In a surprise to nobody, Justin Trudeau is waffling on electoral reform promises

[Graeham]

The whole 'politician' system just isn't working. They need to be held accountable - within reason - for drumming up support for themselves and their party and then later backtracking on key issues. Especially those that convinced a significant number of people to vote for them in the first place. That isn't likely to happen anytime soon though unfortunately.

[Shiftyfish]

Have you not seen the backlash against ranked ballot? You should be grateful that our PM is adjusting his policies based on the will of the people. He isn't a dictator.

you value the will of the people but mock the idea of holding a referendum?

[Seranthor]

Tennisace could sculpt a perfect replica of Trudeau's clunis from memory...

oh my, but you know, you might be right.

[Ryme]

I'm not a fan of FPTP, but I sympathise that it does bring benefits to smaller populated areas getting their representatives heard - which I imagine are numerous in Canada. Frankly, I'm not sure either system would be accepted, but considering this link I think it's fairly shameful if he's dodging the issue.

[Slant]

I wonder how many centuries it will take for people to realise that democracy is about compromise. A politician promises his ideal program ahead of elections, not what he intends to compromis for later, because he can only control parts of that. How is this surprising?

[Deleted]

There is no lawyer involved in Canada. Why do we have a bunch of euros clown talking out of their asses. The last time Canadian census had stats about it showed 76% of all child custody was done outside the justice system with the government alone.

Because family courts are biased.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder how many centuries it will take for people to realise that democracy is about compromise. A politician promises his ideal program ahead of elections, not what he intends to compromis for later, because he can only control parts of that. How is this surprising?

Well he has the power to do it, its just that its very rare that a politician in power wants to change the rules, because whatever benefit they bring to their party, they will be gained after he (Trudeau) is out of office.

[TrumpIsPresident]

I wonder how many centuries it will take for people to realise that democracy is about compromise. A politician promises his ideal program ahead of elections, not what he intends to compromis for later, because he can only control parts of that. How is this surprising?

Compromised would solve a lot of things.

I had hope Obama was going to fulfill hes promise to do just that.

Of course he never did.

I don't think anybody expects Hillary to.

The fix for a one sided fuck everyone else agenda is in and the world is going to have to deal with that for a while to come.

[Grimbold21]

We need more people like Tradewind fighting the good fight agaisnt Tennisace ilk.

Make Canada great again

[Tennis]

you value the will of the people but mock the idea of holding a referendum?

Referendums aren't all they're hyped up to be,

[Arewn]

Actually in General in Canada it kinda is for many different reason. Women makes up most of the single parents and overall Parental support given is never high enough to make it so that single parent dont have some of the lowest income on average in the entire country. It just happens a large majority of them are women. Country wide childcare is a decent start to alleviate this.

Men make up most of the homeless, and social services already tend to be geared towards women more so then men.
This isn't a one dimensional problem. Can't just cherry pick the parts that are unfavorable to one side while ignoring or trivializing the parts that are unfavorable to the other, as our PM likes to do.
It isn't really a "sexist" problem, it's a complex problem that affects different demographics differently. To call it sexist is a gross and inaccurate simplification.

"Poverty affects far too many women" is like 24000x better than "Poverty is sexist" though lol.

Or better yet "The way poverty affects women is of particular concern to me because it directly impacts children; the country's future. This is as such an issue of paramount concern and something I would like to give attention to".
But who needs nuance or detail when you can be a blind ideologue.

[Deleted]

Men make up most of the homeless, and social services already tend to be geared towards women more so then men.
This isn't a one dimensional problem. Can't just cherry pick the parts that are unfavorable to one side while ignoring or trivializing the parts that are unfavorable to the other, as our PM likes to do.
It isn't really a "sexist" problem, it's a complex problem that affects different demographics differently. To call it sexist is a gross and inaccurate simplification.

yet there are laws in many countries that puts undue burdens on the social services to find shelter - For women, Fuck the men.
Because we live in a society that hates women.