Mark H.

Oh the spin:
 
Harper won 162 seats in a 308 seat parliament
 
Trudeau won 184 seats in a 338 seat parliament
 
In the current parliament - Harper wouldn't even have a majority

Oh the spin:
 
Harper won 162 seats in a 308 seat parliament
 
Trudeau won 184 seats in a 338 seat parliament
 
In the current parliament - Harper wouldn't even have a majority

Yep, nothing much ever changes out here.

Watching election results was more fun before social media when you didn't have a lot of sore losers and poor winners heckling and mocking
I believe two things in the aftermath of an election:
1) the out going PM deserves respect
2) the incoming PM deserves respect.
Too much to ask.

It never should have been reduced. Poor policy, good politics. 

It never should have been reduced. Poor policy, good politics. 

I was so chapped when they used the GST reduction as a cheap vote-get. Pissed me off to no end. So many idiots barked like seals about how great it was, not realizing the easy money it provides for the government. I'm a big fan of goods and service taxes...don't wanna pay it? Don't buy stuff. It's that simple.

It never should have been reduced. Poor policy, good politics. 

The fact that people can walk down the street wearing a niqab if they choose - the fact that people are identified before the citizenship ceremony - makes the entire issue irrelevant. Harper was trying to create a political wedge - it backfired.
In fact, this kind of political strategy is called a dead cat. Take an issue that doesn't matter and use it to create a wedge. Throw a dead cat on the table...

The fact that people can walk down the street wearing a niqab if they choose - the fact that people are identified before the citizenship ceremony - makes the entire issue irrelevant. Harper was trying to create a political wedge - it backfired.
In fact, this kind of political strategy is called a dead cat. Take an issue that doesn't matter and use it to create a wedge. Throw a dead cat on the table...

That's the Brandon-Souris riding - it almost swung to the Liberals in a by-election

It wasn't the courts or the media that connected the hijab to 'protecting Canadians from Terrorism.'
 
But I'm not going down that road again - been there - done that.

There has been a whole lot of moral authority coming from harperquarters. Tough on crime, making niqab an issue (dare I say it), etc. etc.

There has been a whole lot of moral authority coming from harperquarters. Tough on crime, making niqab an issue (dare I say it), etc. etc.

I dare say there's more relevance here than you'll find in most of the leaders' debates.

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

Okay, so let's say one views the niqab as a symbol of oppression. If they allow it, the concern would be that judges might also allow some people to beat their wives - or some other extreme action. That's where the reasonable limits clause applies. A niqab is reasonable, obviously beatings are not, regardless of what anyone's personal beliefs are.

No problem - he can just take some of the 15 billion from the Saudi arms deal.  But never mind all that, we're still protected from terrorism and Comrade Harper is always right.
 
The fact that this is an election issue that is actually shifting the polls is disturbing to say the least.

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

Since when do a few polls represent the vast majority of Canadians?

Since when do a few polls represent the vast majority of Canadians?

Since when do a few polls represent the vast majority of Canadians?

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

We farm, here's my take on the wheat board:
1. It handled only spring wheat and little bit of malting barley. All other crops were marketed without the aid of a board. Canola, winter wheat, oats, beans et al
2. The board existed only in the prairie provinces, all other farmers were exempt from the act.
3. Australia had removed their wheat board with very few Ill effects
4. The wheat board didn't actually own any infrastructure. Because they had a monopoly, they didn't have to; no one else could touch spring wheat.
5. Farmers with some entrepreneurial spirit (eg. a flour mill) had to sell their wheat to the board and then buy it back. The wheat never actually left their farm.

We farm, here's my take on the wheat board:
1. It handled only spring wheat and little bit of malting barley. All other crops were marketed without the aid of a board. Canola, winter wheat, oats, beans et al
2. The board existed only in the prairie provinces, all other farmers were exempt from the act.
3. Australia had removed their wheat board with very few Ill effects
4. The wheat board didn't actually own any infrastructure. Because they had a monopoly, they didn't have to; no one else could touch spring wheat.
5. Farmers with some entrepreneurial spirit (eg. a flour mill) had to sell their wheat to the board and then buy it back. The wheat never actually left their farm.