adma
Superstar
If by "destroyed", one means Alf Landon-style, or Barry Goldwater-style, or even Bob Dole-style--that's all but nil. But that's not a synonym for "defeated".
|
|
|
- Thread starter animatronic
- Start date
afransen
Senior Member
If Trump loses, I think Trumpism may lose some steam, and PP definitely benefits from Trumpism motivating the conservative base in Canada.
evandyk
Senior Member
PP has definitely mastered the meme-ification of politics, which is Trumpian for sure, but predates and will survive the demise of Trump.
christiesplits
Senior Member
Two provincial by-elections have been called for Lambton-Kent-Essex and Milton, with the latter being a potential pick-up for the Liberals.
www.thestar.com
Doug Ford calls May 2 byelections in Milton and Lambton
The spring votes were sparked by the resignations of Monte McNaughton and Parm Gill.
www.thestar.com
Northern Light
Superstar
Since this was a provincial law, I will place this here:
Judge strikes down the majority of Mike Harris' 'Safe Streets Act'
www.thestar.com
There are two fundamental aspects to the bill, one which identifies where soliciting/pan-handling is prohibited and the other describes manners of panhandling that are prohibted (broadly, what the Act defines as aggressive)
From the above:
and
While I disagreed with the political demonizing of panhandlers/the homeless in the Harris Era, and likewise sympathize here with the lawyers that felt that ticketing those w/no funds to pay same is entirely unproductive, I actually disagree w/the scope of the judge's ruling here.
I do think people people have a right not be intimidated in a manner than confers a threat by its very nature. I've seen women on the subway fearful of a large man sticking his hand out in their face, and sometimes not taking 'no' for an answer. I've had to step in once or twice.
Of course, that's not the norm; of course, social assistance ought to be much more generous, and people properly housed.
But the answer to the above is not letting people feel that its unsafe to go out alone, in any number of settings, particularly women or the elderly.
If the judge had simply struck the penalty down for its unreasonableness, or curbed some of most frivolous excesses of the law, I think that would be fine; but as is, it strikes me that he protected drivers, but not pedestrians or transit users, and he did so as an adult male, insufficiently considerate to those in society who are not.
Judge strikes down the majority of Mike Harris' 'Safe Streets Act'
Court strikes down most of Ontario’s Mike Harris-era anti-panhandling law
The move largely guts the Safe Streets Act, passed by the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris in 1999 amid years of controversy over so-called “squeegee kids.”
www.thestar.com
There are two fundamental aspects to the bill, one which identifies where soliciting/pan-handling is prohibited and the other describes manners of panhandling that are prohibted (broadly, what the Act defines as aggressive)
From the above:
and
While I disagreed with the political demonizing of panhandlers/the homeless in the Harris Era, and likewise sympathize here with the lawyers that felt that ticketing those w/no funds to pay same is entirely unproductive, I actually disagree w/the scope of the judge's ruling here.
I do think people people have a right not be intimidated in a manner than confers a threat by its very nature. I've seen women on the subway fearful of a large man sticking his hand out in their face, and sometimes not taking 'no' for an answer. I've had to step in once or twice.
Of course, that's not the norm; of course, social assistance ought to be much more generous, and people properly housed.
But the answer to the above is not letting people feel that its unsafe to go out alone, in any number of settings, particularly women or the elderly.
If the judge had simply struck the penalty down for its unreasonableness, or curbed some of most frivolous excesses of the law, I think that would be fine; but as is, it strikes me that he protected drivers, but not pedestrians or transit users, and he did so as an adult male, insufficiently considerate to those in society who are not.
Last edited:
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Bonnie already killed the Carbon tax.
the loss in 2026 will be fun, her supporters will demand one more shot and then in 2030 Ignatieff style blowout.
the loss in 2026 will be fun, her supporters will demand one more shot and then in 2030 Ignatieff style blowout.
tiffer24
Senior Member
Cracking down on the bedridden. What a great look, Ontario
Seven people in Ontario have been fined for refusing transfers from a hospital to a long-term care home not of their choosing. A law enacted in 2022 requires hospitals to levy fines of $400 a day on patients who can be discharged but need long-term care and are refusing to go to a home selected for them by a placement co-ordinator.
The government has long said it was not aware of anyone being fined, with Long-Term Care Minister Stan Cho saying as much as recently as two weeks ago.
Hannah Jensen, a spokesperson for Health Minister Sylvia Jones, now says that seven people have been fined but the ministry was not aware of those cases.
https://www.cp24.com/news/seven-peo...ng-ltc-transfers-ontario-government-1.6832118
Seven people in Ontario have been fined for refusing transfers from a hospital to a long-term care home not of their choosing. A law enacted in 2022 requires hospitals to levy fines of $400 a day on patients who can be discharged but need long-term care and are refusing to go to a home selected for them by a placement co-ordinator.
