Jagmeet Singh needs to get his ass into Parliament post haste

WWWTT wrote:

Sean in Ottawa I disagree. I myself would never put politics or materialism over my family! I question the morals of someone whom does. I would never want such a person to lead the country! I'm not ever going to appologize for such a person! And about the corporate media circus freek side show, Justin is in no way a victim of the corporate media, he plays it up and invites it with open arms! He takes every single opportunity to encourage it! There are many examples of him using his family in this regards. His wife as well has embrased the corporate media! Justin has also used charities to only promote himself, tons of examples!

Did you have a problem with Niki Ashton running to be leader while she was pregnant?

JKR wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Sean in Ottawa I disagree. I myself would never put politics or materialism over my family! I question the morals of someone whom does. I would never want such a person to lead the country! I'm not ever going to appologize for such a person! And about the corporate media circus freek side show, Justin is in no way a victim of the corporate media, he plays it up and invites it with open arms! He takes every single opportunity to encourage it! There are many examples of him using his family in this regards. His wife as well has embrased the corporate media! Justin has also used charities to only promote himself, tons of examples!

Did you have a problem with Niki Ashton running to be leader while she was pregnant?

No sorry I did not know?

When is she due? Do you know if it's a boy or a girl? I don't really care what the sex is, as long as her baby is healthy!!!! Also, when did she become pregnant? Did she plan her pregnancy and how many other children does she have?

Now some of these questions are absolutely none of my business!!!! 

But it may influence how I felt about someone who wanted power  while sacrificing their family.

Ya you could be right! 

From Mighty Middle:

He said he would not confirm nor deny that he is in a relationship, and said he would leave it at that.

​That is a bit strange. I think most people wouldn't keep their relationships a secret. I can understand them not wanting to subject significant others to undue scrutiny, but 'no comment'? 

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Mighty Middle:

He said he would not confirm nor deny that he is in a relationship, and said he would leave it at that.

​That is a bit strange. I think most people wouldn't keep their relationships a secret. I can understand them not wanting to subject significant others to undue scrutiny, but 'no comment'? 

Yes, I find this quite odd. I'm surprised it hasn't been commented on or speculated about before now.

At this point in time, I'm going to have to give Jagmeet points for not bringing family into his political life!

As time goes on, Jagmeet's looking like a better and better leader!!!!!!!

He seems to be someone I can relate to, a person filled with love, hard working,high morals, clear vision, modest and a sexy man to boot! 

WWWTT wrote:

At this point in time, I'm going to have to give Jagmeet points for not bringing family into his political life!

In fact his parents and brother have featured quite prominently in his political life and his leadership campaign.

Quote:

After all, he's not a blushing teen, he's 38 years old. Presumably he's had some sort of relationship with someone before now. If he's not in a relationship currently, he could just say so. If he is in a relationship, it would be an easy thing to find out who it was. Either way, 'no comment' seems a bit strange.  

What I think is amusing is that this would probably cost him everything in the U.S.  He'd totally need to have a lovely wife, preferably with "bun in the oven" or else how could voters trust that he's not some polygamous hedonist?

Personally, I like that he had no comment.  Trudeau has a wife, and she gets ripped to shreds about it.  Why is the spouse of a politician so fascinating??  Even Michelle Obama felt the need to participate in the First Lady Bake-off.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

After all, he's not a blushing teen, he's 38 years old. Presumably he's had some sort of relationship with someone before now. If he's not in a relationship currently, he could just say so. If he is in a relationship, it would be an easy thing to find out who it was. Either way, 'no comment' seems a bit strange.  

What I think is amusing is that this would probably cost him everything in the U.S.  He'd totally need to have a lovely wife, preferably with "bun in the oven" or else how could voters trust that he's not some polygamous hedonist?

Personally, I like that he had no comment.  Trudeau has a wife, and she gets ripped to shreds about it.  Why is the spouse of a politician so fascinating??  Even Michelle Obama felt the need to participate in the First Lady Bake-off.

ya I think the turban would kill his political career in the US way before that. And not being white with a long beard?  I would think if voters in the US could get around the turban and not being white, then the partner thing would be a breeze. This may be the case for some Canadian voters. 

Pondering wrote:

Why should he start discussing his love life with a reporter? If he wanted to share he would have done so already. Why didn't the reporter ask him what his position is on CETA ? Isn't that more important?

