VOTE THEM ALL OUT!

It truly doesn't matter who is in the White House, the power is in the Senate.

If the Senate had been Democrat in 2014 then Obama's Supreme Court pick would've been confirmed.

If the Senate has been Democrat in 2016 then Trump would've been impeached in 2017.

If the Senate had flipped Democrat in 2018 then there wouldn't be over 1,000 House Resolutions piled up on the Senate Majority's desk.  

Next year the Senate gets to begin redrawing Congressional Districts again.  Republicans have been gerrymandering this system now for 3 decades and that has to stop!

The US Senate is the weak link in the checks and balances of the American experiment and while Trump needs to go, the White House is the wrong house to focus on.

23 Republican Senators are up for re-election this November 3rd.  Moscow Mitch McConnell and Lyin' Lindsay Graham are just 2 of them.  

If Biden wins the Presidential race but the Dems don't take the Senate then we've got a replay of the last 2 years of the Obama Administration where the GOP controlled Senate let over 150 judicial appointments (including a Supreme Court justice) remain vacant for almost a year just so his replacement could pack the courts and commit a bunch of high crimes and misdemeanors with impunity!

VOTE THEM ALL OUT!

CAN COVID BECOME A CLIMATE CHANGE BENEFACTOR?

Previous to this pandemic most companies were reluctant to have even a fraction of their employees work remotely, and it’s probable that more than half of the people who worked in offices and buildings before the pandemic but have been remote working since will eventually return to doing so after the transmission risks of Covid are mitigated (either through vaccine, herd immunity or because this virus becomes endemic).

But what if we took this disrupter and flipped it from a crisis to an opportunity?

Say for example, the Government of Canada were to create a modest Corporate Tax Credit of just $500 per year for every employee a company has that works from home at least 60% of their time (pre-existing telecommuters and new ones would be included but not those whose work qualifies for travel expenses more than 30% of their time).

AND say for example, the Government then provides every employee that meets the above qualification with a $300 per year Personal Tax Credit for working from home at least 60% of their paid hours!

It seems like that might not be enough of an incentive for Companies and Employees, but that’s not quite true, is it? In addition to the corporate credit the company would see corporate expense savings by not needing to “box” an employee, and in addition to the personal credit, each employee would save not needing transportation, clothing and food to get to and from that “box”.

And since 90% of all government infrastructure spending is in support of moving people around, with just 40% fewer people on the roads, highways and transit systems GOVERNMENTS AT ALL LEVELS would see a drastic drop in demand for infrastructure because fewer cars mean less work on roads and less demand for new highways while fewer commuters mean less investment in transit or at least, more concentrated and targeted transit investment.

And cutting any of that would save Cities, Provinces and the Federal Government HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS each year, surely more than enough to off-set the cost of those tax credits.

But more importantly, since one of the most immediate visible effects of the pandemic was pollution reduction in China (where we’ve seen smoggy skies clear for the first time in decades) and suddenly more clear water all around the Mediterranean (there’ve been reports of dolphins swimming up rivers around Rome for the first time in almost a century) the reduction in human activity caused by working remotely has a significant ecological benefit.

Meaning those modest Tax Credits not only benefit corporations and benefit their employees, but could also benefit our biosphere and the animals that live in them (us included).

Suddenly, the shift forced on us by necessity becomes a gateway to not only achieving the Paris Accords but possibly exceeding them.

And when people do need to go somewhere, well, driving is a lot more pleasant when you’re not bumper to bumper for hours on a drive that during the pandemic took only 30 minutes!

Isn’t that a win/win/win?

Think about it.

WRONGED, RIOT, REPEAT - the definition of INSANITY

I know I see the world differently than most.  I grew up buying into the Star Trek concept of inclusion, where "Infinite Diversity, Infinite Combinations" means that your differences don't have to be mine but they're neat and you should be able to celebrate them, and I celebrate your differences without feeling threatened by them.  Where your love for something I don't like shouldn't invite my scorn, just my acceptance.  Where my love for something you don't get gets the same treatment.  In short, respect because ultimately, if someone is passionate about something then we should celebrate that passion, unless it's harmful to them or others.

And this brings me to my take on BLACK LIVES MATTER.  Yes, of course they do.  And what that group experiences daily is sickening and we shouldn't be bothered about only when an extreme event happens.  I'm as sickened by a store clerk assuming I was first despite a person of colour standing ahead of me in line as much as I am a cop chokes a black man to death without remorse because I don't believe any life is more important than any other and I can put myself in the shoes of that other person.

Unfortunately, the reality is that limiting any call for action to a single group just because we want to highlight the difficulty and threat that group lives with is by its very definition... limiting.

To combat the root causes of Black Lives Matter we need to focus on the overlap, the commonality, they have with everyone.  And while examples outside the black community are more difficult to find in America there isn't a single issue Black Lives face that isn't in some way universal, but that isn't why we need to include everyone in this call to action.  

It's because when you focus on the common overlay you remove the racism from it.

Simply put, I'm not black, and because black lives have it so hard I won't lie, I'm thankful I'm not black.  But I am human, so what happens to black people in America doesn't affect me as it would someone in that community, but it affects me because I'm human.  

And it's because of that commonality that it bothers me that police are killing anyone. PERIOD.  

It bothers me that police are killing people they already have in custody.  PERIOD.  

It bothers me that police are violent and brutal with someone who is unarmed.  PERIOD.

It bothers me that police are confrontational with someone minding their own business, or targeting anyone, anywhere, without cause.  PERIOD.

None of which, in my opinion has anything to do with the colour of the skin of the victim.  I don't care if they're black, Asian, Muslim or First Nations: they're human, and humans shouldn't be treated like that.  PERIOD.

So if people are saying "ALL LIVES MATTER" because they know a white homeless guy down the street and his life is as important as a black man who was murdered by police, I get it, but you've got it all wrong.  

I want the police to stop murdering PEOPLE.  PERIOD!

And I don't care what colour their skin is.  I want Police to stop violently restraining unarmed people, regardless of the colour of their skin.  PERIOD!

I want police to stop pulling people over or stopping them on the street when they're not actually breaking the law, regardless of their skin.  PERIOD!

Because regardless of that superficial identifier, all lives matter!

And until we broaden the scope of that call we'll never stop this problem, because the more you make it about one group instead of being an ALL problem, the easier it is for people outside that group to sit it out and say, "well, I'm glad that isn't me." or "I don't belong to that group so I don't know if I should speak up".

But it is you, because ALL lives matter!  And the sooner everyone realizes that and calls on the government, the police and the courts to stop violating the rights of ALL humans we're never going to stop the constant assault on any one group of us.

Meanwhile, Muslims are treated like crap in places because of a few idiots in 2001; and Asians are being treated like crap now because of where a virus started, and all of this is wrong because those differences are as superficial as black skin and it's ALL born of the same problem.  None of us get to be outside this problem, any problem!  We're all human.  

