Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Canada
  3. Mark Carney’s first budget projects $78B deficit, program and civil service cuts

Mark Carney’s first budget projects $78B deficit, program and civil service cuts

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Canada
canada
78 Posts 23 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • M This user is from outside of this forum
    M This user is from outside of this forum
    MyBrainHurts
    wrote on last edited by
    #12

    If the Conservatives don’t make it happen, their party may just get its own chance to fail to pass their first budget very soon.

    Ha, well put.

    We’ll see how it all shakes out but if I were the Liberals, I think I’d be itching for this fight and a pretty good chance at taking a majority government.

    Maybe I’m discounting partisanship, but I can’t imagine Canadians would be happy about another election with America attacking us. (Also, while obviously sample size/anecodatal doesn’t count etc my 2 angry Conservative friends seemed pretty content with the budget.)

    C 1 Reply Last reply
    1
    • T t00l_shed@lemmy.world

      I don’t have anything in particular, as I haven’t seen details, but the public service exists to serve the public, cutting the workforce ends up reducing services. Since we’re on the edge of a recession I’d say tax the billionaires, go back and charge Google for the billions that we were supposed to get before Carney bowed down to trump. We will now also have many unemployed more unemployed people which causes strains in other areas. I remain unconvinced that cuts for austerity purposes are ultimately beneficial, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy instead

      M This user is from outside of this forum
      M This user is from outside of this forum
      MyBrainHurts
      wrote on last edited by mybrainhurts@piefed.ca
      #13

      the public service exists to serve the public, cutting the workforce ends up reducing services.

      But what services did we get with our ridiculous expansion of the public service over the last four years?

      charge Google for the billions that we were supposed to get before Carney bowed down to trump.

      If memory serves, the tax in total, wad supposed to bring in 2 billion. We are paying an order of magnitude more than that to deal with tarrifs affected industries. It seems pretty reasonable to assume something that hits trump’s donors so precisely would elicit a reaction that would cost us much more than we brought in.

      I’d say tax the billionaires

      Sure, I’d like to as well. But there are I think less than 100 billionaires in Canada. Say we could soak them for even another 100 million a year each (which would be extraordinary and almost require some wild changes to the tax code because of the nature of their wealth, but let’s put those complications to the side.) Groovy. Until what, 1 in 10 decide it’s worth that 100 million plus the existing difference to move to the States or elsewhere. It’s a tricky balance and I’ve yet to see any of our populist “just tax the rich!” really show their math.

      Edit: finished my thought after clicking accidentally.

      T B 2 Replies Last reply
      2
      • M MyBrainHurts

        Which services are you thinking of?

        The major thing I’ve seen is reducing the number of public sector employees back to 2020 levels, which doesn’t seem wild. (I haven’t seen a good explanation of why we needed to increase the public sector by 20% since then, nor of what we got out of that. If you have anything, I’d love to read it!) Throw in some reductions of outside consultants etc…

        There are undoubtedly some programs getting cut. But given we’re teetering on the edge of an adversary induced recession, that doesn’t seem unsreasonable.

        C This user is from outside of this forum
        C This user is from outside of this forum
        corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        wrote on last edited by
        #14

        (I haven’t seen a good explanation of why we needed to increase the public sector by 20% since then, nor of what we got out of that. If you have anything, I’d love to read it!)

        Here’s an easy explanation: we didn’t have enough.

        Wait times are no fun, right? Need more people to process the things, or you need to remove some of the regulatory steps involved. Both those, the doing of the work and the fruitless “just make it faster” boondoggles, need meatbags to do the doing.

        You now how we can tell we didn’t have enough? WAIT TIMES. When it’s zero, you may have too many staff. When it’s a day, you’re probably just right. Show me a wait time report and I’ll show you 12 months in processing delays that we should have avoided by grabbing an intelligent peon and making them do some things of the things that need doing – because processing delays and wait times are absolutely the shits right now.

        QED

        B M 2 Replies Last reply
        11
        • M MyBrainHurts

          I think the Bloc has been adamantly opposed for months.