In fairness this was a half-hour behind the scenes look at his leadership run in documentary style. He was asked everything under the sun from policy to his background.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am rather concerned about other things the government is doing -- for example the small business tax cut, a mistake and a knee jerk policy keeping a promise the government broke becuase it did not have the money and now meeting it ahead of other priorities becuase of political fallout from poor management of tax policy. In these uncertain and difficult economic times the government giving a tax cut like this to anyone who is not really struggling is a mistake. A bump in the basic exemption would have been a better move. But this is politics and the Liberals do not have the same priorities I have, despite thier rhetoric.

I wish the NDP were supporting the Liberal government's attempt to remove tax loopholes established through incorporating.I understand why the NDP are trying to score political points on this issue but in the long term I think the NDP would be better served if they were clearly opposed to loopholes that are allowing very many high paid professionals to shelter their income and pay relatively lower rates of tax. It's unfair that a professional making over $200,000 a year should pay a much lower rate of tax by incorporating than a person making under $100,000 who isn't in a position to incorporate. A nurse making $100,000 shouldn't be paying a much higher rate than a doctor making many times more.

JKR wrote:

I wish the NDP were supporting the Liberal government's attempt to remove tax loopholes established through incorporating.I understand why the NDP are trying to score political points on this issue but in the long term I think the NDP would be better served if they were clearly opposed to loopholes that are allowing very many high paid professionals to shelter their income and pay relatively lower rates of tax. It's unfair that a professional making over $200,000 a year should pay a much lower rate of tax by incorporating than a person making under $100,000 who isn't in a position to incorporate. A nurse making $100,000 shouldn't be paying a much higher rate than a doctor making many times more.

Pondering wrote:

I really don't understand why the NDP hasn't and isn't focusing attention on these urgent issues. All this makes me very cynical about the NDP. They just don't seem to have the best interests of Canadians at heart. They seem to have the best interests of the NDP at heart.

After the electoral reform betrayal the NDP has no interest in supporting the Liberal agenda. From here on out it will be all opposition all the time. To damage the Liberals as much as possible. The Liberals knows there won't be any consensus from the NDP anymore. Nothing unites the NDP and Conservatives together than their hatred towards the Liberals. One of the reasons (not the main reason) the Liberals were out of power for ten years is that Stephen Harper and Jack Layton (later Tom Mulcair) worked together behind the scenes to supress the Liberals as much as possible, so they would be kept out of power. Will Andrew Scheer & Jagmeet Singh do the same thing? Only time will tell.

Mighty Middle wrote:

JKR wrote:

I wish the NDP were supporting the Liberal government's attempt to remove tax loopholes established through incorporating.I understand why the NDP are trying to score political points on this issue but in the long term I think the NDP would be better served if they were clearly opposed to loopholes that are allowing very many high paid professionals to shelter their income and pay relatively lower rates of tax. It's unfair that a professional making over $200,000 a year should pay a much lower rate of tax by incorporating than a person making under $100,000 who isn't in a position to incorporate. A nurse making $100,000 shouldn't be paying a much higher rate than a doctor making many times more.

Pondering wrote:

I really don't understand why the NDP hasn't and isn't focusing attention on these urgent issues. All this makes me very cynical about the NDP. They just don't seem to have the best interests of Canadians at heart. They seem to have the best interests of the NDP at heart.

After the electoral reform betrayal the NDP has no interest in supporting the Liberal agenda. From here on out it will be all opposition all the time. To damage the Liberals as much as possible. The Liberals knows there won't be any consensus from the NDP anymore. Nothing unites the NDP and Conservatives together than their hatred towards the Liberals. One of the reasons (not the main reason) the Liberals were out of power for ten years is that Stephen Harper and Jack Layton (later Tom Mulcair) worked together behind the scenes to supress the Liberals as much as possible, so they would be kept out of power. Will Andrew Scheer & Jagmeet Singh do the same thing? Only time will tell.

The NDP will do what's in the best interests of Canadians. Period.

Go after the corporations, make them pay their fare share! Until then, stop making everyone else in Canada pay for corporate greed!

Furthermore, if I was to do an actual search of all the bills either house is looking at at whatever stage, and researched who voted which way, I don't think I would find the NDP along with the other parties co operating somewhere.