And if you still don't get THAT, then be prepared for things remaining exactly as they are, because we've been trying it your way for decades, if not centuries, and you've accomplished nothing and never will so long as you keep focusing on the differences!

THE SUM OF ALL CANADIANS

Brit descendants have always complained about immigration, it's in their blood. The earliest cases are when the Celts invaded the Picts some time around 100BC, then came the Belgic tribes, the Romans, the Pelagians, the Saxons, the Norwegians in their viking longboats, the Normans, and on and on it goes without end.

Even in their colonies there continues to rage ire against each latest wave of immigrants: Against the Scots when they arrived, then the French, the Irish, then the Germans, the Jews through to the Italians, right through to the present day when an immigrant could come from any place in the world and be greeted by descendants of earlier immigrants bitching about them.

Each time a new wave of immigration has begun there's been gnashing of teeth about how the latest wave was destroying everything, and each time the sum of the people changed, grew, got stronger. It's been happening in Canada since BEFORE there was a Canada, but each generation repeats the same old gripes. "So and so are ruining things. They should go back where they came from..." Yawn.

Meanwhile there's no evidence any of the original Britons, the Picts remain, except that each wave of British immigrant continues to bitch about the ones that follow them. It's odd that a culture entirely built on integration of other cultures has always complained about it. It's hilarious when people who often have a rather weak command of English themselves (and its their only language) complain that the latest wave of immigrants can't speak it as a second, third or fourth language. It's even funnier that English is a language almost entirely based on words stolen from other cultures.

My neighbourhood is more than 50% Eastern European, a 10 minute drive in any direction takes me into a completely different culture, Portuguese, Iranian, West Indian, East Indian, Chinese, even French. I don't even need to board a plane to taste the world. That's amazing to me!

And while I love Paris, if you want something other than french food you're got slim pickings. It's a world capital and an international city but Halifax has a better selection of international fare than Paris does.

So I'm eager to see what the future brings. Eager to see what the next wave of immigrants will be? Eager to learn how their addition will further enrich the sum that is Canada? 

The future of my nation is an undiscovered country, full of ever changing diversity in a culture whose only saving grace is that its constantly changing. And I love that, it's exciting! But its also going to be funny to listen to the descendants of the most current immigrants gripe about the next wave that arrives. 

At least then we'll know they're one of us.

THE END OF NORMAL

I’m a futurist, a writer and a policy wonk.  This means I look at things and re-look at them, and then re-look at them, trying to figure out where we’re going, what’s going to happen, what’s likely to happen and why.  It’s not based on wish fulfillment so much as past performance by society in similar instances, my observances and experiences.  And while I may take an idea toward an extreme to prove a point the writer in me simply doesn’t let me get too far.

In short, the facts rarely conform to our wishes and we need to be open to explore them in order to either work through our acceptance of them or determine what we can do to control them.

The example I give you is Star Trek and to a lesser degree my Space Oddity Universe stories.  In both cases they’re futures predicated on the idea that tough times are ahead but certain things we’re capable of may allow us to aim more towards a better future rather than the dystopian one of our baser instincts. 

The biggest idea in both series is the idea of community.  Not the “tend the garden” and “put up a wall to protect” type of community, for that’s often represents the worst part of humanity.  I’m talking about the reaching out and looking after each part of community. 

It’s the concept of ‘Stone Soup’, an analogy where one person brings a stone to make soup with and then every one else brings one item they have, none of which individually can feed even the person who brings it (pot, water, scraps of meat, a carrot, a potato, etc, etc, etc) until the combination is not only soup but enough to feed everyone.  Another term for this is the “Social Contract” or to paraphrase John F Kennedy, “What you can do for the whole, not what can be done for you”. 

In short, ‘together we are better’.

And yes, that means all of us.  The son of a Syrian refugee revolutionized personal communication when he created Apple Computers and the grandson of a German immigrant who ruined America when he completely mismanaged a pandemic while focusing only on wealth and his fragile ego.

But I digress.

Just this century – and we’re only in the 20^th year of that – we’ve already had 7 major epidemics that were categorized as “worldwide” events (SARS from 2002-2004; Mumps 2009; H1N1 “Swine Flu” 2009-2010; MERS 2012 onward; West Africa Ebola 2013-2016; Zika Virus 2015-2016 and Covid19) and this is not including the devastating 2017/2018 Influenza Season in America which killed some 80 thousand people.

Very few of them began in “wet markets” but they all have one thing in common, they began in and spread through concentrations of human populations.  

This decade the human population will surpass 8 BILLION.  Even if Covid-19 kills the same percentage of humans that the 1918 Influenza did (which is quite wrongly called “Spanish Flu”) then this decade the human population will surpass 8 Billion.

And the more people we have the more likely we’ll be hit with another and another and another pandemic.  Some will be mild (Zika); other’s devastating (Covid-19), but one thing is certain, we haven’t seen the last of these things.

Many politicians have likened this to a war.  Well, we’re sure not thinking of it like that.  Wars are to be avoided if possible but if unavoidable then we need to ensure that our society is geared toward it.  One of the first things that happens when war is declared is production of materials needed to fight it.  The second is training of personnel.  The third is mobilization and preparedness.  The economy during war changes, often it grows, and yes, people die.

If, as is likely, we’re just now becoming aware that we’re in a war, and if we’re smart about our future, then we will pivot to a war economy.  Not a sheltering one, where everything pauses while the NAZI’s bomb us, but like London one that takes cover during each wave of the attack and then rises as soon as it’s over, cleans up, rebuilds, buries our dead and prepares for the next round.  And for the sacrifices needed to end it.

We will have to come to accept that there will be casualties.  But when you know there will be more deaths you prepare for it.  We will need to prepare for mass deaths and we will need to rethink our healthcare and how we will handle future breakouts to treat those afflicted in the hopes of minimizing the death count.  We will need to build or convert warehouses to store what is needed and then convert quickly to spaces ready to deal with it.

Our soldiers on this front line won’t wear khaki but scrubs, they won’t be drafted but incentivized, they won’t train with bayonets but with ventilators and when the next wave comes we won’t shutter up our industries but soldier on. 

We’ll have to.

Precautions will be taken, but casualties will come.  We cannot pause an entire society for months at a time over and over again and expect there to be anything akin to normal so if the new normal is disruptive then we need to be prepared for that.  If you know you’ll be navigating ice flows during the thaw then you better figure out how to navigate that!

Security screening at both ends of a trip must include a health component and the moment an area becomes infected then all travel from it must be funnelled to controlled spaces where the returning people are isolated to prevent spread.  Clearly if no outbreaks have occurred then these measures are not warranted, but the moment there is even a whiff of one we must act decisively and proactively to ensure that the monster is contained.

