2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[Lumber]

I don’t know if I asked you this before, but is it any easier to get child care now that it’s heavily subsidized? I’ve heard for years that just getting enough child care workers was a major issue causing the high prices.

Can't really say; my first kid was already in daycare when the program was announced, and my second kid had a priority spot because daycares like keeping siblings together. I can tell you that when I applied to a spot at CFRC, my daughter was already a few months old and we were looking for a 18-month old spot, so we had over a year to go, and we finally got the call that a spot was available just after my daughter turned 2.

I do know someone here who has their kid in a day-home, which a private day-cares and therefore not eligible for the federal proram. So, she's paying $40 a day because she can't find a public day care spot.

 

[foresterab]

I don’t know if I asked you this before, but is it any easier to get child care now that it’s heavily subsidized? I’ve heard for years that just getting enough child care workers was a major issue causing the high prices.

Can't speak for everywhere but hiring workers, at least where my child goes...does not seem to be affected. What has changed though is many unregistered "dayhomes" have flipped to becoming legal as their rates are no longer competitive. For ourselves it's about a $450/month savings minimum during the school year (when the subsidy applies here).

The kicker is summer when our payments will jump from $250 to $1600 for when school is out....they're still working on the summer rates but that's almost my wife's entire paycheck for the month. And if we don't pay we lose the slot for next year....

The federal money has provided for the day care providers a much larger pool of training incentives though which is positive. The day care training certifications are outside the mainstream academic stream and have opened up some skills training for many folks I know that normally would not have been able to afford it. A Level 1 (entry) position is very simple self study but a Level 2 (think basic supervisor) is an approximately 1 years worth of university credits (10 courses?)...or a university BA in one of select fields. A level 3 I'm not sure on the training but the equivalency is a BA or Masters...for ~$20/hr.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I had this exact same thought. The daily rate per child that the public daycares can charged is capped at $40 something dollars per child per day (with the Feds/Provinces covering up to 75% of that). Each ECE is legally limited in the number of children that they can simultaneously look after; I think it's 7 toddlers, or 9 school age children, or 3 infants. So, you can do the math; the most a single ECE can bring in is ~$300, or ~$78k/year. Remove from that the portion that goes to all the overhead in running the day care (rent, utilities, food, toys, salaries of non-child caring staff), and I cannot imagine how little money is left for people who volunteer to look after a half dozen toddlers all day. Shoot me.

It's a feel good announcement that leaves the dirty details to be sorted out by others.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Personally, I think that neither Trump nor Trudeau should be/have been able to remain in office

Why not? The US had a far-reaching investigation of long duration, and Trump instructed people to co-operate with investigators and provide what they asked for. (A word often used to describe the degree of co-operation was "unprecedented".) Trudeau hasn't really had a chance to get that rolling yet.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Public daycare subsidies are like public health insurance: you have a right to the funding, but you don't have a right to actual access to a provider. This was known at the time everyone was cheering it on. Shortages already existed and more were predicted. Another prediction: that the cost would have to rise considerably in order to increase wages to attract employees to meet demand.

Same thing will likely apply to public dental care funding, unless there is already a large number of dentists with a lot of open appointment slots.

So that'll be three rationing schemes that will be perpetually described to gullible Canadians as "free" whatever, and I can guess that well-off connected people are not going to experience the rationing much.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Why not?

Because I believe the focus on whether or not their involvement or (lack thereof) in the foreign interference by an unfriendly state in their favour rises to the point of criminal, or how transparent their response (or lack their of) is missing the point.

The bigger issue is that Canadians and Americans should not be accepting of having leaders that Russia/China wanted and interfered to get, placing Russian/Chinese interests before our own and those of the western world.

And if they are, they are. Own it, both ways.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sweet mother of pearl. If our response to anyone favoured by a foreign power is to insist they be evicted, foreign powers effectively control our electoral choices. You effectively grant them what you claim you want to deny them.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes. Well sort of. It's the Canadian CPC leadership thread, which got derailed from discussing the Canadian Conservative leader to foreign interference in elections. Combine the two, and the prevailing attitudes of Canadian Conservatives regarding election interference becomes quite germane to the conversation.

My bad, i get lazy with formatting on desktop, forgetting that mobile ignores list spacing if its not properly bulleted. Its a list of the common elements between Trudeau/China and Trump/Russia.


I was asking you to invert the partisanship in the lines I bolded in your post (the first and last) - to consider China-gate somewhat vapid, and that anyone that can(in 2020) vote Republican is a party before country person. I'm asking for some critical thinking surrounding partisan biases, because regardless if written from the right or left lens it's a fundamentally contradictory couplet.

Personally, I think that neither Trump nor Trudeau should be/have been able to remain in office, should be/have been rendered completely unelectable in the eyes of both the political establishment and the citizenry, and a big ole broom should make an appearance to sweep out the remaining lower level Russian/Chinese assets in North American elected representation.

Now, there are those that might consider foreign interference a vapid issue, or resign themselves to the opinion that "Foreign governments interfere or try to all the time. That is a known" and as such be willing to overlook prospective leaders being both friendly to and pushed on us by Russia/China. I disagree with that view, but I can understand the perspective where the "why" doesn't matter, only the "what" when it comes to policy objectives ie "I don't care that they're the next thing to a Russian/Chinese asset, I want to go where they're leading." But people with that approach should be consistent in it.

Now the real opportunity to build bridges is to acknowledge that people on both sides of the line believe in their respective versions of that contradictory couplet. That it's okay when their guy does it but the other is a threat to democracy. How does that happen?

Media silo's polluted by both foreign and domestic partisan disinformation convincing us that our guy is more innocent than he is and the other is more guilty?

