I disagree with comments that Poilievre is unfit for higher office because he is a career politician. Being leader of the opposition is a good resume for a prospective PM.
What’s wrong with having a career focus? My surgeon has been nothing but a surgeon his entire career. Likewise my lawyer, and many other professionals I know.
The other obvious response is that a government is not one person. It is a team of people. And the Liberals are sending the same group of people over with Carney.
You are right. Something that Carney has made clear - he is the leader of a strong team. The Conservatives have been out of power for 10 years and do not have a team that is tested and experienced. Poilievre would have been a safe bet for the next PM had Trump not won. But to date, in my mind, Poilievre has not demonstrated any ability to negotiate and compromise in anyway, something that I think is critical at this moment in time.
...neither has Carney. I disagree that the Liberal team is strong. The carryovers from the Trudeau were mostly in the background as the PMO was so prominent.
You can project what you will about Carney. But the statement the Liberal team is “Strong” defies all the evidence of the last 10 years. This is as weak and incompetent a group that has ever governed Canada. Our state of the Nation proves it.
Becoming a politician, better yet the leader of the opposition, is a wholly different job than being the leader of the Country. Now if we had an electoral system that promoted collaboration and compromise it might be a different story....
I don't think unfit, and that wasn't proposed in the article, but I sure wish for a more well-rounded experience. Anyone who only worked in the political environment in Canada is a concern for me because we see a lot of bad behaviour and bad perspective.
The Liberals love having a villain. It doesn't matter who is leader of the Conservative Party. They will all be labeled Trump-light or some such stupid thing.
O'Toole was fine. Poilievre is labeled Trump-lite because he uses the same tactics and courts the same crowds.
There's nothing wrong with being conservative. There is something wrong with reducing our politics to cheap slogans and nicknames like "Carbon Tax Carney" and "Sellout Singh", promoting conspiracy theories, legitimizing extremist groups like Diagolon for social media clout, pushing disinformation to further a political agenda... Need I go on?
They hassled O’Toole as well and he screwed himself by pissing off the legal gun owners who supported him. You don’t need to convince me of any Rachel Gilmore talking points 😂. I know a lot of Conservatives. They aren’t even close to how you describe them. And they are generally more tolerant than my Liberal friends so much more fun to be around.
I'm not describing conservatives writ large, I'm describing Poilievre. As I said, there's nothing wrong with being conservative. I have conservative friends as well.
And yes, of course they will hassle the leader of the opposition. Does it suprise you that opposition parties will jostle eachother?
No it doesn’t surprise me, but the Liberals now have an opponent who can stand up to all that. They got the opponent they deserve. I personally like Pierre. Do I think he’s perfect? Absolutely not. But I think he’d make a great PM. He’s been one of the more effective MPs in the House. It’s fine for you to disagree with me, but please spare me the Liberal Party narrative. I put no politician on a pedestal, which is why I suppose I could never identify as Liberal. And it’s why Conservatives don’t win as many elections. They get pissed off at the leader too easily. It is what it is.
It's not a narrative, every one of my points can be verified if you care to do so.
I will not disagree with you that the Liberals got the opponent they deserve. They certainly fell out of touch in recent years, eliciting a lot of not-unjustified anger, frustration, and resentment amongst a sizable portion of Canada's population. Poilievre's rise was the manifestation of those frustrations.
I will agree that he is an effective rhetorician when on the attack. An effective legislator? No comment.
"Fell out of touch" is a very generous way to describe what the Liberals have done. I live in a riding that moves between the Conservatives and the Liberals.
The widespread and openly stated anger toward JT and the Liberals has not changed with Carney's predictable selection. I've lived in this riding through many federal and provincial elections and have never seen anything like this.
Unless our local candidate does something incredibly idiotic, I fully expect my currently Liberal riding to be Conservative next election. That tells me that people want to blame someone (JT), and Carney won't escape that blame easily.
I agree the Liberals got the the opponent they deserve as well. He did a good job highlighting their failures but, and the article points this out, they were very, very easy targets.
What worries me greatly is, although I have a very good idea of what PP doesn't like, would not do, or would undo... I have no idea what policies he thinks will bring us a better future.
I've heard "lower taxes and eliminate red tape" so many times in my life without results, I need to hear a LOT better than that.
I distinctly remember Andrew Scheer getting attacked with accusations of having a hidden agenda on abortion. A quick googling shows that Ralph Goodale was fear-mongering that Scheer would outlaw same sex marriage.
You might have thought O'Toole was fine, but the LPC was definitely all in on fear mongering about the man. Just like they did for Harper. It's what they do. The LPC by all appearances thinks that any conservative Prime Minister is the end of the world.
fear-mongering flows in all directions equally... omg lets be real. According to lots of liberals P P is the next Nazi taking us to fascist hell. Goodness lets see ourselves with just a bit of clarity lol
Its hard to take your comment seriously if you honestly believe PP has legitimized Diagolon.... they mean nothing to almost everyone and most Canadians have no clue who they are and don't care. They are a non factor to anyone but themselves and a few followers.