So what does that mean?  It could mean a hangar and warehouse are built at several major airports across the country, over in the cargo sections with the sole purpose of sitting largely and thankfully idle, so that the moment the W.H.O. spots an issue every plane from it is routed to those hangars for secondary health screening.  And that at the first sign of spread then anyone from those areas isn’t just routed for screening but mandatory isolation, as though they were already infected.  Sort of like what New Zealand is doing, but not for every flight all the time, just when there’s a reason – although the bar for activating this must be lowered considerably.

And while such measures are invasive, and expensive, as it would be in war, there’s an economy in that and we must embrace the new normal. 

PICK A LANE

For week's now Conservatives have been attacking the Government, in Parliament and through their supporters and bots - online - demanding we close the borders, get a stimulus going, help Canadians, protect our country, act faster.

They've been claiming the Prime Minister was ineffective and that Canada should've done what nations like China did.  Lock down the country, force everyone to stay home, limit supplies, declare martial law, blah, blah, blah.

And then, when the Government recalled Parliament so they could pass a stimulus bill, so they could get the authority needed to act faster to this rapidly changing crisis, what did these same Conservatives do?

They blocked it!

Seriously??  These bozos spent a month demanding the Government be more dictatorial, pointing to an actual dictatorship as the example to follow, and then when the Government tried to use the democratic system to increase their powers so they can actually do a measured fraction of what these idiots have been demanding the Harpercrits of this land accused the Government of being Dictators!

PICK A FRICKIN' LANE!!

And Mr. Andrew Scheer, acting interim leader of the Official Obstructionist Party of Canada, to you sir I say, STOP PLAYING POLITICS WITH CANADIAN'S LIVES!

Your sickening habit of saying one thing on your twitter and facebook feeds and then voting entirely the opposite is dis-genuine at best and treasonous at a time of crisis like this.  I'd say you should be ashamed, if I didn't feel that a good horse-whipping wasn't more appropriate!

And while we're at it, Andy, YANKEE GO HOME!  Seriously, your voting record since going to Parliament really reads like you'd be much more comfortable in America.  Come to think of your fecklessness would fit right in at the White House right now.  Maybe you could join a Trump Taskforce on Social Distancing.  It's the sort of feckless thing you're good at.

FAKE NEWS

There’s a book on my mind that I don’t want to write.  For decades I’ve noted and socked away research relating to trends in message control, what some call “spin”, specifically as its being used by the Right in Canada and the US.  But getting into that mindset is painful.  It's like method acting, it doesn't turn off easily, so I really don't want to write about it despite feeling doing so is a public service.

And before Defenders of the Right try to chime in, let me stop you right there.  As I'll show in this post Conservative message control is intentionally evil and insane.  And I have decades of examples and evidence to prove it.

Yes, all political movements are guilty of spin, framing and trying to stage or control their message, but its use by other political parties is largely limited to their ideal vision of things.  Where it gets co-opted is when the compromises necessary in a democracy often subvert the ideal as a matter of practicality in order to get the support they need to make any progress at all. 

For example: Obama’s Affordable Care Act was compromised when the Democrats agreed to some conditions certain Republicans wanted put in.  Even though the Democrats knew those provisions were being put in so those same Republicans could then attack the ACA as flawed.  The Democrats agreed because ‘something was better than nothing’.  The idea on the Left was to compromise in order to move the goal post forward.  Society is a living thing so once the bar moved a bit then fixes could be put in later.  

The idea on the Right was to force compromise so they could later prove it didn’t work.  The very idea that because one version didn’t work no version could work is at the heart of Conservative attacks.  Liberals and Democrats lose support because supporters on the Left expect perfection first time and Conservatives know that.  This by the way is the real reason we end up with Conservative governments.

Where normal ideas by non-Conservative parties are corrupted is when those compromises lead to people who force decisions that benefit them in exchange for their support.  More often it’s third party benefits, delivering on promises to Lobby groups in exchange for support of a Bill or entitlement style kick-backs to those third-party supporters (ie: I’ll vote for this Bill if Component X  of this other Program is put in my State.  Knowing the only party that can win the bid is my biggest donor, Company Y). 

This was how the US Space Program got to the Moon.  They put an entitlement project in nearly every State they needed Senate support for so that those elected officials wouldn’t cut the program for fear of causing job losses among their electorate – even though that increased program costs by more than 12%.   That's compromise.

And in case you’ve spotted the similarity, these examples are 'quid pro quo', this for that or something for something.  And such compromises are actually the foundation of how democracies are supposed to work.  The current issue with Darth Cheetoh in the White House isn’t that there was a ‘quid pro quo’, it’s what the ‘this for that’ was about – election manipulation with the assistance of a foreign government.

And there will be ‘quid pro quo’ in Canada’s new Parliament because in order for Justin Trudeau to maintain the 'confidence of the House' he will have to ‘this for that’ with another party or block in order for his government to survive.  Whether he does a formal coalition with the NDP that will see the tiny party of 24 members effectively control the legislative agenda this Parliament, or whether he seeks support on a Bill-by-Bill basis as Stephen Harper did when he had the longest lasting minority government in Canadian history, only time will tell.  The risk of a the Harper option is while it avoids the pitfalls and overspending that trying to satisfy two party bases require in a formal coalition it can also see the mood of the House turn on you like a bitch.

But getting back to the reason I'm reluctant to write one particular book: Ever since Mike Harris won as Premier of Ontario, and I suspect even a bit earlier when Preston Manning began the Reform Party of Canada, there’s only one party openly and actively lying.  Deliberately saying what they believe their base and voters want to hear in order to get and maintain power and then doing what they really want to, often in opposition to what they said, and mostly to satisfy their big donors.

And Republicans, Reformers, and Conservatives do this by using two ideas that either originated in or were refined in the 1940’s.  Gaslighting and Propaganda.

The psychological term gaslighting describes a form of psychological abuse in which the victim is gradually manipulated into doubting his or her own reality, or more commonly in this era being fed an alternate reality (“alt+facts”).  Although it’s more commonly attributed to the second film adaptation from 1944, it originated from the 1938 play “Gas Light” written by Patrick Hamilton.  

Gaslighting means emotionally manipulating others by undermining their confidence and calling their credibility into question.  In a relationship this is mostly a form of attack but the techniques are used by the Right to both frame their message and attack their opposition. 

The second part of that, the attack, turns gaslighting into an art by incorporating an additional paradigm: The teachings of NAZI Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.  Goebbels taught, “Always accuse your opponent of that which you are guilty of.”  And sadly, when you look at the facts, the history of Debt spending in Canada, the Parliamentary record, the Bank of Canada reports and nearly every independent study of Government both in Canada and the US for the last 30 years clearly show that if a Conservative says "only they can unite" something it’s only because they’re principally the ones sowing the seeds of division.  In fact, nearly everything a Conservative or Republican tells you is upon investigation actually the opposite of what they're doing.