Mighty Middle wrote:

JKR wrote:

I wish the NDP were supporting the Liberal government's attempt to remove tax loopholes established through incorporating.I understand why the NDP are trying to score political points on this issue but in the long term I think the NDP would be better served if they were clearly opposed to loopholes that are allowing very many high paid professionals to shelter their income and pay relatively lower rates of tax. It's unfair that a professional making over $200,000 a year should pay a much lower rate of tax by incorporating than a person making under $100,000 who isn't in a position to incorporate. A nurse making $100,000 shouldn't be paying a much higher rate than a doctor making many times more.

Pondering wrote:

I really don't understand why the NDP hasn't and isn't focusing attention on these urgent issues. All this makes me very cynical about the NDP. They just don't seem to have the best interests of Canadians at heart. They seem to have the best interests of the NDP at heart.

After the electoral reform betrayal the NDP has no interest in supporting the Liberal agenda. From here on out it will be all opposition all the time. To damage the Liberals as much as possible. The Liberals knows there won't be any consensus from the NDP anymore. Nothing unites the NDP and Conservatives together than their hatred towards the Liberals. One of the reasons (not the main reason) the Liberals were out of power for ten years is that Stephen Harper and Jack Layton (later Tom Mulcair) worked together behind the scenes to supress the Liberals as much as possible, so they would be kept out of power. Will Andrew Scheer & Jagmeet Singh do the same thing? Only time will tell.

There is a lot of BS and propaganda here. Mulcair was running against the Liberals and that was his job. This was not a conspiracy. Liberals need to learn to get over that.

The only thing that unites the NDP and the Conservatives is the illusion of Liberals. Each party is in it for themselves and each hates the other to some degree. The Liberals and the NDP are united in their hatred of the Conservatives, although Liberals find this politically not as useful as advancing conspiracies.

All parties will happily screw any of the others if they get a benefit. That is their job. They also work with the other parties at times if they see an advantage. The Liberals hate the Conservatives, but the will be quite happy getting together for a moment to screw the NDP if they can.

The problem with this Liberal presumption that the NDP is their toy for their benefit and they get really insulted when the NDP shows it is an independent party doing what is in its interest and does not see things according to the Liberal "masters."

The only reason I think the NDP should agree with Liberal policies once in a while is for their benefit. The NDP owes the Liberals nothing and they have been screwing each other over for years. Both parties recognize that increasingly they are competing for the same pool of anti-conservative voters. The stench of entitlement from Liberals and their posters here is why NDP supporters here often are angrier with the Liberals than the Conservatives.

I really dislike NDP supporters calling the Liberals and the Conservatives the same as they are not. But the NDP and the Liberals are just as far apart and the presumptions of common cause, and the need to get together, from Liberals stinks. It is legitimate for the NDP to recognize that it is different, that it has a legitimate desire for power and that the means to execute it would involve winning over Liberal support on the way to confronting the Conservatives. Neither the NDP or the Liberals are viable against the Conservatives unless they have won the first battle with each other. Liberals pretending otherwise is a perception of entitlement and delegitimizing the NDP of having the same ambition to advance policy that the Liberals show. and the Liberals are certainly aggressive to the NDP.

This just in - Jagmeet Singh has just resigned his MPP seat in the Ontario Legislature,

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There is a lot of BS and propaganda here. Mulcair was running against the Liberals and that was his job. This was not a conspiracy. Liberals need to learn to get over that.

How soon you forget Harper and Mulcair working together to kill the network televised debate in 2015. 

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

If you hate it when people are rude to you consider the fact that this denial- nile comment is extremely rude. You are not  the person to decide what soemone's motivation is. You disagree fine but claiming the other person is in denial as you do often is arrogant and ignorant and it can only lead to a complete lack of respect for yourself. You might want to ask yourself what you think you gain by putting that at the end of any post.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If you hate it when people are rude to you consider the fact that this denial- nile comment is extremely rude.

Says the person who said of Justin Trudeau

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Trudeau has more in common with a poodle than he has with his father

He (Trudeau) will be elected PM in that manner that prom kings are elected in high school

Democracy is about informed choices not trust me "I have great hair and a great right hook."

And you don't think that is rude? Remember what they say about what you write online. If can't say it to someone's face, you shouldn't write it online.

So Sean in Ottawa would you say any of that above to Justin Trudeau face?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am rather concerned about other things the government is doing -- for example the small business tax cut, a mistake and a knee jerk policy keeping a promise the government broke becuase it did not have the money and now meeting it ahead of other priorities becuase of political fallout from poor management of tax policy. In these uncertain and difficult economic times the government giving a tax cut like this to anyone who is not really struggling is a mistake. A bump in the basic exemption would have been a better move. But this is politics and the Liberals do not have the same priorities I have, despite thier rhetoric.