The (extremely) off-color satire group who made up a non-existent nonsense country?
Adult-swim Lilliputian deranged "comedy" may not be funny to me, but I'm not scared their time-travel cocaine goat is going to send his kamikaze bees after anyone.
In 2022, Pierre Poilievre called Diagolon members "losers" and "dirtbags" after they suggested raping Anaida Poilievre, his wife, on their podcast.
PP obviously didn't know who they were. He can't run background checks on everyone he meets.
Doesn't stopping to talk to anti-carbon tax protestors who happened to align with Diagalon being evidence of supporting Diagalon sound overly simplistic? Much like Andrew Scheer believing in pizzagate
My point was more that "Diagolon Supporter" is a bit of a nonsense term.
It's like calling someone a "Ren and Stimpy Supporter" or "Lilliput Supporter".
"Fan" is probably more appropriate a descriptor for the guys that are into that Plaid Army stuff.
Continuing to insist that Diagolon is a real organization is more than fantastical at this point. It was a fictitious country in a parallel universe. The vice-president of Diagolon was a cocaine-addicted, time-travelling goat named King Phillip. Diagolon was at war with “Circulon.”
Bees were bred to terrorize Diagolon’s enemies and a bee, Jeffrey, died in a kamikaze mission when he was swallowed by Doug Ford during a press conference.
It's dumb humor. It's mostly in bad taste. But hey, let's all pretend "they" are a group of nazis and use it as an excuse to prosecute a Canadian veteran like he's Bin Laden because of moral panic and Covid was too scary for everyone to think straight. Right.
According to the RCMP: “Diagolon does not pose a criminal or national security threat. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) is cited as the main authority on the group by all mainstream media outlets; due to the fact that all information traces back to one source, triangulation and the verification of facts is almost impossible at the current time.”
It’s time to label the Liberals as China’s favored choice.
Trump will have his 2 yrs before the midterms. It’s doubtful he’ll hang onto all control. But, China? She ain’t going anywhere. She’s been working North America for decades. Apparently unbeknownst to the public at large, but eagerly supported by Chretien & Power Corp, et Al. (Read that as QUEBEC.)
The piles of money that China funneled into Papineau speaks volumes, the endless fundraiser dinners featuring Justin grinning like a grateful useful idiot, and his CCP-friendly senator & MPs.
That’s who the Liberals are - it’s bred in the bone. Carney is not a change, he’s here to amp it up.
The Liberals love a villain? Have you seen the red-tinged anti-Carney ads from the Conservatives? One of Propaganda Pierre's problems is that he's using the same slice and dice Republican campaigning techniques. Trump managed to fool the peasants into thinking he was on their side when he has the support of all the American oligarchs. They've always dreamed of throwing government into the wood chipper and now their dreams are coming true. (They may soon find themselves in a French Revolution situation but that's another topic). The Stephen Harper contingent has always been about cutting taxes and eliminating government which benefits the rich more than anyone else. PP is Stephen Harper without the insights. He has a short period of time to prove that he's got more than trolling and nicknames.
The Liberals are at least as divisive in strategy as the Conservatives, yet they don't suffer the same reputation. Trudeau often labeled his opponents as women-haters and racists.
Trudeau has said some dumb things and I'm glad to see the end of him but he doesn't repeat the same stupid slogans every single time a microphone is put in front of him. What Poilievre is doing is a tried and true technique for psychological manipulation. I saw a WW2 documentary years ago where they interviewed a former Nazi propagandist and he said "Zimplify und repeat, zimplify und repeat and people will believe anything." If Propaganda Pierre had good policies he wouldn't need to subconsciously manipulate people.
As most already know, I am very much pro-Poilievre and anti-Carney/Trudeau and the current iteration of Liberals to wnom I refer as the Liberal sneak of weasels. I would remind those who imply and state that Pierre has done nothing prime ministerial, that his long standing and pre-Trump policies of 1) axe the carbon tax, 2) increase housing, 3) increase defence, 4) strengthen the border, 5) stop the drugs & crime, 6) bring it [jobs, manufacturing, general productivity, etc.] home, and more have all been adopted by the Liberal annointed PM in waiting (albeit with the usual dishonest twists such as the switcharoo of where the carbon tax is applied, etc.) as his supposed prime ministerial and government plan while keeping everything Trudeau.
Poilievre is nothing like Trump! NOTHING! Repeating the lie that he is doesn’t make it true. Using clips and quotes of same words out of context is not “proof” it’s propaganda - something at which the Liberals excel, having the backing of their propaganda arm the CBC and the rest of the highly subsidized media. Do you not recall Catherine McKenna’s bar brag: “If you say it loud enough and keep repeating it, people will totally believe it; and it becomes your talking point”? This is what the Liberals (and their sycophants) are currently doing with: Poilievre=Trump; Poilievre = American health care, etc. And their most recent unsubstantiated drumbeat: seeding falsehoods re Pierre’s ability to obtain security clearance when he, with Tom Mulcair’s confirmation, has made it abundantly clear that reading the Liberal sanitized reports and briefings as Opposition Leader would gag him, thus preventing him from doing his primary job, which is to hold the government to account on behalf of Canadians.