          Possibly foolishly optimistic take incoming:

          My guess/ferverent hope is that the NDP and Cons don’t want another election so soon. The NDP can’t afford it and I think the Conservatives wouldn’t love the optics. There’s also so much in there about protecting the Ontario areas where the Conservatives just made inroads + everyone still hates PP, you have to think an election would be a loser for them.

          So, bold prediction/prayer, Cons n NDP allow a free vote with abstentions so they don’t have to vote for it but also don’t have to trigger an election.

          T This user is from outside of this forum
          T This user is from outside of this forum
          tleb@lemmy.ca
          wrote on last edited by
          #15

          Conservatives are requiring electronic votes for travelling MPs as far as I understand, so there’s very few excuses to “accidentally” abstain. However, one has already crossed the floor, and more are to come. If the Liberals don’t get a majority then I’m sure enough NDP are going to abstain for it to pass.

          M 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • M MyBrainHurts

            If the Conservatives don’t make it happen, their party may just get its own chance to fail to pass their first budget very soon.

            Ha, well put.

            We’ll see how it all shakes out but if I were the Liberals, I think I’d be itching for this fight and a pretty good chance at taking a majority government.

            Maybe I’m discounting partisanship, but I can’t imagine Canadians would be happy about another election with America attacking us. (Also, while obviously sample size/anecodatal doesn’t count etc my 2 angry Conservative friends seemed pretty content with the budget.)

            C This user is from outside of this forum
            C This user is from outside of this forum
            corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
            wrote on last edited by
            #16

            The last month or so haven’t been good for Mark’s electability. He should really lay low a bit until the attack ad potential dies down. I’d hate to see more morons choosing Milhouse.

            M 1 Reply Last reply
            1
            • M MyBrainHurts

              the public service exists to serve the public, cutting the workforce ends up reducing services.

              But what services did we get with our ridiculous expansion of the public service over the last four years?

              charge Google for the billions that we were supposed to get before Carney bowed down to trump.

              If memory serves, the tax in total, wad supposed to bring in 2 billion. We are paying an order of magnitude more than that to deal with tarrifs affected industries. It seems pretty reasonable to assume something that hits trump’s donors so precisely would elicit a reaction that would cost us much more than we brought in.

              I’d say tax the billionaires

              Sure, I’d like to as well. But there are I think less than 100 billionaires in Canada. Say we could soak them for even another 100 million a year each (which would be extraordinary and almost require some wild changes to the tax code because of the nature of their wealth, but let’s put those complications to the side.) Groovy. Until what, 1 in 10 decide it’s worth that 100 million plus the existing difference to move to the States or elsewhere. It’s a tricky balance and I’ve yet to see any of our populist “just tax the rich!” really show their math.

              Edit: finished my thought after clicking accidentally.

              T This user is from outside of this forum
              T This user is from outside of this forum
              t00l_shed@lemmy.world
              wrote on last edited by
              #17

              But what services did we get with our ridiculous expansion of the public service over the last four years?

              Lets see what we miss out on if this budget passes.

              If memory serves, the tax in total, wad supposed to bring in 2 billion. We are paying an order of magnitude more than that to deal with tarrifs affected industries. It seems pretty reasonable to assume something that hits trump’s donors so precisely would elicit a reaction that would cost us much more than we brought in.

              Great that’s 2 billion we left on the table. We are paying more, but guess what bowing down to trump has left us where exactly? Are we just supposed to keep bending over for trump and his cronies? Fucking nationalize shit if they play that game.