So, as Steven Harper did for 9 years, they’ll say they’re balancing the budget even while they blow the $100 Billion that was paid on the debt by the previous government over 12 years, and then borrow another $70 Billion while they hack away at minor support services that the most vulnerable in society rely upon, leaving government with the greatest non-war time spending increase in Canadian history.

Or as the Republican’s have shown, the 2 terms of George W Bush and Trump’s so far have tripled the US Debt three fold increasing military spending under the guise of 'Defending America' while decreasing revenue through tax breaks that benefit only a tiny percentage of Americans, yet they continue to attack Healthcare as the thing that will bankrupt America despite it costing a fraction of what the tax cuts did while helping nearly half the US population.  And Obama’s debt went up at the slowest rate of any President in the last 40 years.

But if those last 2 paragraphs are a surprise to you its because you’ve been emotionally manipulated by others who have repeatedly and systemically called into question the credibility of independent facts.  Or as the man most guilty of gas lighting calls it, “Fake news.”

SHAME DON CHERRY

"You people" is one of many dogwhistle phrases which in most cases are specifically used by racists to put non-whites in the "them" category.  It's too often followed by "go back where you came from" which is difficult for many Canadians of colour since they were born here.

Quebec has: "pure laine" for original wool, which is like Harper's "Old School Canadians".

The current Conservative movement likes "416 Elites" which, since the majority of voters in the 416 vote Liberal is an easy "us vs them" phrase.  It's a double whammy because not only do most of the elites that work in the 416 actually live in the 905 area around Toronto, a majority of the voters in the 416 are people of colour, so it isn't JUST another dogwhistle "us vs them" partisan phrase, it's also another example of hidden racist code.

Personally I would've accepted a heartfelt apology from Don Cherry even though he ought to know better being a public figure. And I would've used this as a teachable moment for everyone else, seeing as a majority of people who say "you people" don't even realize they're being racist.

But mostly because I fundamentally believe in people's right to say stupid things in a free society so long as everyone else also have a right to gang up on them, rip apart their argument and call them stupid in large groups. 

That's not censorship, it's shaming and we don't have enough of that in our society anymore.

https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/dog_whistle_dumpster_fire.php?fbclid=IwAR1NSVJQXrF4WZHdx8xjjb8XWm7AyrEOm8jhYFaETMrHMLjcMV6KOMT57LA

SILVER LYING PLAYBOOK - Republican Style

One thing was sure this last Canadian Federal Election, the Conservatives are no longer hiding the interference and influence of their Republican cousins in Canadian politics anymore.  If that doesn't worry you then I'd guess, like Conservative party leader Andrew "No Dice" Scheer, you too are part American.
It bothers me.  ALOT!
I'd rather a fully French citizen become Prime Minister of Canada than even a 1/4 American for the very simple reason that America has invaded us 3 times in our history and one President actually ran on a campaign called "54-40 or Bust" which was a declaration of hostilities against the very existence of Canada.
And, as Martin Lawrence wrote in his book THE PRESIDENTS AND THE PRIME MINISTERS, nearly everything America has done in the history of Canada-US relations has been hostile toward the existence and sovereignty of Canada.
Not to put a fine point on it, but I trust Americans with Canada's future about as far as I can comfortably spit out a rat.
So rather than update my TOP SECRET CONSERVATIVE HANDBOOK I've begun researching a TOP SECRET REPUBLICAN HANDBOOK.  Fans of my Conservative book will note that the cover has at the bottom what I suggested the next logo for Canada's Conservative Party could be:

The book was published in 2015 but this wasn't a joke.  It was a satirical way of noting that the Modern Conservative in Canada was little more than a Republican cloaked in a Maple Leaf, and it's time to take that message home to them.
But the reason I haven't already written this is because wading into that swamp, and make no bones about it, the only swamp in Washington, DC is Republican made, takes a real toll on my psyche.
It's like hanging around with a bunch of Manic/Depressives, only they're the cynical, conspiracy laden-ed, tin-foil hat wearing type.
In short, it's exhausting!
So I'll share a link I'm using to research one angle of this new book, it's a bit of a give away because I'm going to apply these theories to a bunch of policy white papers to demonstrate how Conservatives, both real and imagined, think.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/communication-success/201908/8-ways-gaslighters-manipulate-and-control-relationships

And now back to the title of this post.  Don't worry, it's all connected.

Today the Conservative Party of Canada posted this:

I've nothing against seeing a silver lining when you're trying to keep your base energized but, the problem with this post is, as with everything Andrew Scheer and his Republican - sorry, I mean Conservatives - have stated in the last decade, it doesn't pass the smell test.

Worse still, it's basic math, meaning even a number challenged idiot like myself can prove it wrong.

In 2006 - the election where Stephen "Robot Boy" Harper first became Prime Minister of Canada, the Conservatives won 124 seats in a 208 seat House of Commons, while Paul "Mr Dithers" Martin's Liberals took 103 seats.  That means Martin formed an Official Opposition that had 83% as many seats as Harper and the Opposition side had 60% of the seats.

In 2019 - the election where Justin "Brownface" Trudeau was reduced to a Minority Government, the Liberals have taken 157 seats of a 338 seat House of Commons, while Scheer's Conservatives took 121 seats, and while that's almost as many seats as Harper had to form Government in a much smaller House, it means Andy heads a party that took only 77% as many seats as Justin did, and the Opposition side has only 54% of the seats.

Now the only place I know where 54% is higher than 60% is in Andrew Scheer and Donald Trump's addled brains.
But then, that's Gaslighting Method Number 6, isn't it?

CANADA'S GOVERNMENT for Americans

When I describe Canada's political system to my American friends I say:

EXECUTIVE: Imagine your Executive branch has no power, they're just a figure head, an official greeter, and instead of Veto's they just put the ceremonial stamp of approval on any bill that's been passed by the elected legislators. They aren't called President, that's our Governor General.

SENATE: Imagine your Senate is appointed, they aren't beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists because they don't face election. They do most of the committee work, taking bills passed into law by the House and working out the logistical implementation. It works best when they're former (experienced) legislators because they know the system, it works worst when they're semi-famous public figures who haven't a clue what the job is because they then cause Spending Scandals. One party has kicked their Senators out of the party so they aren't influenced by partisan politics. Another party that has never been in power says they don't want the Senate, but they haven't explained how the work will get done and they'll never form Government so it doesn't matter what they think. The third party will threaten to take their ball and go home every time things don't go their way, we just let them do that.

HOUSE: Now imagine your House of Representatives is the only place all the power is, your Speaker is called the Prime Minister, he actually has a vote like anyone else and he leads a Cabinet made up of people who are Ministers (instead of Secretaries) all of whom also sit in the House. There is a speaker but he's just a moderator. If the House has a majority of votes they pass their bills into Law after 4 rounds of debate. But we have 5 parties represented so if they don't have a majority there's a lot of wrangling, stuff still gets done but it has to be by compromise. It's a one stop shop and if the PM goes somewhere and agrees to something and has a majority in the House then he gets the job done, Unlike your President who then has to go back to the House and start a process of getting his deal approved.