As for the alleged problem of Pierre doing an interview with Jordan Peterson, so what? Did you listen to the interview? Pierre’s portion was excellent, and the interview was about 10,000 times more informative than the Jon Stewart or Bill Maher farces performed by Carney and Freeland. Jordan Peterson is Canadian and knows Canadian politics and history. Guess the Maple Leaf flag the “Canada is genocidal” Liberals are recently wrapped in get’s removed when there are audiences to be reached. Hmmm - what happened to the absolutely essential CBC for Canadian unity and national security? But Pierre’s media choices are the problem. Ha! Listen to the tone, tenor, and type of questions the media presents to Pierre Poilievre (go back as far as you like). Then listen to the same media personalities (few deserve the title reporter and even fewer journalist) when they are doing scrums with Trudeau, Carney, Freeland, or any of the Liberal Cabinet Ministers. If you are unable to discern the difference and recognize the bias, simple hearing aids will not correct the problem because it is a listening problem, not a hearing problem.
AND FINALLY, I liken the attitude of too many fickle, shallow, and shiny-new-thing lemmings toward Pierre Poilievre, and those waffling supporters, to the following quote from Tolstoy: “I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means—except by getting off his back.” To you, I suggest GET OFF HIS BACK and GET ON HIS TEAM!
When PP got an endorsement from Alex Jones, I said to a conservative buddy "he has to say thanks but no thanks to that". His response: "Why? He can't control what someone else says about him".
At the time it didn't matter if Pierre got an endorsement from Atilla the Hun, everyone hated Trudeau and it didn't matter. Now Trudeau is gone and in the last two months Trump has personally erased that massive lead. LPC are gonna run ads with that Jones endorsement and Pierre is gonna wish he had said "thanks but no thanks".
Book it. And this is from a guy who things another LPC win would be very bad for this country.
Every move he makes, every breath he takes…, the Lieberals have been watching him. If people are stupid enough to believe that sh*t about Alex Jones, they deserve the Liberal sneak of weasels hurt they’re going to feel and there’s nothing can be done about it. Is an unacknowledged Alex Jones endorsement really worse than a private meeting with a known CCP money laundering king pin, and photos with a known UFWD/CCP agent whose arranged a fund raiser for your liberal party and your leadership candidacy? I don’t think so.
He's already posted a platform, so you can hardly say he needs more time. If he wanted to distinguish himself, that was his chance.
Carney doesn't even pretend he's going to make a break from the Trudeau liberal housing strategy of cramming young people into 'affordable' apartments while doing nothing on the low-density housing most want, serving the dual noble purposes of maintaining boomers' equity and somehow accommodating massive population growth all while fretting about its environmental impact. The changes (like the carbon tax or being slightly more pro-growth) are window dressing. There's no indication he understands what the actual tensions are, and is making policy plans that prioritize the interests of the same people (particularly older asset owners) who Trudeau prioritized.
He's a status quo candidate. That's why boomers like him most.
More of the usual divisive stuff, dividing the population into groups you can name and hate, that LPC and NDP love so much.
Look, good policy maintains everyone's equity as best as possible and the world was never a simp-simp, binary place where boomers have to lose for the disappointed to win.
That kind of thinking lacks the imagination, creativity, and hope that builds a successful society.
So what is the alternative? Boomers maintain their equity and government subsidizes first time homeowners?
Good policy would be to let the market be the market and the government stop supporting real estate prices with every longer mortgage amortizations, allowing high LTV mortgages and continued growth in CHMC. Canada used to experience real estate busts every 7-10 years. What makes the current generation of homeowners special?
I'm not playing with false premises based on artificial binary choices, and oh-by-the-way, my community just came out of a R.E. bust that ended in 2016.
Also, the R.E. cycle is much, much longer than equites, for example, because of the difference in liquidity.
There are many alternatives depending on what outcome you'd like to see.
Mortgage amortizations and any other perceived incentives have waxed and waned, and I don't think you understand capital the way I do.
I think it's divisive for a politician to say "houses have to maintain their value" while a whole generation struggles to afford space for children. It's divisive for his successor to propose policies that quietly guarantee that, whether he would be unwise enough to say it out loud of not.
Sorry if it hurts the feelings of the privileged to hear their good fortune came at others' expense and the disprivileged know it, but the reality is that the unearned windfall some older homeowners now believe they are owed came at the expense of affordability for the next generation. There's no 'imagination' that somehow avoids the inherent trade-off that higher prices for sellers means higher prices for buyers, only concessions on the part of the young (like Carney's gambit to shove everyone into apartments). Young people had to lose for boomers to win; at this point boomers are like a dim school bully who cried their victim took their lunch back instead of making a new one.