I wish the NDP were supporting the Liberal government's attempt to remove tax loopholes established through incorporating.I understand why the NDP are trying to score political points on this issue but in the long term I think the NDP would be better served if they were clearly opposed to loopholes that are allowing very many high paid professionals to shelter their income and pay relatively lower rates of tax. It's unfair that a professional making over $200,000 a year should pay a much lower rate of tax by incorporating than a person making under $100,000 who isn't in a position to incorporate. A nurse making $100,000 shouldn't be paying a much higher rate than a doctor making many times more.

I agree. I think that some people think you are stronger by opposing everything but I think your opposition is also more potent if it is not a matter of course.

Being able to say yes to some thigns and no to others enhances credibility.

The NDP seems to have difficulty deciding what to support and what to oppose because it does not seem to have a firm self-identity. The Conservatives on the other hand have a strong self-identity which makes it easy for them to react to situations. Conservative supporters and the public at large also have a clear idea of where the Conservatives stand. The Liberals identity is to be the party of the mushy middle between the Conservatives and NDP so being confused does not seem to hurt the Liberals. The NDP is the party to the left of the Liberals but the NDP's target voter is similar to the Liberals which complicates things for the NDP when it comes to determining their identity and thus what to support and what to oppose. Our FPTP system is at the heart of this conundrum as it forces the NDP to appeal to the median voter along with the Liberals. The Conservatives on the other hand are able to win elections by just aiming their appeal to right of centre voters. This whole process leaves left of centre voters out in the cold. The solution to this problem would be electoral reform but unfortunately the Liberals benefit from the status quo while the NDP is in no position to implement electoral reform. The best case scenario for the NDP and the left, now that the NDP has fallen into their traditional 3rd place spot, seems to be holding the Liberals to a minority. The worst case scenario is the Conservatives becoming government again with little over 1/3rd of the vote made up mostly of their core right wing supporters. It will be interesting to see how electoral reform is handled by the parties and advocacy groups going into the 2019 election. 

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Opinions about wealthy political people are a little different here than how you talk to people directly in conversation. But ittle point answering much here as you are very obviously trolling rather than interested in engaging in any real conversations. Perhaps at some point you will get sick of this and engage in a different way.

Sean in Ottawa Translation  "Do as I say, not as I do"

You are behaving as a troll and that is what you should expect to be called. I have presented opinons and you know exactly nothing about me and what I do.

You are the only severly negative force here comign on here only to pick fights.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Why don't you just do yourself a favor, and when you see a post by me, just skip over it. Don't read it and don't respond to it. That way it will make so much happier. 

That's what I do, except when I can't resist mocking him. I agree that we should all just ignore the former TerryTowel, now  known as Mighty Middle.

Ken Burch wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Why don't you just do yourself a favor, and when you see a post by me, just skip over it. Don't read it and don't respond to it. That way it will make so much happier. 

That's what I do, except when I can't resist mocking him. I agree that we should all just ignore the former TerryTowel, now  known as Mighty Middle.

In a screenplay, that would be called "the reveal".  How did you figure out who he was?

If both of you say that you "skip" over my posts, why did you respond to my latest reply? Saying one thing and then doing something else,

I don't know who this "Terrytowel" is. If you are so convinced we are one in the same, then by all means please report me to the mods. If you are so convinced, please provide proof.

Here is Meg's email meg@rabble.ca . Drop her a line to report me to the mods (if you are so convinced I'm this "terrytowel") and post your letter to Meg here that you reported me for this "impersonation" (which is false)

Put up or shut up.

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is true that if he had not misled the public about what he was doing (by correcting the information when it changed), and the public had not complained, he would not be in this position. Even if he had corrected the record and weathered the storm, he would not be in this position. Trying to hide behind the legality of his position does not change the apparent deception. He ought to have gone public at the time saying “Ms. Dawson has advised a better course and I am taking it.”

I don't care a hoot about Morneau. For the sake of argument, lets say the situation is even worse and it is proven that he actually did something illegal or at least bad enough that he has to be replaced. What difference would it make? He would just be replaced by someone who would promote the same policies.