              Sure, I’d like to as well. But there are I think less than 100 billionaires in Canada. Say we could soak them for even another 100 million a year each. Groovy. Until what, 1 in 10 decide it’s worth that 100 million plus the existing difference to move to the States or elsewhere. Its

              Good riddance they are a plague. Make them pay their taxes before they leave. They don’t bring in anything, they cost us. We subsidize their businesses, think O&G. We burn the planet so they can have another yacht, that they got through tax loopholes. Fuck them

              M 1 Reply Last reply
              6
              • Avid AmoebaA This user is from outside of this forum
                Avid AmoebaA This user is from outside of this forum
                Avid Amoeba
                wrote on last edited by
                #18

                It’s their jobnot to like it, ask for more for QC, get something, then begrudgingly vote in favour.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • N Nils

                  dealing with the American shitstorm
                  getting us on a greener path

                  Can you clarify your position or share the article you read? I might have missed those points when I read the https://www.budget.canada.ca/ report

                  there are parts I’d like more of and otherd of which I’d like less
                  broad compromise that I think is reasonable to a large swathe of Canadians,

                  A bit vague no? What do you mean?

                  Thanks.

                  M This user is from outside of this forum
                  M This user is from outside of this forum
                  MyBrainHurts
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #19

                  Those are two very different parts. Dealing with the American shitstorm is approached with enhanced trade routes etc. You might look at the broad overview here: https://budget.canada.ca/2025/report-rapport/chap1-en.html

                  On the greener path, sure, there’s a new nuclear plant, carbon capture (not my ideal but probably a reasonable compromise with our oil dependent provinces) Wind West Atlantic and of course, holding onto the industrial carbon price. (The only realistic non Liberal government would be the Conservatives who have been opposed to that since inception.)

                  there are parts I’d like more of

                  If I had my magic wand, I’d probably like more green projects, probably some higher wealth taxes though disentangling those from capital investment is tricky etc. I’d also like to keep expanding the national daycare program.

                  other[s] of which I’d like less

                  Personally, I’m not entirely sold on a massive military budget buuuuuuuuut, I’m not wildly opposed. There are a few tax cuts that I think are a little silly (luxury jets seems fucking dumb. I hope they catch that somewhere else) and frankly, I didn’t love the gigantic tax cut at the beginning, though I’m in a pretty privileged position etc.

                  N 1 Reply Last reply
                  8
                  • M MyBrainHurts

                    I think the Bloc has been adamantly opposed for months.

                    Possibly foolishly optimistic take incoming:

                    My guess/ferverent hope is that the NDP and Cons don’t want another election so soon. The NDP can’t afford it and I think the Conservatives wouldn’t love the optics. There’s also so much in there about protecting the Ontario areas where the Conservatives just made inroads + everyone still hates PP, you have to think an election would be a loser for them.

                    So, bold prediction/prayer, Cons n NDP allow a free vote with abstentions so they don’t have to vote for it but also don’t have to trigger an election.

                    L This user is from outside of this forum
                    L This user is from outside of this forum
                    lovecanada@lemmy.ca
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #20

                    I think its more likely the NDP just abstain enough that it passes. And apparently there is a member crossing the floor today from the Cons to the Libs so they only need a few abstentions to pass. I dont think the Cons will to abstain because of the optics.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    1
                    • M MyBrainHurts

                      Those are two very different parts. Dealing with the American shitstorm is approached with enhanced trade routes etc. You might look at the broad overview here: https://budget.canada.ca/2025/report-rapport/chap1-en.html

                      On the greener path, sure, there’s a new nuclear plant, carbon capture (not my ideal but probably a reasonable compromise with our oil dependent provinces) Wind West Atlantic and of course, holding onto the industrial carbon price. (The only realistic non Liberal government would be the Conservatives who have been opposed to that since inception.)

                      there are parts I’d like more of

                      If I had my magic wand, I’d probably like more green projects, probably some higher wealth taxes though disentangling those from capital investment is tricky etc. I’d also like to keep expanding the national daycare program.

                      other[s] of which I’d like less

                      Personally, I’m not entirely sold on a massive military budget buuuuuuuuut, I’m not wildly opposed. There are a few tax cuts that I think are a little silly (luxury jets seems fucking dumb. I hope they catch that somewhere else) and frankly, I didn’t love the gigantic tax cut at the beginning, though I’m in a pretty privileged position etc.