But hey, maybe it can be boomers who find some creativity to find another way to fund their retirement when we stop treating housing like a cartel and their house only fetches the free market price. You wouldn't demand something you wouldn't do yourself, eh?
My feelings are not hurt and I started my adult life on the streets of Winnipeg, without food or a place to be warm, for 3 years on and off.
For your sake (lol): I'm VERY grateful for the good luck to born Canadian, and all the lucky things that, combined with a LOT of hard work and suffering, brought me to some security. I've sacrificed a lot for the life I have today and feel really good about it, so you can stuff it, lol.
To repeat myself, your narrow, tear-someone-down-to-make-your-life-better POV is necessarily marginalized and unless and until you learn to love people, you don't get a seat at the table because you don't deserve it.
You didn't sacrifice anything for your home price to increase past inflation (although if you live in Winnipeg you are possibly just clueless about what is happening in the rest of the country). Your hardship does not justify imposing policy-induced hardship on the next generation. Stuff it.
Home prices are not the only hardship imposed on future generations. The government is also leaving a legacy of massive debt that will be difficult to service in a low GDP growth reality. The Boomer really had their cake and expect to eat it too.
Every "older asset owner" I've ever met hates Trudeau's guts. Because they have plenty of assets beyond RE and Justin prevented those assets from reaching their potential.
If Carney wants me to believe his policies will be a change from the last government, he needs to clean house in a dramatic, even performative, but substantial way. Until he does something like that, I'm suspicious.
If you've led a large organization, made up of different sized teams working on different things, you well know this is a ship pointed in one direction, and slow to turn. The drama of publicly firing someone who deserves it, but also represents what you DON'T WANT, sends a message to the organization that everyone with any wit hears clearly.
If he wants us to believe he's different, I need to see some of this.
I completely agree with you, and that's one reason among many that I'm opposed to the Mendecino appointment.
He is in something of a bind here; until he knows what his caucus will be (operating under the premise, as he must, that he will win) his options are artificially limited to the present caucus. For one who wants to be pragmatic and effective, he can only go so far with the theatre of performative appointments to prove a point - especially when many of the strongest and most public-facing Ministers are the ones on key Trump files.
However I agree that if he does not sweep the decks, it will look and feel very much like a Trudeau cabinet, which carries with it so much baggage that it could very well sink the Liberal's burgeoning electoral chances. I was counting on a big shuffle after the election once he has a mandate and a proper sense of the new caucus, but you may be right that he needs to make his moves *now*, or he may not get the chance to make any at all later.
Carney has been advising Trudeau since, I believe, late 2003, and has chosen to retain Trudeau’s inner circle of policy wonks led by Telford and Butts. To me that signals Canadians will continue to be subjected to Ontario-Quebec focused policy thrusts and the same apologist agenda favoured by the Liberal elite.
I fully expect Carney.1 will closely resemble the self-congratulatory nine years of Trudeau’s “Reign of Error”.
"and has chosen to retain Trudeau's inner circle of policy wonks..."
I haven't read that he's said this, and I want to know... please share the source? It's very important to know what team he chooses and I'm surprised to hear he's said anything about that before being invested.
So you claim for a fact that Telford and Butts have been retained, and when pressed for a source (because you just made it up) you just walk away? Classy!
Whatever Poilievre has been in the past, it is now time for him to start looking and acting Prime Ministerial, the PM in waiting. There are many red Tories currently in the Liberal camp who would be willing to give him a shot, but he has to stop acting like an attack dog. It may be time for a new advisor. In fact, it would be great to see new political advisors for both parties. Both Telford and Byrne should be replaced with fresh thinking.
President Trump got elected - in spite of his mass media reported flaws - because the average working American felt Trump understood him and the Washington elites didn’t . (per NY Times Analysis). If Pierre concentrates on that aspect of his personality he will win.
Setting up President Trump as Satan - hoping voters will ignore or downplay Liberal links to Chinese communists and Quebec criminal engineering companies and organizations - and then taking refuge in pretend patriotism can only fool people for a while. Canadian federal voters have been giving power -with the odd exception - to self appointed Quebec elites for generations. We’ll see if 2025 turns out to be an “exceptional” year. If not, mediocrity will continue…
I have been waiting for Poilievre to start auditioning for a Prime Ministership for two years and he can’t help himself but to run everyone and everything through a political meat grinder.
I will give Poilievre credit for one thing: the Liberals have been taunting him as a person with nothing but slogans but have made darn sure to neuter his talking points by adopting them. Now he has the opportunity to reframe himself and get ahead of the Trump Wars that the Liberals are fomenting to stay in power.
Do people really believe the Liberals are going to start changing the positions they’ve been locked into for years? They are throwing some magic dust our way and pretending it’s a new party and they will change all those things we hated but really? The core of the party insiders don’t really want to change and so while they might pay lip service to new positions or pretend the carbon tax is going away, we shouldn’t really believe this. There are also far to many organizations and frankly businesses who have done very well by adhering themselves to the flow of government money, our money. Only by a thorough cleaning of house, can we do a re-set. And yes, in a number of years we will then need to do another re-set.