Stark divisions fanning the flames and convincing us that its ok for our guy, because the other guy is going to be so bad for the country that winning is more important than anything?

The important thing is that for anyone on either side of that inconsistent fence is to understand that it's inconsistent, how they got there, and understand that the guy they disagree with got there the exact same way.

Personally I am happy enough that all this stuff is out in the public domain. I think all of this leaking and reporting, mainstream and blogging, will influence the next election a lot more than any formal Royal Commission.

In my view this is a free press at work.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sweet mother of pearl. If our response to anyone favoured by a foreign power is to insist they be evicted, foreign powers effectively control our electoral choices. You effectively grant them what you claim you want to deny them.

Is it interference if we are told to raise the defence budget, help more in Ukraine, buy Aegis, GBAD, F35s and P8s?

Or if a North Carolina accent tells a fellow worker he is doing the right thing by releasing that report the coworker released tp the PM last month....

Its all a game.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Sweet mother of pearl. If our response to anyone favoured by a foreign power is to insist they be evicted, foreign powers effectively control our electoral choices. You effectively grant them what you claim you want to deny them.

"Favoured" is not the same as "wanted and interfered to get" Nor does "unfriendly" equal foreign.

And neither caries near the same weight without the given leader acting in such a way that places serious suspicion that they're compromised and if notplacing their benefactors interests before our own and those of the western world, at least weighing them against each other.

Every country has interests. Doesn't mean that we should tolerate compromised leaders who put others before our own. . Having Putin's puppet/ pal in the White House was a bad thing and is to be avoided. Just as having Xi's at 24 Sussex. These shouldn't be controversial statements.

 

[QV]

Every country has interests. Doesn't mean that we should tolerate compromised leaders who put others before our own. . Having Putin's puppet/ pal in the White House was a bad thing and is to be avoided. Just as having Xi's at 24 Sussex. These shouldn't be controversial statements.

Don't you know that "Trump/Russia Collusion" was a complete hoax?

Trudeau knowing and doing nothing about Chinese interference because the LPC benefitted is somehow the same?

 

[IKnowNothing]

Don't you know that "Trump/Russia Collusion" was a complete hoax?

Trudeau knowing and doing nothing about Chinese interference because the LPC benefitted is somehow the same?

That he didn't criminally collude doesn't mean that the well documented and (near) universally accepted "sweeping and systemic" interference to his benefit didn't happen, or that he wasn't aware of it.

But this derailment goes nowhere, I'm not going to change your mind, and the CPC leadership thread was never the place to discuss LPC scandals.

Congrats- we've put almost 3 pages between the on topic CPC discussion you didn't like.

Shame on me for taking the bait.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Favoured" is not the same as "wanted and interfered to get" Nor does "unfriendly" equal foreign.

And neither caries near the same weight without the given leader acting in such a way that places serious suspicion that they're compromised and if notplacing their benefactors interests before our own and those of the western world, at least weighing them against each other.

Every country has interests. Doesn't mean that we should tolerate compromised leaders who put others before our own. . Having Putin's puppet/ pal in the White House was a bad thing and is to be avoided. Just as having Xi's at 24 Sussex. These shouldn't be controversial statements.

My observation doesn't change if "wanted and interfered to get" is substituted for "favoured". It still hinges on something a third party conceives and executes. Delegation of one's political control in such a fashion would be stupidity of the highest order.

There is no serious suspicion that Trump or Trudeau was or is compromised. It is unreasonable and wildly impractical to never work with a hostile nation. For example, the US is able, apparently, to treat with Iran. That didn't stop people from generating fanciful notions that Obama was somehow Iran's man, but those theories have no real basis except "He's dealing with them and they're not friendly. Oh, and he attended a madrassa once".

Trump was not Putin's puppet/pal. In addition to the occasional offhand remarks and gestures that partisans like to hold up as proof of their conspiracy theories, there are ample concrete policy things that were done that were contrary to Russian interests. Everyone really ought to get over that and become serious people. Likewise, that the Liberals have had a well-known and prolonged affinity for engagement with China doesn't mean Xi suddenly controls Trudeau. If there are people selling Canadian secrets or engaged in criminal fiscal arrangements, an investigation that is probably beyond the limits of what nervous Liberals would tolerate - and therefore an unlikely eventuality - could find some of them.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That he didn't criminally collude doesn't mean that the well documented and (near) universally accepted "sweeping and systemic" interference to his benefit didn't happen, or that he wasn't aware of it.

But this derailment goes nowhere, I'm not going to change your mind, and the CPC leadership thread was never the place to discuss LPC scandals.

Congrats- we've put almost 3 pages between the on topic CPC discussion you didn't like.

Shame on me for taking the bait.

You're the one baiting - "sweeping and systemic" overshoots the laughable amount of interference Russia was able to exert.

 

[IKnowNothing]

You're the one baiting - "sweeping and systemic" overshoots the laughable amount of interference Russia was able to exert.

Take that up with Robert S. Mueller. Or do only certain findings matter?

 

[Kirkhill]

Take that up with Robert S. Mueller. Or do only certain findings matter?

Short form: Yes.

That is why there are two lawyers in every courtroom.

The judge then decides what his opinion is.

 

[QV]

Anyway... shall we get back to what a threat to democracy PP is then?

 

[Remius]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1639319701154037793

Someone somewhere screwed up…

Edit: looks like they cleared it all up and PP will be attending.

 

[OldSolduer]

You're the one baiting - "sweeping and systemic" overshoots the laughable amount of interference Russia was able to exert.

FYI for those that care Kruschev took credit for getting JFK elected. It's not a recent thing.

 

[dapaterson]

O'Toole will resign his seat at the end of the spring session.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1641780108414316544