                      N This user is from outside of this forum
                      N This user is from outside of this forum
                      Nils
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #21

                      I understand better your points now, thanks for sharing your thoughts and optimism, I needed some optimism.

                      When I first read the report on budge.canada the “greener path” shows that pretty much everything ended in 2024. Moving forward they mention carbon capture without details what kind of investment they are putting money in (best I could find is funding this https://www.alberta.ca/carbon-capture-and-storage that is also a bit vague), investing in mining (justifying that mining specific minerals helps the environment, but no mention on how to make mining less damaging to the environment and hold companies accountable) and removing the carbon cap saying that investments in several sectors would reduce the emissions anyway. A lot of wishful thinking on the budget text, or on the worst case mental gymnastics malice.

                      Like, there is this promising

                      To finance government spending that helps industrial and agricultural sectors get cleaner and more competitive, …

                      I would love to see the government working with farmers to keep production high and with low footprint. Despite the text being vague on how/who will get the money, farmers are already very thin on their footprint, usually limited to the access of resources to maintain their farms (heat, fertilizers, etc…). A farmer that only has access to gas for heat would not be able to reduce their footprint unless other options are made available.

                      I also felt like there is no handling “american shitstorm” either, there are plenty of brags on how they capitulate and are one of the least impacted by tariffs because of that.

                      Also, good thing you bought up the taxes. One thing I found interesting while reading the PDF version earlier, they pretty much teach us on many ways to avoid paying them, I wish that was easily available at the CRA website. =P

                      M 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • R Rentlar

                        The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.

                        S This user is from outside of this forum
                        S This user is from outside of this forum
                        Swordgeek
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #22

                        The budget was designed to pass.

                        That means that it was pathetically compromising towards environmental protections, worker protections, a strong stance against the US, etc., etc.

                        In other words, it’s pretty much a fucking milquetoast mess with nothing good.

                        R K 2 Replies Last reply
                        11
                        • C corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca

                          (I haven’t seen a good explanation of why we needed to increase the public sector by 20% since then, nor of what we got out of that. If you have anything, I’d love to read it!)

                          Here’s an easy explanation: we didn’t have enough.

                          Wait times are no fun, right? Need more people to process the things, or you need to remove some of the regulatory steps involved. Both those, the doing of the work and the fruitless “just make it faster” boondoggles, need meatbags to do the doing.

                          You now how we can tell we didn’t have enough? WAIT TIMES. When it’s zero, you may have too many staff. When it’s a day, you’re probably just right. Show me a wait time report and I’ll show you 12 months in processing delays that we should have avoided by grabbing an intelligent peon and making them do some things of the things that need doing – because processing delays and wait times are absolutely the shits right now.

                          QED

                          B This user is from outside of this forum
                          B This user is from outside of this forum
                          bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #23

                          Exactly, Canadian population growth is outstripping service supply and has been for some time. I still have a coworker who thinks the CRA personnel should be cut to the proportions the USA has, as if that’s a benchmark to aspire to.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          7
                          • M MyBrainHurts

                            the public service exists to serve the public, cutting the workforce ends up reducing services.

                            But what services did we get with our ridiculous expansion of the public service over the last four years?

                            charge Google for the billions that we were supposed to get before Carney bowed down to trump.

                            If memory serves, the tax in total, wad supposed to bring in 2 billion. We are paying an order of magnitude more than that to deal with tarrifs affected industries. It seems pretty reasonable to assume something that hits trump’s donors so precisely would elicit a reaction that would cost us much more than we brought in.

                            I’d say tax the billionaires

                            Sure, I’d like to as well. But there are I think less than 100 billionaires in Canada. Say we could soak them for even another 100 million a year each (which would be extraordinary and almost require some wild changes to the tax code because of the nature of their wealth, but let’s put those complications to the side.) Groovy. Until what, 1 in 10 decide it’s worth that 100 million plus the existing difference to move to the States or elsewhere. It’s a tricky balance and I’ve yet to see any of our populist “just tax the rich!” really show their math.