Beating the Trump menace will take political experience . . .and an empathy grounded in the lives of the millions of ordinary people who are struggling, i.e. the people who haven’t been wealthy bankers, or central bankers." I think the writer should have written a few more lines to back that one up. Like, why does it take political experience to deal with Trump? Sounds like the usual demonizing of anyone who has made a success of himself outside the world of politics. Like Carney said, he knows how the world works. All PP offers are slogans and attitude.
“…why does it take political experience to deal with Trump?”
I’ll take a stab at this. Trump is a showman and cares about appearances. He wants to be seen as the greatest president in history, the dealmaker, he wants people to love, respect, and fear him.
Our leaders will need to make a Canadian win look and feel to Trump like he won. Take the UK for example….they may secure a trade deal with the US at the cost of treating Trump like literal royalty. Who wins? They both win. This is political skill. You understand symbolism, emotions, motivation, ego.
I think it’s reasonable to suggest that a successful career politician has more political skill than a novice politician. Maybe Carney will surprise us all?
“…a successful career politician…” ??? Who would that be? Surely not the guy whose highest achievement has been leading the pack of nasty little twerps who were Harper’s “Rat pack”
Trump understands one thing and that's a punch in the face. Why do you think he was fluffing Doug Ford yesterday? Ford punched him in the face and that's something Trump respects. He doesn't give a rat's backside about political skill. He's not a politician.
Is it just me, or is it sort of funny to watch Liberals in 2025 discover all the rational arguments about experience the Conservatives were making in 2015? (re: relatively inexperienced guy vs. acknowledged economist) ...except Poilievre isn't actually inexperienced AT ALL.
After their wholesale rejection of Harper, somehow they've decided that a boring technocrat is just what we need as PM, after all. I just find this funny.
Poilievre doesn't need to worry about his balls being in a vice until he grows a pair. I've been waiting for him to actually come up with his answers to tough questions. Insulting journalists doesn't make him a leader. I've had enough of his arrogant BS. Rage farming got him into this position but it's day is done.
I would suggest you need to broaden your scope from liberal leaning sources of PP clips online., which obviously highlight the things you believe. The guy has answered many policy questions in long form format many times over the years.
I watched his interview with Juno News which certainly doesn’t qualify as a leftist news organization. He was comfortable, relaxed and spoke well. It was batting practice; the interviewer was tossing softballs. She only challenged him faintly, once (about tariffs which she called Liberal taxes). He gave a bland answer and there was no follow-up. Nary an apple was chomped….
Even as a centrist liberal I'd love to see the Pierre Andrew envsions exists to show up to create a race full of ideas and policy.
But even if Pierre isn't Trump, I think we are at the what you see is what you get version of what he is.
This is the guy who with the spectre of a Trump presidency on the horizon chose to go on Jordan Peterson's show to further burnish his right wing anti media character. When it became clear the general was just on the horizon he doubled down on vicious negative attacks on everybody and everything not in his orbit rather than look to solidify the left flank of swing voters.
When Carney gained his momentum he tried to maintain the same strategy he used against an unpopular incumbent rather than challenge on ideas.
Pierre may be smart and hard working but for all his time in government he has nothing to show for it. He is nearing 3 years as leader of the official opposition and I'm struggling to point out a meaningful moment in that time. It has all been nastiness and slogans. And now when the situation has turned I seriously doubt he and his advisors have any sort of plan B.
He had spent the last 3 plus years catering the far right of his party and has benefitted from an unpopular incumbent. Now without that incumbent and with no effort to cater to those he will need to be comfortably elected, he has turned what should've been a walk over into a competitive battle.
So you come in, criticize but then don't tell where I was incorrect. Trying to be fair but I can't see much of anything he has done since he became leader that wasn't in service to a far right base. His whole gameplan was to win on the basis of an unpopular incumbent so he hasn't looked to appeal to anybody beyond his core base. He demonizes the media most Canadians get their information from and allows his tightly controlled Caucus to echo his attacks.
Now that the incumbent is gone he is using the same tactics on the new guy and the polls are sinking. One of his MPs called Carney a Communist the other day.
I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is going to be capable to provide a fleshed out platform to create a campaign of ideas but nothing in his CV says he can.
Please by all means correct me where I'm wrong. Examples required or you're just a drive by sniper
> chose to go on Jordan Peterson's show to further burnish his right wing anti media character.
Like it or not, Jordan Peterson is a significant voice in the Canadian sphere. Mark Carney would do well to go on his podcast too.... because going where the listeners are MATTERS. (But of course he would have been smarter to appear on On The Line). And quite frankly, Mr. Polievre would do well to go on liberal friendly podcasts because again.. going where the listeners are MATTERS.
I read somewhere that Kamala Harris was invited to go on Joe Rogan and was pushed by her media people to refuse... because can't talk to the bad man. Good grief that's a bad idea.
