Oops, *their. Wish there was an edit feature :)

Is it irony that you believe a department that includes "Gender Equality" in its name should automatically disqualify male individuals from serving as the political representative in cabinet? W.A.G.E. as a department continues to be busy with programs and funding even with Steve nominally in charge.

Steve, your insistence that the lack of a dedicated cabinet minister for WAGE is equivalent to the elimination of the department appears factually wrong. Your intransigence on this, when a deputy minister/top level bureaucrat remains assigned to this portfolio, make me question your judgement.

I enjoy the Prime series for what it is, a series inspired by the book series and borrowing from it, but only faithful to some of the main narrative and character arcs. Very entertaining and compelling in its own right, but not necessarily for those looking for the book-accurate portrayal.

... but that doesn't make the cabinet downsizing choices objectively wrong. Now, if they actually ended those departments or stopped working on behalf of those groups simply because there isn't a cabinet minister sharing that title, it would certainly be more concerning.

It's your right to assert your opinion with confidence, but perhaps you needn't declare that your opinion is objectively correct. Is it unfortunate that W.A.G.E., Seniors, Mental Health & Addictions, Diversity, and several other ongoing gov't concerns no longer have individual cabinet rep, (1/2)

Don't cloud the issue by being reasonable! If there isn't a cabinet minister that has the specific area of concern in their title, that area obviously isn't being considered 🤣

I hope it has a Klaus Kinski Care Bear!

If all the world's a stage, that seems harsh ;)

Obligatory - www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XTt...

Really just a placeholder cabinet (IMO), assuming the NDP still plans to let the government be brought down. If the Liberals manage to form the next government, then Carney's cabinet choices will be more interesting to watch.

It's interesting that, amongst the 38 OECD countries, the 8 countries with the greatest parlaimentary voting turnout (> 75%) use Proportional Representation rather than First Past The Post.

I think that the idea of better turnout being linked to better platforms is only effective in regards to people already inclined to vote in the first place. I believe that citizen apathy to partaking in the democratic process is a larger issue contributing to lower overall eligible voter turnout.

And outrage ensues as Steve Boots admits* voting for a CPC candidate is not ruled out :)

*Steve admits to no voting preference at this time.