The government has long said it was not aware of anyone being fined, with Long-Term Care Minister Stan Cho saying as much as recently as two weeks ago.
Hannah Jensen, a spokesperson for Health Minister Sylvia Jones, now says that seven people have been fined but the ministry was not aware of those cases.
https://www.cp24.com/news/seven-peo...ng-ltc-transfers-ontario-government-1.6832118
lenaitch
Senior Member
The (un)intended consequence of that ruling will be that any enforcement action regarding aggressiveness, impeding or intimidation will have to resort to the Criminal Code.Since this was a provincial law, I will place this here:
Judge strikes down the majority of Mike Harris' 'Safe Streets Act'
Court strikes down most of Ontario’s Mike Harris-era anti-panhandling law
The move largely guts the Safe Streets Act, passed by the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris in 1999 amid years of controversy over so-called “squeegee kids.”
There are two fundamental aspects to the bill, one which identifies where soliciting/pan-handling is prohibited and the other describes manners of panhandling that prohibted (broadly, what the Act defines as aggressive)
From the above:
View attachment 553338
and
View attachment 553339
While I disagreed with the political demonizing of panhandlers/the homeless in the Harris Era, and likewise to the sympathize here with the lawyers that felt that ticketing those w/no funds to pay same is entirely unproductive, I actually disagree w/the scope of the judge's ruling here.
I do think people people have a right not be intimidated in a manner than confers a threat by its very nature. I've seen women on the subway fearful of a large man sticking his hand out in their face, and sometimes not taking 'no' for an answer. I've had to step in once or twice.
Of course, that's not the norm; of course, social assistance ought to be much more generous, and people properly housed.
But the answer to the above is not letting people feel that its unsafe to go out alone, in any number of settings, particularly women or the elderly.
If the judge had simply struck the penalty down for its unreasonableness, or curbed some of most frivolous excesses of the law, I think that would be fine; but as is, it strikes me that he protected drivers, but not pedestrians or transit users, and he did so as an adult male, insufficiently considerate to those in society who are not.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I don't think our elections are so closely tied to the US. The LPC and Trudeau are unpopular largely because of domestic political reasons. I don't think Trump winning or losing matters here.
As for Ford in 2026, I know the pattern. But I also think people don't look at why that pattern holds. Usually, it's the timing of elections and overlapping policy effects. Two higher levels of government imposing austerity at the same time can be brutal. Ford may be lucky enough that federal CPC austerity won't have sufficiently kicked in before the provincial election. But maybe the Liberals and Dippers could pull the trigger earlier (I don't think they will), which could hurt Ford. Maybe Ford pulls the trigger early too if that happens?
DSC
Superstar
I suppose it may be best if Ford restricts himself to the margins but ...
www.theglobeandmail.com
Premier Doug Ford requests LCBO reinstate free paper bags
Ontario’s liquor monopoly says it will comply with Ford’s directive to abandon policy it said would save the equivalent of 188,000 trees a year
www.theglobeandmail.com
Richard White
Senior Member
I suppose it may be best if Ford restricts himself to the margins but ...
Premier Doug Ford requests LCBO reinstate free paper bags
Ontario’s liquor monopoly says it will comply with Ford’s directive to abandon policy it said would save the equivalent of 188,000 trees a year
I consider this to be a good thing.
Paper bags are recyclable and much better for the environment than cloth reusable bags. I currently have about 60 cloth bags between my car, work and house.
zang
Senior Member
Brown/Kraft paper bags can also be composted.
Northern Light
Superstar
I suppose it may be best if Ford restricts himself to the margins but ...
Premier Doug Ford requests LCBO reinstate free paper bags
Ontario’s liquor monopoly says it will comply with Ford’s directive to abandon policy it said would save the equivalent of 188,000 trees a year
The problem w/the paper bags was they didn't have handles, and also were quite thin, meaning any rain gets on them and the contents goes through the bottom in a hurry.
Whole Foods does paper bags, but with handles, and they are sturdy enough to give some breathing room on weather (don't leave 'em soaking a puddle and expect a good result though)
I can respect the mandate for reusable, but there paper can be a responsible choice; either/or.
But if doing paper, make the damn bag usable; by all means charge .25c per bag!
lenaitch
Senior Member
'Buck-a-bag' !!!
gabe
Senior Member
Paper is better for the environment than these cheap crappy fabric polyester bags that rip and fall apart after a few uses. Five to ten years ago, the re-usable bags were excellent quality. I still have reusable bags i bought years ago from Food Basics. Now a days retailers are copying Walmart. They offer bags for sale made with the cheapest quality. Might as well just go back to plastic at this point.