Is he though? He's a voice in a community that isn't in going to vote for Carney in a billion years. He's a voice that went to Russia for 'treatment' and now goes out of his way to attack Canada.
I agree you talk to different voices but not all voices regardless of reach are going to be beneficial.
There is a core of good conservative journalists who will ask difficult questions and it may benefit Carney going on.
But Peterson, Rogan, Levant and the numerous other factories for far right thought aren't the places.
You'd be surprised, but your experience isn't the full view of Jordan Peterson.
I got a ride with my boss the other day to a meeting. Our company tries to be apolitical, so he'd never tell me how he votes, but based on who he is and what he talks about in business and management, he's the kind of guy that would like a Mark Carney type Prime Minister. Almost certainly not a Trudeau fan or a Poilievre fan. All the things that Mark Carney's supporters say he's got in spade, (steady hand, business/management/financial experience, etc.) that's what my boss would like to see in a Prime Minister.
Guess what I saw was playing last on his podcast displayed on the dash. That's right. Jordan Peterson.
Another thing about my boss? The chances of him commenting online about politics are zero.
Edit: oh and one more thing. None of those people listed are "far right". Far right means skinhead nazi. Left-wing people co-opting it to mean "anyone to the right of Stephen Harper and probably him too" doesn't make them far right. It's like the people who insist that Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh are communists. So very ridiculous.
You can disagree all you like, but your dislike of Jordan Peterson doesn't change the fact his listeners have the Mark Carney accessible vote sprinkled in there.
Which means that Mark Carney would be wise to go where the accessible votes are.
Peterson has a huge following, and I often enjoy his point of view because he's thoughtful and listens. Most of all he's very respectful of his guests, especially those with whom he openly disagrees. He embraces those conversations and I think that's a great example to set for everyone.
That he and I might have a different opinion on when it's OK to give a child puberty blockers is no more reason to refuse to engage than with the CBC for some of its commentary. Just childish, and sad..
Anyone who would suggest that Jordan Peterson hates anyone or would wish harm on anyone isn't worth listening to. It's just not true.
However that attitude does sound a lot like the left-leaning, anti-free-speech bullshit we've suffered under in institutions of the last 10 years. Left-leaning oppression it's just shitty is right wing oppression, the difference being only on the left do they think they're doing the work of the righteous. The right just thinks they're doing what they want, because they can.
This is a really important point and exactly what I would do if I was responsible for comms and strategy for either party.
The fact that this is out of fashion is really bad news for the human race. It's immature, childish, and ineffective not to have the guts to appear and answer questions in a forum favoured by people who aren't inclined to vote for you.
I'd argue that today, a real leader has an opportunity to be different just by doing this one thing. This would also reverse course on a terrible trend of throwing our toys out of the pram, and picking up our bat and ball and going home when things are going our way.
I've read that Rogan played "keep away" with the Harris team. He did not make it easy for them to get on the show. I used to like him but he's so Trump/oligarch now it's like he's a different person.
What really worries me, and we should see better from a "career politician", is that politics turns on a dime. When that happens the old strategy can become a liability and a "career politician" ... well, what tools should they bring to the table if not the ability to change strategy to meet the moment?
It is still taking too long for him to sound like a leader of the country, rather than the leader of the opposition.
We need him to be better, fast. Nothing good comes from a landslide in either direction today, especially not the LPC.
We should see more. I accept that when Trudeau was imploding he didn't have to do much, but I've not seen anything in his time in office that suggest he can pivot into a different person that Andrew suggests is there. I hope to be proven wrong. This is going to be a vital election and if it's going to be fought on trying to nick name Carney or trying to get some weak mud to stick then it's a waste.
The Liberals will be fortunate to achieve 80 seats and, the longer an election takes, the fewer they'll get.
46 of the current Liberals will not be candidates in the next election--30% of their current total. The NDP will fade into Green Party invisibility. Poilievre's effectiveness will be retained.
Conservatives will get a very significant majority in the next election.
I think "Mark Carney is, in just about every way, “continuity Trudeau.” He’s got the same team, the same policies, the same modus operandi, and the same worldview" is a pretty bold assumption. He hasn't even taken over the job yet. One thing we haven't seen is the basic arrogant asshole with dubious judgement (the Convoy) that Pierre has made quite clear. That's not an insurmountable hurdle, but Pierre needs to start looking like a leader in waiting; something he hasn't shown to date.
Being a central banker or an investment broker doesn't mean one will be capable of running a G7 economy or the minutia of day to day life in Canada. By many accounts Carney's record is spotty at best. The only thing making him seemingly so popular in central and eastern Canada is the fact that the liberal propaganda machine is extremely powerful and persuasive. That combined with a high level of apathy and a low level of political awareness in Canada make for a very strange dichotomy. We just went through ten years of liberal mismanagement and now that the liberals have put a different lipstick on the same inept pig, Canadians are flocking back. No wonder Canada is leading in the race to the bottom. We have a chance for a change with Poilievre and his team, maybe it's time for Canadians to get their heads out of the sand!