There's no gridlock, no do-nothing sessions (unless its an unpopular minority government) and if they can't make it work then the whole thing is shut down and we have an election so the people can decide. It can happen within months of the previous election (if a very dysfunctional minority Government is elected) but no longer than 4 1/2 years after the last one.

WITHOUT ALBERTA

I've been to Alberta many times.  I lived there for 5 years.  I was there when the province abandoned the Federal Government and created their little artisinal boutique Reform Party.  I was there when the province feigned indignation when their regional little political movement failed to form Government and had to sit back in 4th place and listen to the Bloq Quebecois' Lucien Bouchard speak as the Leader of the Official Opposition in Parliament. 
In short, I witnesses the birth of the "Little Whiny Baby Wanting to Take Our Ball Home When We Don't Get Our Way" that is modern Alberta.
I'm not a fan.
So on election night, when the official spokesman of the "Big Whiny Baby" movement, Andrew "No-Dice" Scheer mentioned the Conservatives "won the popular vote" my sniff-detector went off.  The term "sniff-test" is a journalistic one referring to any statement a politician makes that carries a whiff of something foul and untrue about it.
The popular vote means nothing in a Westminster Parliament such as ours.  It wouldn't mean anything in a Regional Proportional Representation model either and if that surprises you then it proves you really haven't learned enough about PR to know whether you like it or not.
But that's for another day - very kind people who have said nice things about these posts have also reminded me I'm circumlocutious, so, back to the topic:

WITHOUT ALBERTA
I'm not going to talk about Wexit or Abexit or whatever nonsense the 63% of Albertans who didn't get their way this election call the stupid notion of Alberta leaving these days. 
Not this time.
Conservative support is largely saturated in Alberta and throughout the election we were watching these heavily skewed numbers make it look like the Nation was leaning Conservative when in fact Alberta was the bloated Conservative pissing pot weighing the nation down, and now that the final numbers are in I can demonstrate what that means.

WITHOUT ALBERTA - there were 14,472,789 votes cast.  14.4 Million.
And the House of Commons minus the Alberta seats has 304 members.

WITHOUT ALBERTA - the Liberals got 5,635,641 votes, the Conservatives 4,742,302 and the NDP 2,614,201 votes.  I'm not going to bother listing the other parties as they don't matter, even the Bloq, which got seats only because they too are concentrated in one area (the similarities between Alberta and Quebec agitate both equally so have fun with that if you can).
WITHOUT ALBERTA - those votes would've still given the Liberals 157 seats (exactly what they got); the Conservatives would've had only 88 (since 33 of their seats are in Alberta) and the NDP would have 24 (they'd lose that lone non-Conservative Albertan seat).  Since a House of Commons without Alberta has 304 seats then a Majority in that House requires only 152 and Trudeau, winning 157 would have a Majority.

NOTE THAT I HAVEN'T REMOVED SASKATCHEWAN which went entirely Conservative in their seat count for the same reason I didn't remove PEI which went entirely Liberal.  They may be symptoms of a problem, but they're not THE problem.

WITHOUT ALBERTA our Nation is clearly more equally represented and representative.  It's also more consistent with pockets going one way, and others going another.  Most importantly the results in the other 9 provinces and 3 territories better reflect the voting intentions of the Nation as a whole and by every measure Andrew "No-Dice" Scheer is still the biggest loser.

THE MYTH OF PROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION

Let's put an end to the myth of Proportionate Representation, shall we?
In John Pepall's book AGAINST REFORM he correctly states three very important facts about PR in regards to Canada:
1. PR means endless Coalition or Minority governments, all of which under Westminster Parliamentary systems are either unstable or frequently shifting their priorities.
2. Canadians have repeatedly indicated they don't like Coalition and Minority governments because...
3. Coalition and Minority governments do not have any one party clearly responsible or to blame or accountable and therefore in every nation where they exist budgets are completely out of control.

If you think Harper's wasting of the $100 Billion Chretien/Martin paid off the debt was bad.  If you think Harper's further adding of $70 Billion to the debt through his nepotistic Canada Action Plan vote buying scheme was bad.
If you think Justin's $50 Billion investment in infrastructure that stimulated a stagnant economy was bad.
THEN imagine doing that PLUS trying to appease the additional demands of your coalition partners!!

The 4th reason Mr. Pepall gives against reform on all counts is that there's no way a political party can institute a political system reform without trying to put in, or exclude, a measure that benefits or hurts it.  None.  It's ridiculous to even expect that.

And the 5th reason Mr. Pepall gives against such reforms is that Canada is at the top of International Stability lists, Democratic Responsibility lists and at the bottom of Corruption Indexes.  In short, the system we have has ensured a stable, functioning and responsible democracy for 150 plus years so anyone wanting to change that is clearly trying to de-stablize us.

But let's pretend for a minute that a consensus is possible about PR.  That of the dozen or so possible systems out there, a majority of Canadians, or even Canadian politicians, could agree on one system.  There's no evidence of this being the case, and even when PR referendums have passed in places like BC no province has instituted one because none can get consensus on which method to adopt [see: item 4 for the reason why], but let's pretend that consensus on a Proportionate Representation system has occurred.

And because this is about myths, let's pretend a Regional Proportionate Representation system was in place, then, as pollster and the mind behind 338Canada.com, Philippe J. Fournier worked out in a recent article for MacLeans....

Under First Past The Post, right now the Liberals and Conservatives would each get around 132 seats.  They'd then need the NDP's 33 seats, the Greens 4 and the Bloq's 36 to either support or abstain from defeating them.

Under PPR, right now we'd see a minority government under Andrew Scheer with 112 seats, the Liberals would have 109, the NDP would have 61, the Bloq 23 and the Greens 32.  We'd have pretty much the same situation in government where 1 of the 2 main parties would need the smaller parties to either support or abstain from defeating them, but no one in Canada would have an MP that they elected or could turn to for help, and the country would never have a hope of having one party accountable for the decisions of the Government because this sort of mess would happen every damn election.

But at least the NDP and the Greens would have more seats - so that would make it all worth while, right?

Barf! 
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-338canada-projection-if-proportional-representation-was-real/

THE GOOD NEWS

Don't Panic!
The world will not end this year.  In fact I'm here to tell you that regardless of the outcome of Monday's Canadian Federal Election it's unlikely anyone will be affected for at least a year.
As of today, according to an aggregate of all polls, there is a zero percent chance of the Scheer Conservatives getting a Majority government, and while the two main parties are neck and neck in just about every measure at the moment, none of it really matters.