                            Edit: finished my thought after clicking accidentally.

                            B This user is from outside of this forum
                            B This user is from outside of this forum
                            bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #24

                            OMG, let them move! We don’t need these social parasites.

                            M 1 Reply Last reply
                            2
                            • S Swordgeek

                              The budget was designed to pass.

                              That means that it was pathetically compromising towards environmental protections, worker protections, a strong stance against the US, etc., etc.

                              In other words, it’s pretty much a fucking milquetoast mess with nothing good.

                              R This user is from outside of this forum
                              R This user is from outside of this forum
                              Rentlar
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #25

                              I mean, that’s how a lot of Canadian politics works… “passed because no one really hated it”…

                              N 1 Reply Last reply
                              7
                              • T t00l_shed@lemmy.world

                                But what services did we get with our ridiculous expansion of the public service over the last four years?

                                Lets see what we miss out on if this budget passes.

                                If memory serves, the tax in total, wad supposed to bring in 2 billion. We are paying an order of magnitude more than that to deal with tarrifs affected industries. It seems pretty reasonable to assume something that hits trump’s donors so precisely would elicit a reaction that would cost us much more than we brought in.

                                Great that’s 2 billion we left on the table. We are paying more, but guess what bowing down to trump has left us where exactly? Are we just supposed to keep bending over for trump and his cronies? Fucking nationalize shit if they play that game.

                                Sure, I’d like to as well. But there are I think less than 100 billionaires in Canada. Say we could soak them for even another 100 million a year each. Groovy. Until what, 1 in 10 decide it’s worth that 100 million plus the existing difference to move to the States or elsewhere. Its

                                Good riddance they are a plague. Make them pay their taxes before they leave. They don’t bring in anything, they cost us. We subsidize their businesses, think O&G. We burn the planet so they can have another yacht, that they got through tax loopholes. Fuck them

                                M This user is from outside of this forum
                                M This user is from outside of this forum
                                MyBrainHurts
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #26

                                Good riddance they are a plague. Make them pay their taxes before they leave.

                                Ummm, did you forget you propsed they would be the solution to our budget woes? Or are you not old enough to pay taxes and don’t realize we do those on an annual basis? (Putting aside the fact that most billionaires don’t earn it on taxed wages but more that they own unsold stock.)

                                We are paying more, but guess what bowing down to trump has left us where exactly?

                                One of the best tarrif rates in the world?

                                Fucking nationalize shit if they play that game.

                                Dafuq? You’re saying nationalize google?

                                Jesus though, this is why it can be so hard to take progressives seriously. This is just mindless slogan yelling with zero thought.

                                T 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • B bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com

                                  OMG, let them move! We don’t need these social parasites.

                                  M This user is from outside of this forum
                                  M This user is from outside of this forum
                                  MyBrainHurts
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #27

                                  Okay, but the person to whom I’m responding wanted to save money by taxing them. So, what services would you cut to be rid of the people who are paying for those services?

                                  P 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • N Nils

                                    I understand better your points now, thanks for sharing your thoughts and optimism, I needed some optimism.

                                    When I first read the report on budge.canada the “greener path” shows that pretty much everything ended in 2024. Moving forward they mention carbon capture without details what kind of investment they are putting money in (best I could find is funding this https://www.alberta.ca/carbon-capture-and-storage that is also a bit vague), investing in mining (justifying that mining specific minerals helps the environment, but no mention on how to make mining less damaging to the environment and hold companies accountable) and removing the carbon cap saying that investments in several sectors would reduce the emissions anyway. A lot of wishful thinking on the budget text, or on the worst case mental gymnastics malice.

                                    Like, there is this promising

                                    To finance government spending that helps industrial and agricultural sectors get cleaner and more competitive, …

                                    I would love to see the government working with farmers to keep production high and with low footprint. Despite the text being vague on how/who will get the money, farmers are already very thin on their footprint, usually limited to the access of resources to maintain their farms (heat, fertilizers, etc…). A farmer that only has access to gas for heat would not be able to reduce their footprint unless other options are made available.