We had a decade of Harper doing the most outrageous horrible things and in the end he got a majority. Even electoral fraud didn't touch him. Even after the Duffy bribery he still could have won in 2015. He was in first place at one point. Prove Trudeau is bad bad bad. He will still be re-elected unless another party convinces Canadians they can do a better job on the economy. It's not enough to prove the NDP could do just as good a job.

Get rid of Morneau, he will just be replaced with someone who will follow the same policies. It won't taint Trudeau. The NDP will be no farther ahead. Do you sincerely believe that in 2019 you will be able to point at Morneau as a means of swaying voters?

From Trudeau's perspective as long as the NDP is focused on that it is not focused on anything big that actually could cause problems for him in 2019. It's a long shot but if people actually understood P3s and the infrastructure bank do you think they would be happy? CETA? These are the kinds of issues that could sway voters if they understood them a little. All they need to understand is that they are being ripped off.

The NDP has very little air time and voters have a very short memory and even shorter attention span.

The divisions of left right and centre are meaningless. There is no large chunk of centre left voters being split between the Liberals and NDP. There is a big chunk of socially liberal voters that want economic stability and a path to success for themselves and their family and friends. They want a nice safe place to live and good health care, good schools, places to shop, etc. They don't care if Trudeau is a liar.

The Conservatives snap up all the social conservatives and economic libertarians. I think they are vulnerable on the social conservatives side. The Conservatives talk a good game but they don't really do anything for them. Many social conservatives are good people that also care about other issues, like the environment and poverty. They are not all like the idiots on message boards. There are the missionary types. There are the types that run soup kitchens and run charity drives or sew quilts etc. They genuinely do want to do the right thing.

Focus has to be on 99% issues. For example, as a platform item I would double the size of the auditor general and create a sister department charged with recommending systemic improvements. Privatizing has not saved the government any money.

I would pledge to try to remove the clauses in trade deals that allow corporations to sue the government in existing deals and to refuse them in new trade deals such as CETA and TPP explaining that there is lots of resistance in other countries too. I would pledge to include union representatives in trade negotiations. That would sew up every union vote in the country and have them campaigning full steam.

Start calling "medicare" "socialist medicare" and add socialist drug coverage.

I would suggest we change the name of Canada Post to Canada Communications and classify cell and internet as basic citizen services like roads and schools and anything else that everyone needs.

I could keep going but I think you get my drift.  I'm not saying adopt my specific ideas. I'm saying to mentally change your approach to addressing concrete high-impact changes you could make that most voters would understand and quickly support and that would be easy to defend. Nevermind left right and centre. Unless it's BIG ignore Trudeau. After decades under neoliberalism choose a few high impact yet feasible changes that would improve the lives of most Canadians.

Putting Sheer, Trudeau, and Singh next to one other leaves Singh the clear choice to me because he is the better man. It would be nice if other Canadians were like me and could just see it but I doubt that will happen. He's goingt to have to work to prove he can do a better job leading the economy. Even I will want to know that the NDP has the skill to run the economy not just good morals.

There are things here I agree very strongly with and things I do not.

The most important of all the things you raise is the idea of having Canada Post take on communication. This is a very good idea for a number of reasons and I think it would be good if you opened a thread to discuss it. It is too important to be left buried in a rebuttal.

The second proposal about the auditor is also something I agree with, although I think the problem is related to how we audit as much as how much. The audit parameters must be laid out in proposed legislation. Governments should declare who would get the benefits of a policy and who would pay the costs, what the specific measurable progress ought to be and what the risks are. If the auditor lays these out in advance you have an audit after the fact that is tracking the same issue as were declared before and the objectives are clearer. In the US they have non-partisan audit services capable to advise both parties of impacts prior to legislation being passed. This system is not perfect but we need something that is better than that. Presently we do not have much in this direction. It is left to the media and non-government sources to take an interest and they frequently lack the access to the information, budget or interest to do this well.

Your proposal to include unions in trade deals is solid.

I was speaking about Morneau's career as finance minister. I would always care about the position of the finance minister of the country. First there can be national economic implications if one is severely damaged. Secondly, I disagree with you -- I think here would be significant political fallout if he were to become more damaged. first it will lead to greater scrutiny of more specific policies. The Liberals on economics are always in a risky position and can be attacked from left and right and the policies of this particular government can be and are, even if it is unclear now who may benefit. Discrediting this finance minister is especially problematic because there is a third issue at play here. This government did not just win over current voters, it brought many idealistic voters to the polls for the first time. One issue alone would not be enough to have them not show up but this is one of several. In this context the government is more vulnerable than it otherwise would be. Studies of the last election have attempted to examine what the result of the last election would have been without that significant bump by new voters. More than a few have suggested that there would be a minority government today without it. They need to give a reason for those people to come out again.

