freeland was probably the best option and she's been Hillary'ed by the CPC and the right-wing media over the last four years. After her, the bench is very thin: O'Reagan's similarly tained, Carney is a corporate tool, Leblanc isn't far behind. It gets pretty thin after that. I think they're looking at another Dion/Ignatieff-style wasteland as they try to figure out how to find a leader who's cool and popular without worrying about them doing anything.
The NDP has it worse. They really should have kept Mulcair or selected Angus. They'd be in a much better place now, if they had, though even then the media would just try hard not to cover them, like they're doing with Stiles in Ontario, who is very good but doesn't get any airplay.
Bachrach has been doing some good things, like taking VIA home for Christmas to point out that passenger rail should have priority. He doesn't have the experience that Cullen did, but he's promising.