The most likely scenario right now is that Andrew Scheer becomes Canada's Prime Minister in a minority Conservative government.  So let's look at that:
In 2006 Stephen Harper formed government and despite claiming he would balance the books and cut, cut, cut he ended up spending $50 Billion more than planned that first parliament because he didn't have a majority.  Harper was a skilled tactician, a bully and a cunning negotiator and he couldn't do much more than make matters worse for the Federal coffers by cutting the GST 2%. 
I can't stress this enough, Andrew Scheer is no Stephen Harper.  If he forms government he's doing so in the most hostile parliament in Canadian history. 
By convention in Canada, if Scheer's party gets the most seats then he will be given the chance to form government but as the Canadian people won't want to go back to the polls any time soon, the most likely result of his government losing a non-confidence motion is the Governor General will turn to the other parties and ask if they can form a coalition.
Thing is, from day one I've been getting a Joe Clark vibe from Andy Scheer.  Except in Mr. Clark's case he had actually completed his degree, got a Masters in Political Science and gained the respect of people outside Ottawa as a journalist where he honed his ability to form sentences.
Andy is barely able to keep track of his own lies.
The point is a Scheer government will be, like it's leader, largely impotent.  The only hope he'll have to avoid an election and outlast Clark's 9 months is by conceding to the majority of the house and since he doesn't have the skill and cunning of Harper and isn't facing the shaky confidence of Paul Martin, don't expect he'll be even a third as effective.
And the last thing Scheer's government will need is a fight against the Government's unions.

The second most likely option is that Justin gets a minority.  He'll have two options.  Try to run it alone, meaning he'll need to stick to things that the NDP or Greens won't take offense to in order to avoid a non-confidence vote, or he'll need to copy his Dad's 1974 playbook and form a loose alliance with the NDP or Greens to get the plurality he needs to stay in power.  In both cases he's not going to be able to push anything through Parliament that's too ambitious or challenging unless he also takes a page from Harper's Minority playbook and gets the consensus on the Bills before they're put to the House.

Either way, despite all claims that minorities governments have been progressive, the only thing that's true of all 13 cases of them in Canadian history is you can kiss balancing the budget good-bye!  Too many hands with too many agendas and multiple bases to please are going to mean spending.

And sadly for Conservatives, I predict the next election will be within 12 months, Justin will still be around for it, Scheer won't and all the old-news crap they've been trying to use on him won't mean a thing, particularly if the scenarios happen in the sequence I've listed them, because if Canadians don't learn from this election what the cost of splitting the vote is, how important strategic voting is to keep Conservatives out of power is, then this country will get the government it deserves.

And God help us if we do!

THE FANTASY OF A MINORITY REPORT

There's a cute fantasy circulating around the internet right now.  It's the fantasy that minority governments are good things.  They're particularly popular among Unionists NDP supporters, like this one:

Well, I hate to crap on a wonderful fantasy but this is oft-repeated disinformation.

1. The Freedom of Information Act was brought in under Pierre Trudeau's majority government in 1983 as part of a NATO wide set of initiatives so that isn't even close to being correct.
2. The Canada Student Loans act was an update of the Dominion-Provincial Student Loan Program from 1939 so also a bogus claim.
3. Same-Sex Marriage came about under a majority government under Liberal Paul Martin, despite NDP's Jack Layton signing a coalition agreement with Harper and the Bloq to bring Martin's government down in favour of their own failed coalition.
4. The rest were brought in by Liberal Lester Pearson, a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize, and would've been enacted them even sooner if he'd had a majority government.

Tommy Douglas' only valid part in any of this is that he introduced Universal Healthcare to Saskatchewan and was a proponent of it in the Federal Parliament, but since the committee that recommended it to the Government was begun by Progressive Conservative (and fellow Saskatchewaner) John Diefenbaker and passed into law under Pearson by 177 votes to 2 the NDP were irrelevant to its success by that point.

And our current Canada Health Act which ensured stability and accountability to Universal Healthcare in Canada was passed by Pierre Trudeau's majority in 1984.

The only thing all 13 minority governments have in common is that each and every last one of them blew the budget to hell, raising the debt at least 3 times faster than would've happened under a Majority government AND allowed the "allies" to point the finger of blame at each other the next election.

Minority Governments are not safe, good for productive.  They certainly aren't desirable.  At least not by any responsible citizen familiar with history.  But hey, if we actually learned the lessons of history instead of repeating the mistakes over and over again we wouldn't be on the verge of making half-American and Trump-Lite Conservative Andrew "I don't even know what the truth is anymore" Scheer our next Prime Minister!  Would we?

HOW VOTE SPLITTING HELPS CONSERVATIVES

Primarily Conservatives win elections using three tactics:  

The first is Gerrymandering.  

In America, the first requires that they control the Senate on any year ending in the number 1 (1991, 2001, 2011, 2021, etc).  The reason for this is the Senate controls the redrawing of election districts following their census, which is done every ten years.
Since whoever control the Senate gets to redraw the election map, by focusing on winning the Senate over the House of Representatives then, the Republicans get to gerrymander all the districts, typically to their benefit, thus making it easier for the Republicans to with both.
Funfact: Since 2000, the Republicans have only lost the House for a total of 4 years.

In it's simplest form gerrymandering is taking a pocket of Democratic voters and breaking them up, diluting their vote, into any surrounding pockets of Republican voters.  The idea being what might've been 5 Democratic districts now becomes 3 Republican ones and only 2 Democratic ones.

But this happens in Canada too.  In 2014, Harper's Conservatives added 30 seats to the House of Commons.  Dis-proportionally those seats were in Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC, areas that are safe Conservative seats.
The rest were in areas of the country that Conservatives consider "Hot".
Mississauga got a new one and with it the city went from having basic shaped ridings to funny shaped ones.
The borders between the new ridings cut right through Liberal voting neighbourhoods, grouping them with larger populations of Conservatives and swing voters but the process of Gerrymandering is relatively simple, even in a complex multi-party environment like Canada.

GERRYMANDERING 101:
Say for example, each symbol represents a the political stripe of each neighbourhood in a city.  The city had 2 ridings but with a bit of population growth (as found in the census) the Government decides to make 3 ridings, and being Conservative they want to break up that pocket of Liberalism so they don't have 2 long-term safe seats anymore. 

The second is Attack Ads.  Attack ads are different from Negative Ads (which attack the policies of your opponent) in that they only go after the person you're campaigning against.  

Using the 2019 Canadian election as an example: Trudeau comparing Scheer's platform to Doug Ford's is a Negative ad (and wholly accurate), while Scheer bringing up things that Justin did before his Father and Brother died, before he was in politics, before he became Prime Minister, is an Attack ad.