                                    I also felt like there is no handling “american shitstorm” either, there are plenty of brags on how they capitulate and are one of the least impacted by tariffs because of that.

                                    Also, good thing you bought up the taxes. One thing I found interesting while reading the PDF version earlier, they pretty much teach us on many ways to avoid paying them, I wish that was easily available at the CRA website. =P

                                    M This user is from outside of this forum
                                    M This user is from outside of this forum
                                    MyBrainHurts
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #28

                                    removing the carbon cap saying that investments in several sectors would reduce the emissions anyway. A lot of wishful thinking on the budget text, or on the worst case mental gymnastics malice.

                                    A lot of this is through keeping and raising a carbon tax. That makes companies find the most efficient ways to reduce their footprints, rather than the government mandating it for each group. This is the approach favoured by most serious economists and think groups about reducing emissions quickly.

                                    without details what kind of investment they are putting money in

                                    You can look at the “nation building” projects, which include a massive wind farm (green as hell) and a nuclear plant (fairly clean, significantly better than say, oil or gas.)

                                    K 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • C corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca

                                      (I haven’t seen a good explanation of why we needed to increase the public sector by 20% since then, nor of what we got out of that. If you have anything, I’d love to read it!)

                                      Here’s an easy explanation: we didn’t have enough.

                                      Wait times are no fun, right? Need more people to process the things, or you need to remove some of the regulatory steps involved. Both those, the doing of the work and the fruitless “just make it faster” boondoggles, need meatbags to do the doing.

                                      You now how we can tell we didn’t have enough? WAIT TIMES. When it’s zero, you may have too many staff. When it’s a day, you’re probably just right. Show me a wait time report and I’ll show you 12 months in processing delays that we should have avoided by grabbing an intelligent peon and making them do some things of the things that need doing – because processing delays and wait times are absolutely the shits right now.

                                      QED

                                      M This user is from outside of this forum
                                      M This user is from outside of this forum
                                      MyBrainHurts
                                      wrote on last edited by mybrainhurts@piefed.ca
                                      #29

                                      To each their own.

                                      Edit: removed personal details.

                                      If you know anyone who works in government or a quasi governmental agency, they will tell you horror stories of colleagues who couldn’t be removed but couldn’t be arsed to do anything over the bare minimum (like being sober, showing up and handling at least one file a day.)

                                      There has to be something in between the nihilistic conservative “burn it all down, no more bureaucracy!” and the opposite “every government employee is sacred!” I think a slow reduction through attrition and buyouts seems pretty reasonable and gives enough time to actually find efficiencies and innovations.

                                      K 1 Reply Last reply
                                      1
                                      • C corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca

                                        The last month or so haven’t been good for Mark’s electability. He should really lay low a bit until the attack ad potential dies down. I’d hate to see more morons choosing Milhouse.

                                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                                        MyBrainHurts
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #30

                                        Honestly, I wonder how much of that last election loss was just we hated that guy so much. If I remember correctly, there was a yawning chasm between “approval for the Conservative party” and “approval for Poilievre.”

                                        But, there’s so much in this budget for almost everyone that last month aside, I’d still happily put Carney out there blasting Conservatives for wasting Canadians time etc. But we’ll see how it all plays out!

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • T tleb@lemmy.ca

                                          Conservatives are requiring electronic votes for travelling MPs as far as I understand, so there’s very few excuses to “accidentally” abstain. However, one has already crossed the floor, and more are to come. If the Liberals don’t get a majority then I’m sure enough NDP are going to abstain for it to pass.

                                          M This user is from outside of this forum
                                          M This user is from outside of this forum
                                          MyBrainHurts
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #31

                                          Yeah, I really wonder if it’ll be a whipped vote. Part of me wonders if that’s why whats-his-name crossed the floor. If they let it be a free vote, then anyone can abstain as they see fit.

                                          Probably have to wait and see some polling on the budget but from casual conversations/reactions, it seems pretty rocking.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0

                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post