This piece contains multiple factual errors that undermine its credibility:
Error 1: The author conflates "Leader of the Official Opposition" (a parliamentary role) with "Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada" (a party role). Poilievre remains Conservative Party of Canada leader despite losing his seat. He remains the leader of Canada's opposition party. Scheer serves as interim parliamentary leader and "Leader of the Official Opposition" until Poilievre wins a by-election - this is standard procedure, not a scandal. What would be ridiculous is for taxpayers to move Poilievre out of Stornoway so Andrew Sheer could move in for a month and then pay for Poilievre to move back in.
Error 2: The comparison to 24 Sussex Drive is nonsensical. No Prime Minister has lived at 24 Sussex since Stephen Harper left in 2015 due to the building's deteriorated condition. Trudeau lived at Rideau Cottage, and Carney will do the same. The author's hypothetical about Carney "refusing to leave 24 Sussex" ignores this basic fact.
Error 3: The piece implies this arrangement is unprecedented or improper, but party leaders routinely seek new seats after electoral defeats. The process is legally established and democratically legitimate.
Populist critiques like this create a political environment where no government is willing to address real infrastructure needs - which is why the Prime Minister's official residence is primarily inhabited by rats. It's perfectly reasonable to debate whether taxpayers should fund opposition residences at all, but manufacturing scandals through factual errors and inflammatory rhetoric serves no constructive purpose. If you want to criticize political privilege, start with accurate information. Otherwise, you're contributing to the misinformation you claim to oppose.
I quoted your piece directly and corrected factual errors. If that's 'false framing,' then the problem is with your facts, not my analysis. Defend your narrative at all costs if that's all you value.
After 21 (Twenty One) years in politics of having accomplished nothing,
After 3 straight years of elections campaigning while on taxpayers dime
- doesn't that break any rules? - throughout which, he only presented his own undeniable signature skills of professional bullying and lying - which are not and never were what Canadians need or want in any prime minister,
After Elections of his lifetime - since reportedly, he was born already wearing a suit, & instead of a first cry after being born, yelling 'Cut The Tax!' - he did not only become the prime minister of Canada, but at the same time he lost his own seat in his own riding, despite having his own shadow cabinet at 79 members on taxpayers' dime,
which was more than double the size of Trudeau's cabinet - they all couldn't be bothered to be doing the job they were all well paid to do - to SERVE Canada & Canadians - or at least make sure he wins the elections, they didn't even bother to come up with kinda legitimate party platform so he could push his speeches beyond the three word sloganeering of the same reheated for three years (!) bones with no meat on them...
Right now, Pierre Poilievre is a disgraced double loser (didn't become the PM and he lost his own seat in his riding)
So the fact is, Pierre Poilievre is a Squatting Grifter.
And so is the entire Conservative Party with their beloved Stephen Harper, if they all still believe the taxpayers are supposed to continue paying the bills for this conservative multi millionaire, while these Conservatives haven't even voted for the national school food program for kids, because that's not what conservatives believe in - you know, socialism is too evil for them to stomach...
You've hit the nail on the head. Insofar as Canada chooses to provide a home and staff to the Opposition at all, the expense will be incurred regardless of who resides there. This "outrage" is actually partisan and undermines the author's credibility.
This piece contains multiple factual errors that undermine its credibility:
Error 1: The author conflates "Leader of the Official Opposition" (a parliamentary role) with "Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada" (a party role). Poilievre remains Conservative Party of Canada leader despite losing his seat. He remains the leader of Canada's opposition party. Scheer serves as interim parliamentary leader and "Leader of the Official Opposition" until Poilievre wins a by-election - this is standard procedure, not a scandal. What would be ridiculous is for taxpayers to move Poilievre out of Stornoway so Andrew Sheer could move in for a month and then pay for Poilievre to move back in.
Error 2: The comparison to 24 Sussex Drive is nonsensical. No Prime Minister has lived at 24 Sussex since Stephen Harper left in 2015 due to the building's deteriorated condition. Trudeau lived at Rideau Cottage, and Carney will do the same. The author's hypothetical about Carney "refusing to leave 24 Sussex" ignores this basic fact.
Error 3: The piece implies this arrangement is unprecedented or improper, but party leaders routinely seek new seats after electoral defeats. The process is legally established and democratically legitimate.
Populist critiques like this create a political environment where no government is willing to address real infrastructure needs - which is why the Prime Minister's official residence is primarily inhabited by rats. It's perfectly reasonable to debate whether taxpayers should fund opposition residences at all, but manufacturing scandals through factual errors and inflammatory rhetoric serves no constructive purpose. If you want to criticize political privilege, start with accurate information. Otherwise, you're contributing to the misinformation you claim to oppose.
The mental gymnastics and false framing of my writing to defend Poilievre is crazy
I quoted your piece directly and corrected factual errors. If that's 'false framing,' then the problem is with your facts, not my analysis. Defend your narrative at all costs if that's all you value.
Dear, Beyond Imagination,
After 21 (Twenty One) years in politics of having accomplished nothing,
After 3 straight years of elections campaigning while on taxpayers dime
- doesn't that break any rules? - throughout which, he only presented his own undeniable signature skills of professional bullying and lying - which are not and never were what Canadians need or want in any prime minister,
After Elections of his lifetime - since reportedly, he was born already wearing a suit, & instead of a first cry after being born, yelling 'Cut The Tax!' - he did not only become the prime minister of Canada, but at the same time he lost his own seat in his own riding, despite having his own shadow cabinet at 79 members on taxpayers' dime,
which was more than double the size of Trudeau's cabinet - they all couldn't be bothered to be doing the job they were all well paid to do - to SERVE Canada & Canadians - or at least make sure he wins the elections, they didn't even bother to come up with kinda legitimate party platform so he could push his speeches beyond the three word sloganeering of the same reheated for three years (!) bones with no meat on them...
Right now, Pierre Poilievre is a disgraced double loser (didn't become the PM and he lost his own seat in his riding)
So the fact is, Pierre Poilievre is a Squatting Grifter.
And so is the entire Conservative Party with their beloved Stephen Harper, if they all still believe the taxpayers are supposed to continue paying the bills for this conservative multi millionaire, while these Conservatives haven't even voted for the national school food program for kids, because that's not what conservatives believe in - you know, socialism is too evil for them to stomach...
... clearly only when they have to do the paying.
I didn't care to waste time explaining how their comment was reaching. Thanks lmao
Oh, it's Monday.
I felt generous. 🙃
You've hit the nail on the head. Insofar as Canada chooses to provide a home and staff to the Opposition at all, the expense will be incurred regardless of who resides there. This "outrage" is actually partisan and undermines the author's credibility.