In my opinion any party resorting to Attack Ads has nothing to offer.  Compare and contrasting platforms, while unpleasant to sit through all the time, are at least valid.
If Andrew Scheer and Doug Ford met in multiple strategy sessions and Scheer campaigned for Doug when the latter was running for Premier, then it's valid to question whether the disaster Doug has made of Ontario would be repeated on Canada if Scheer won.
Negative Ads at least help the voters identify whether they should vote for the types of policies a candidate supports.
Attack Ads means you have nothing to offer and you're a coward with the maturity of a High School mean girl.  Most of what you say is rumour and too often unfounded.  A candidate running Attack Ads is no different from a bully.

And that's how Andrew Scheer ran his very first campaign for the House of Commons in 2004.  He went up against the longest serving member of the HoC in history and was losing a tight race against this well respected member until he started spreading rumours that his opponent, Lorne Nystrom, was "soft on child porn".
There was nothing to substantiate this claim.  The Conservatives wanted tougher punishments for people caught with child pornography and Lorne wasn't Conservative.  The House had never voted on it so there was no way to know whethre Lorne was soft or not.
But Andy spread it and Andy won that election.  By only 861 votes.
Even the Conservative National Post described Scheer like this way:
"He was 25 years old. He wasn’t from the riding — he’d barely lived in the province two years — and his work experience amounted to little more than a gig busing tables and a few years in the office of a disgraced MP."
Scheer was picked to run against Nystrom because the Conservatives couldn't find anyone else willing to.  Seriously.  He was a hat holder.

The third method Conservatives use to win is Voter Suppression.

This too takes multiple forms.  It can be doing things that keep people who would vote Liberal/Democrat from being registered to vote.  Requirement of ID is a good one.  Since many poor people can't afford cars they don't have driver's licenses, which means most don't have picture ID.  If the Voter Registry requirements are rewritten so you have to have picture ID to vote then a lot of poor voters become disenfranchised.
In America this is also a way to suppress the Black and Hispanic vote, votes that typically go for Democrat candidates.  For the GOP that's a win/win.

But there are other ways to suppress voters.  And one that's become quite common on both sides of the border lately is the little known fact that Conservative voters are so fearful of progressive policies that they will vote Conservative even if they don't trust their candidate.  In study after study it was shown that Conservative voters believe ALL politicians are corrupt but at least theirs agree with their values.
However, those same studies show that Liberal voters expect a high standard from their candidates and won't vote if they don't believe their candidates are moral.

So by attacking ALL politicians Conservatives only discourage Liberal voters.

The election of Trump as President provides the best example of this.  Democrats who wanted Bernie Sanders, or were convinced Hillary was corrupt, stayed away from the polls.  It felt like a safe thing to do.  Even Trump thought Hillary was likely to win on Election night.

The 2011 Canadian Federal election, the one where Conservative Stephen Harper finally got his majority government, was also the Canadian Federal election with the lowest voter turnout.  So fewer people went to vote, and yes, the Conservatives had snuck into an omnibus bill additional restrictions for registering to vote (under the guise of preventing voter fraud even though the only confirmed instance of voter fraud in Canada this millennium was perpetrated by his candidates in the 2008 election, had nothing to do with voter ID and one of Harper's MPs ended up serving time for it).

But the 2011 election demonstrated just how effective splitting the Liberal vote is for Conservatives and that's the fourth method, which by the way only happens in places like Canada where there are multiple parties.

The Canadian Method 4 - VOTE SPLITTING:

According to the Gallagher Index the disproportionality of parliament in the 2011 election was 12.45, mainly between the Conservatives and NDP on the one hand, and the Liberal, BQ and Green parties on the other.  

From this we can see that the percentage of seats swung between the parties can be calculated as:

• Liberal to Conservative: 4.66%

• Liberal to NDP: 9.90%

That's a lot of splitting but what does it mean?  Well, almost all of it represents the undecided voter, a person in the center who either didn't go to vote or was convinced to change their vote from a Liberal one to a Conservative or New Democrat.

And while you'd think 9.9% of the Liberal vote going to the NDP wouldn't benefit the Conservatives, not only did it get Harper his majority, but it put Jack Layton as the Leader of the least effective Opposition in Canadian history, somehow being less effective at holding the government to task than Lucien Bouchard's BLOQ QUEBECOIS was in 1993.

And here's the kicker, Harper got his majority despite 5.24% of the seats leaving the Conservative column and going to the NDP.  So, do you still think the two parties have nothing in common?

When I wrote "THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY NDP" in the Top Secret Conservative Handbook, I wasn't just editorializing.  Election after election have shown the Conservatives give only cursory swipes at the NDP because they don't threaten them and the stronger the NDP is the weaker the Liberals are and the better chance the Conservatives will get a majority.

And look at the Gallagher chart again.  Harper got almost 54% of the seats in the House of Commons with only 39% of the vote.  As of last night Scheer is within the margin of error for that same number.

Unless you're in one of the handful of ridings where the NDP, BLOQ or GREENS are second to the Conservatives, the only progressive vote that doesn't benefit Andrew Scheer is a vote for the Liberals.  And it's easy to tell what your riding is like: you can find it's latest tracking right here at 338Canada.com

COSTING CONSERVATIVES

Dr. Jennifer Robson (@JenniferRobson8), Associate Professor, AKC, Carleton U Teach: political mgt & policy. Research: social policy & poverty Prev: worked in gov & vol sector provided the following info on Andrew Scheer's finally released Conservative Platform. 

She posted the following on her twitter feed:

"New data folks. Scheer & the Conservatives keep claiming that 80% of "Canadians" are paying more taxes today than under the previous government. I've already commented, at length, on the problems with this claim (it's from a flawed study on ONLY families with kids, it ignores key credits.
I just spent some time looking at the CRA's data on ACTUAL federal taxes paid (not simulations or projections). I looked at 2014 (more indicative, IMHO of tax trends under the last government than 2015), adjusted values to constant $ & compared to most recent (2017 tax year) data.
In 2014, mean personal federal income taxes paid (BEFORE refundable credits & benefits) were $5,262.  In 2017, mean personal federal income taxes paid (BEFORE refundable credits and benefits) were $5,237. $5,237 is NOT bigger than $5,262.
If it were true, as the @CPC_HQ keep claiming, that 80% of Canadians are paying MORE then we shouldn't find that mean personal federal taxes are lower, in constant dollar terms. Remember folks, this is BEFORE refundable tax credits like child benefits, GST credit ++
Here are the CRA tables in case you want to do the math for yourself: Source for 2014: (CPI, 1=1.0883)

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/income-statistics-gst-hst-statistics/individual-tax-statistics-tax-bracket/individual-tax-statistics-tax-bracket-2016-edition-2014-tax-year.html

and 2017:
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/income-statistics-gst-hst-statistics/individual-tax-statistics-tax-bracket/individual-tax-statistics-tax-bracket-2019-edition-2017-tax-year.html"

Learned people are looking at this and saying it's full of cat pooh.  Even the Conservative endorsing Globe and Mail has come out against it.  But Scheer will be Canada's next Prime Minister if people don't check their riding out at 338Canada.com and vote to keep them out of power.

NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO WAIVER - YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU!

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

The shortest way to describe what the Social Contract is uses JFK's famous line: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"
The slight difference between that and the Social Contract is this, replace the word "country" with "society".
The idea of the Social Contract is that we are caretakers of each other.  This actually was a founding principle for Canada.
Where the Americans had "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" we had "shared sacrifice, shared reward".
So the idea of a Social Contract is pretty simple.  You're not the only one here, you didn't get where you are by yourself, you need to keep that in mind.
When I was young I voted with the bias of dogma, partisanship and was I easily swayed by East/West tribalism.  I voted Conservative largely because out west you're told all the time "The West Wants In" and "The East Hates the West" and "Quebec is the spoiled child of Confederation".
It doesn't matter whether it's true.  It's part of the mythos of Western Canada and is as firmly entrenched now as it was decades ago when I was a child.
But it's a myth.
How do I know that?  Premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney, has been sniffing around Ontario and is already being whispered as campaigning to replace Andrew Scheer if Scheer doesn't form government.  Except Jason Kenney is also claiming Alberta may leave if Scheer doesn't form government.
Which is it, Jason?
So its clear that Mr. Kenney does not subscribe to the concept of the Social Contract.
And he's only in it for his own interests, which you can tell because right now, as I type this, he's playing both sides of the street, threatening to take his Province and go home, while vying for the top job in the party.

Now if I were still young I would probably vote Conservative.
I'm doing very well now and provided I ignore the fact the math that Andrew Scheer is pushing doesn't add up, and a lot of stuff he's promised was promised by his predecessor Stephen Harper, and didn't happen then either, provided I ignored all of that then on the face of it the Conservative Platform would benefit me very much.
What I'm saying is I'm very well off now.
I have boots, and bootstraps, and massive savings, and the ability to spend 4 grand on a Paris weekend at the drop of a hat, and spend hundreds at a comic shop on toys because of a whim, and buy all sorts of new things for the house, and get a brand new car which I can pay for in cash.
In fact, last year, for our 20th wedding anniversary, we spent $10,000 on one day!  We didn't need a loan, we didn't sweat the extravagance, and we had a blast.
It was one of the greates days of our lives together.
But I'm not in the 1%, or the 10%, or probably even the 25%, yet by every measure, if Scheer could keep even half of his promises I'd be better off voting for him.
But I'm not voting for Conservatives.
The reason why is because when I look back, every time I ran into difficulty there was a Conservative government working against me.
I was raised a single child in a single parent household, on welfare, at a time that was a rarity.
We moved from Ontario to BC when I was 7 because staying in Ontario meant I likely wouldn't get to complete my high school graduation, and my mother really wanted that for me.
Back then Ontario under Conservative Bill Davis would've cut me off at 16.
While NDP run BC on the other hand didn't have a Conservative leaning government and hadn't discovered austerity yet, and BC wouldn't until I was 20 years old, when they made it impossible for me to complete a University education because they wouldn't give a welfare kids student loans unless it was in a trade.
And every other time I had difficulty, what could've helped, what used to be there, no longer was and each time that was because of a Conservative government.
Now I've rarely worked with anyone who didn't think I was smart.  But that's all self-taught.
And my situation now is the result of those smarts being used to learn how to make my own boots, then my own bootstraps, then position myself so that even if a Conservative government got into power and cut thing I would be okay.
But that's me NOW.
I look at kids the age I was when we moved to BC and I can't find the extra-curriculum programs that kept me from getting into drugs or suffering from depression.  They're not there where Conservatives exist, because Conservative governments cut them and attack other parties whenever they try to reinstate them!
And even though they are the number one spot for access to the internet for the poor and a free source of books that helped kids like me make our own boots, the Libraries I used to self-educate at are right now being closed by Conservative governments in cutbacks.
And the super engaged teachers who made sure I didn't fall through the cracks have left public schools because of Conservative government cut backs.
So if I was a kid now, in a society that has experienced decades of Conservative cuts to benefit voters like myself, then I would likely have no option but to go into a trade.
And while that can be very rewarding, and we need them, it's not a skill set I have.
So instead of being very successful and respected for what I do I'd likely have been ruined by mistakes made in a job I had no business doing.
And I'd likely be bitter, depressed and dependent on drugs, alcohol or homeless because of it.
Instead, I vote Liberal now.  To slow those cutbacks, hopefully as I've seen with Trudeau, reverse some of the long-term selfish based damage we've done to the most vulnerable.  I vote Liberal because they're the closest to the center, a place a compromise where if we're going to go into debt it's going to be for infrastucture spending, not vote buying tax breaks for people like me.
I vote Liberal because I believe in the Social Contract, and except for a handful of seats in places like Hamilton and Vancouver Island, they're the only party that can stop more Conservative cuts.
Andrew Scheer's platform costing was released today.  It's heavy on cuts to infrastructure to pay for cuts to revenue from people in my tax bracket and higher.
It's... oh, what's the word, very Repuglican.

And that's not very Canadian to me, it's certainly not what I believe is required under out Social Contract.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-conservative-platform-unveils-billions-of-dollars-of-new-spending-cuts/

MORE COUNTERS TO CON CLAIMS

TRUDEAU IS THE WORST PM EVER/HE'S EMBARRASSED US ON THE WORLD STAGE
Nope, that's not how the world see him:
"...the cross-party consensus that Trudeau is slight and phony doesn’t survive even a cursory examination of his record. An independent assessment by two dozen Canadian academics found that Trudeau has kept 92 percent of his campaign promises, the most by any Canadian government in 35 years. He is measurably, demonstrably the most sincere and effective prime minister in living memory. He is the rare case of a man whose virtue-signaling has distracted from his real virtues."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/trudeaus-progressive-style/599203/

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH ANDREW SCHEER HAVING DUAL CITIZENSHIP
Not according to Andrew Schrew, who in 2005 said:
"I have a few quick questions for anyone who thinks that Michaelle Jean is a good choice to be our next GG.
1) What are her qualifications? What experience does she have that would assist her to carry out her duties as our head of state, including the potential to be a referee in a minority government situation?
2) Does it bother you that she is a dual citizen (France and Canada)? Would it bother you if instead of French citizenship, she held U.S. citizenship?"
As usual, Conservative questions apply as much to themselves as their intended target.  Unless he was testing the waters and when the hate bubbled up about Ms. Jean he decided it was best to keep his American citizenship to himself (and retain it all the way through his Speakership, a Leadership race and half way through an Election before being caught and then hinting he'd get rid of it (I bet he never does!).
https://web.archive.org/web/20051208133657/http://andrewscheermp.blogspot.com/