I agree it’s time for Poilievre to refocus and have a fight plan in place. That he hasn’t yet went full throttle is just good politics. There is no point in shadow boxing while leaving yourself open. Planning your talking points when the new leader is in the chair and making questionable decisions that can be easily illustrated gives you the needed ammunition. The Mendicino appointment has to be the lead story so far. His history brings to mind the old army plan that after what he did previously we either need to court martial him or give him a promotion. Promotion it is.
I disagree with comments that Poilievre is unfit for higher office because he is a career politician. Being leader of the opposition is a good resume for a prospective PM.
What’s wrong with having a career focus? My surgeon has been nothing but a surgeon his entire career. Likewise my lawyer, and many other professionals I know.
The other obvious response is that a government is not one person. It is a team of people. And the Liberals are sending the same group of people over with Carney.
You are right. Something that Carney has made clear - he is the leader of a strong team. The Conservatives have been out of power for 10 years and do not have a team that is tested and experienced. Poilievre would have been a safe bet for the next PM had Trump not won. But to date, in my mind, Poilievre has not demonstrated any ability to negotiate and compromise in anyway, something that I think is critical at this moment in time.
...neither has Carney. I disagree that the Liberal team is strong. The carryovers from the Trudeau were mostly in the background as the PMO was so prominent.
Carney is China’s favored boy. That’s what he is.
You can project what you will about Carney. But the statement the Liberal team is “Strong” defies all the evidence of the last 10 years. This is as weak and incompetent a group that has ever governed Canada. Our state of the Nation proves it.
Traditionally there are a lot of young politicians among the NDP. People never seem to criticize them for being lifers. Funny how that works.
Becoming a politician, better yet the leader of the opposition, is a wholly different job than being the leader of the Country. Now if we had an electoral system that promoted collaboration and compromise it might be a different story....
We had that, thanks to Jagmeet. I didn’t like it.
I didn't either!
How do the Liberals square this tactic with their support of the eminently un qualified Justin Trudeau for 10 years?
I don't think unfit, and that wasn't proposed in the article, but I sure wish for a more well-rounded experience. Anyone who only worked in the political environment in Canada is a concern for me because we see a lot of bad behaviour and bad perspective.
Yup, Winston Churchill was career politician
The Liberals love having a villain. It doesn't matter who is leader of the Conservative Party. They will all be labeled Trump-light or some such stupid thing.
O'Toole was fine. Poilievre is labeled Trump-lite because he uses the same tactics and courts the same crowds.
There's nothing wrong with being conservative. There is something wrong with reducing our politics to cheap slogans and nicknames like "Carbon Tax Carney" and "Sellout Singh", promoting conspiracy theories, legitimizing extremist groups like Diagolon for social media clout, pushing disinformation to further a political agenda... Need I go on?
They hassled O’Toole as well and he screwed himself by pissing off the legal gun owners who supported him. You don’t need to convince me of any Rachel Gilmore talking points 😂. I know a lot of Conservatives. They aren’t even close to how you describe them. And they are generally more tolerant than my Liberal friends so much more fun to be around.
I'm not describing conservatives writ large, I'm describing Poilievre. As I said, there's nothing wrong with being conservative. I have conservative friends as well.
And yes, of course they will hassle the leader of the opposition. Does it suprise you that opposition parties will jostle eachother?
No it doesn’t surprise me, but the Liberals now have an opponent who can stand up to all that. They got the opponent they deserve. I personally like Pierre. Do I think he’s perfect? Absolutely not. But I think he’d make a great PM. He’s been one of the more effective MPs in the House. It’s fine for you to disagree with me, but please spare me the Liberal Party narrative. I put no politician on a pedestal, which is why I suppose I could never identify as Liberal. And it’s why Conservatives don’t win as many elections. They get pissed off at the leader too easily. It is what it is.
It's not a narrative, every one of my points can be verified if you care to do so.
I will not disagree with you that the Liberals got the opponent they deserve. They certainly fell out of touch in recent years, eliciting a lot of not-unjustified anger, frustration, and resentment amongst a sizable portion of Canada's population. Poilievre's rise was the manifestation of those frustrations.
I will agree that he is an effective rhetorician when on the attack. An effective legislator? No comment.
"Fell out of touch" is a very generous way to describe what the Liberals have done. I live in a riding that moves between the Conservatives and the Liberals.
The widespread and openly stated anger toward JT and the Liberals has not changed with Carney's predictable selection. I've lived in this riding through many federal and provincial elections and have never seen anything like this.
Unless our local candidate does something incredibly idiotic, I fully expect my currently Liberal riding to be Conservative next election. That tells me that people want to blame someone (JT), and Carney won't escape that blame easily.
I agree the Liberals got the the opponent they deserve as well. He did a good job highlighting their failures but, and the article points this out, they were very, very easy targets.