As for the difference if Morneau were to be replaced—there are potential differences. The Liberals are not the Conservatives and they have a wide area they can be convinced to tread. If they lost this minister they could be liable to create policies to shore up one or the other side of their support.

The side they choose involves some calculations on their part. They may conclude that the Conservatives are only a threat if they lose significant support to the NDP and are falling in the polls. Otherwise they can be managed with a campaign that points to the social conservatism and extreme nature. Such a campaign is less likely to work if the Liberals are bleeding to the NDP. A forced change in finance ministers, might provide an opportunity to address issue relating to people falling out of the middle class to the bottom as we have seen from recent statistics. It is true the Conservatives would never do this but the Liberals when pushed hard enough could. A strong NDP and damaged Finance Minister could create that perfect storm.

You are making a mistake to assume all parties are equally vulnerable, or have equal opportunity, in certain situations. Each parties have a different complexion of available voters motivated for different reasons. Conservative voters get motivated by fear, what they see as economic prudence and self-interest. Their self-interest tends to turn to taxes, economic stability and forestalling change. This will trump petty scandals. Liberal and NDP voters have a different set of motivating factors and, yes, they share some of them. These include government making society better, (Conservatives do not see government as an engine for that and tend to view scandals as part of the problem of governance amid the lack of trust of government). This making society better is steeped in greater idealism and also practical when it comes to programs and employment etc. It may be unfair but I think the NDP and Liberal voters have a lower tolerance for scandals, particularly certain ones that speak to mistrust of government. You see, they benefit by mistrust of government whereas the ideology of Liberals and very much of the NDP requires greater trust in government. Not all of this is conscious.

So I disagree that proving Trudeau bad would be as electorally benign as proving Trudeau or any NDP as bad. The Conservatives are way better than the other parties on this, although the Liberals have been catching up. They understand that the rules for one party are not the same for another because each party needs a certain main voter to support them. The swing voter is important but in recent years the number of voters who may not vote at all will decide more than the small number who will actually switch parties. The Conservatives, in terms of actual voters probably track in a range no bigger than 10% between them and the Liberals or rarely the NDP. The NDP and Liberals in recent years may fight over a number greater than that, in part because they each view the other as a compromise if the first cannot get elected. I think with electoral reform the track could also drop to no more than 10%. The reason the number may look greater involves smaller parties but is more a function of getting people inspired to vote at all. What this means is if you have a swing for each party, of 10% leaning but unreliable voters and this group will be more significant given the previous numbers will always spilt, even if unevenly.

I also disagree that left centre and right are meaningless. People say this because they are not perfect splits but if you look at driving policies these are very strong indicators of where people will be. It is popular to question left right and centre but it is a division replicated around the world in politics because it does represent huge blocks of voters. I think where you are on the spectrum will decide largely your reaction to proposals such as yours. Some in the centre can go both ways but the ideology of the right would not even start to consider proposals. You need to understand what the Conservatives mean by the nanny state: they mean that the government should not and cannot make social and economic change and should merely provide an environment for others (mostly business) to do that.

I think you misunderstand Conservative voters. They may care about certain things but there are obstacles for them to support change in government, generally they tend to mistrust both change and government in general as agents of progress. This, to me is what makes them Conservative. This is why populism is quite extreme on the right when it appears and it does not look like mainstream conservatism. It is incorrect to call this as if it is a matter of degrees as it can be argued on the left.

I am not going to say one person is better than another between the leaders because this is not a friend competition. Singh is the best FOR ME because he is most likely to do the things I want to see done. Morals are principles and the public does not have a common set. We agree on some and not others.

Once again Jagmeet Singh says he would BEAT Justin Trudeau in a one on one cage match

"I'd win hands down. I've been a lifelong student of martial arts, I've been training and competing, I've competing in full contact competitions since a young age… it would be an easy fight for me."

And would he actually go head-to-head with Trudeau if he had the chance?

"Oh yeah," said Singh. "But I don't think he'd take it up."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jagmeet-singh-trudeau-cage-fight-a...

A more probable hypothesis is that the CBC article, when originally posted, contained that typo, and that in between MM's post and your loading of the article, a CBC editor corrected it.