Hmm.. I'm curious now, how did a conservative rightist party end up with Liberal in their name?
abff08f4813c
joined 11 months ago
I'm curious as to why this is. I thought Australian English used labour as the spelling of the word while labor was only in US english. See https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia/latest-release for an example of a government website using the alternate spelling.
Great to see all the excellent work being done!
This is heartening to hear.
The one thing I don't get - the article doesn't really go into why former Canadian nationalist Katheryn Speck had such a dramatic change of heart. Like, c'mon.
I think it's less of a, why do we let them, and more of a, how can we stop them? It's not like they asked for permission, they took the 2024 election results as the green light to do things like this.
Enjoy your upvote.
As a professional developer nearing 20 years of experience, I am a fan of freecodecamp.org
They have a new book that covers a lot of this, both the upskilling and the interview specifically, https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/learn-to-code-book/
What makes me think that a strong CPC outcome is likely is that there was data from the weekend showing that CPC without a leader handily sweeps the election. So I assume they change PP for someone more likeable which puts them in a much stronger position, therefore likely to win if the Carney gov’t doesn’t execute well.
That's fair. But my point was that the new person they swap in could be someone who remakes the CPC into a more centrist or even leftist party. (Perhaps even someone who was a former Liberal Party member.) Not saying that's likely, just that it's another possibility that prevents the disaster scenario... (as opposed to someone like Danielle Smith taking the reins, which the disaster scenario requires).
All of what you suggest..
Yep, ditto. Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement here.
Thought it worth going through and pointing out the logical flaws in the disaster scenario.
Mainly, there are a number of false premises involved.
He likely has significant Brookfield investments in that blind trust.
We don't know that. More importantly, he doesn't know that. A blind trust is supposed to be blind, which means that he doesn't know if these have since been sold and replaced.
Without knowing that the blind trust does in fact own the investments to any particular degree of certainty, the odds of a move to benefit Brookfield specifically at the expense of others is reduced, probably significantly so.
He likely has a seat open on that board whenever he quits public service.
I'm not sure how much Brookfield would be influenced by public opinion, but if Carney actually did this, he'd likely suffer greatly in terms of public opinion. Usually companies pay attention to this because failing to do so can hurt their pocketbooks (think things like public boycotts, such as folks refusing to buy gas at gas stations that are fueled by the pipeline).
What if he uses emergency powers to ... [get] ... that much richer
I can't cite an authority on this but I strongly suspect that this would not be legal. And while I'm really uncertain about what legal remedies might ensure in this case, I strongly suspect both disgorgement and significant jail time would be on the table. And of course, being found a criminal by the Courts of Canada would make it that much harder for Brookfield to offer Carney that spot on the board.
Considering how much personal risk Carney may take on in doing this, I think this significantly reduces the chances he'd attempt this, even if he were inclined to do so (which hasn't been demonstrated imho).
while we get saddled with an even angrier and vindicated CPC
This one displays a clear logical error - that of non sequiturs and false dichotomy. It doesn't automatically follow that, even if all of the above happened, that the CPC would be able to follow and push its current agenda. What if sympathy for Quebec after all this is so strong that PQ ends up with the leading role in a new coalition? Or former Liberals flee to the NDP, reviving it and granting it a majority?
Perhaps even the CPC may be so disgusted by this that they have a change of heart and reform. (I mean it's a hypothetical possibility.)
Strictly speaking, it's not unbanned. Rather, the deadline by which this will happen keeps getting extended.
The first extension occurred back in January as reported in https://www.forbes.com/sites/esatdedezade/2025/01/20/tiktok-was-unbanned-after-just-12-hours-heres-why/ (and actually the app was down for about 12 hours before getting restored).
The second extension was reported here https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx256dd1znpo which provides the "official" rationale - the President wants TikTok to be sold and is trying to give more time to get that deal concluded. In fact it seems the deal was almost concluded but got yanked at the last moment due to the tariff actions.
As to why the President is so willing to grant extensions to get a deal done (as opposed to, say, letting the ban take effect and only allowing restoration once the app has actually been sold), https://www.statesman.com/story/news/state/2025/01/22/tiktok-ban-banned-trump-who-bought-2025-meta-elon-musk-ceo-reversal-executive-order-delay/77852924007/ has some good thoughts why.
Two important points - a younger generation likes TikTok, who he may now be loathe to alienate, and also that it was Biden who signed the ban into law - so by getting TikTok sold and unbanned, it's another reversal of something that Biden did.
If a deal to sell TikTok fails to happen by June, it's still possible that the ban will go into effect then. Though, if you were going to bet that a third extension would be granted, I wouldn't be willing to take the other side of that bet.
This is the way
Thanks for the tip! It does explain it quite well. I have more questions - but also, since it's from the earlier part of the 20th century, likely only a professional historian would know some of these answers....