What worries me greatly is, although I have a very good idea of what PP doesn't like, would not do, or would undo... I have no idea what policies he thinks will bring us a better future.
I've heard "lower taxes and eliminate red tape" so many times in my life without results, I need to hear a LOT better than that.
Amen! Well said!
I distinctly remember Andrew Scheer getting attacked with accusations of having a hidden agenda on abortion. A quick googling shows that Ralph Goodale was fear-mongering that Scheer would outlaw same sex marriage.
You might have thought O'Toole was fine, but the LPC was definitely all in on fear mongering about the man. Just like they did for Harper. It's what they do. The LPC by all appearances thinks that any conservative Prime Minister is the end of the world.
fear-mongering flows in all directions equally... omg lets be real. According to lots of liberals P P is the next Nazi taking us to fascist hell. Goodness lets see ourselves with just a bit of clarity lol
Its hard to take your comment seriously if you honestly believe PP has legitimized Diagolon.... they mean nothing to almost everyone and most Canadians have no clue who they are and don't care. They are a non factor to anyone but themselves and a few followers.
I amended my statement in a comment somewhere above, I'd edit it if I could. Legitimized was too much. For diagolon at least.
Diagolon? Really?
The (extremely) off-color satire group who made up a non-existent nonsense country?
Adult-swim Lilliputian deranged "comedy" may not be funny to me, but I'm not scared their time-travel cocaine goat is going to send his kamikaze bees after anyone.
In 2022, Pierre Poilievre called Diagolon members "losers" and "dirtbags" after they suggested raping Anaida Poilievre, his wife, on their podcast.
https://www.sasktoday.ca/central/local-news/diagolon-is-a-time-travelling-cocaine-addicted-goat-tom-marazzo-6047670
Was that before or after he hung out with diagolon supporters at the convoy camp?
I will however admit that legitimizing was too strong a word, and accept he might not have known who they were.
Let's dial it down to "flirts with" extremist groups, and "promotes conspiracy thinking" to achieve his political aims.
PP obviously didn't know who they were. He can't run background checks on everyone he meets.
Doesn't stopping to talk to anti-carbon tax protestors who happened to align with Diagalon being evidence of supporting Diagalon sound overly simplistic? Much like Andrew Scheer believing in pizzagate
My point was more that "Diagolon Supporter" is a bit of a nonsense term.
It's like calling someone a "Ren and Stimpy Supporter" or "Lilliput Supporter".
"Fan" is probably more appropriate a descriptor for the guys that are into that Plaid Army stuff.
Continuing to insist that Diagolon is a real organization is more than fantastical at this point. It was a fictitious country in a parallel universe. The vice-president of Diagolon was a cocaine-addicted, time-travelling goat named King Phillip. Diagolon was at war with “Circulon.”
Bees were bred to terrorize Diagolon’s enemies and a bee, Jeffrey, died in a kamikaze mission when he was swallowed by Doug Ford during a press conference.
It's dumb humor. It's mostly in bad taste. But hey, let's all pretend "they" are a group of nazis and use it as an excuse to prosecute a Canadian veteran like he's Bin Laden because of moral panic and Covid was too scary for everyone to think straight. Right.
According to the RCMP: “Diagolon does not pose a criminal or national security threat. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) is cited as the main authority on the group by all mainstream media outlets; due to the fact that all information traces back to one source, triangulation and the verification of facts is almost impossible at the current time.”
That rabbit hole isn't even very deep.
Wait, are you saying that Rachel Gilmore tried to mislead us? 🤣
It’s time to label the Liberals as China’s favored choice.
Trump will have his 2 yrs before the midterms. It’s doubtful he’ll hang onto all control. But, China? She ain’t going anywhere. She’s been working North America for decades. Apparently unbeknownst to the public at large, but eagerly supported by Chretien & Power Corp, et Al. (Read that as QUEBEC.)
The piles of money that China funneled into Papineau speaks volumes, the endless fundraiser dinners featuring Justin grinning like a grateful useful idiot, and his CCP-friendly senator & MPs.
That’s who the Liberals are - it’s bred in the bone. Carney is not a change, he’s here to amp it up.
The Liberals love a villain? Have you seen the red-tinged anti-Carney ads from the Conservatives? One of Propaganda Pierre's problems is that he's using the same slice and dice Republican campaigning techniques. Trump managed to fool the peasants into thinking he was on their side when he has the support of all the American oligarchs. They've always dreamed of throwing government into the wood chipper and now their dreams are coming true. (They may soon find themselves in a French Revolution situation but that's another topic). The Stephen Harper contingent has always been about cutting taxes and eliminating government which benefits the rich more than anyone else. PP is Stephen Harper without the insights. He has a short period of time to prove that he's got more than trolling and nicknames.
The Liberals are at least as divisive in strategy as the Conservatives, yet they don't suffer the same reputation. Trudeau often labeled his opponents as women-haters and racists.
Trudeau has said some dumb things and I'm glad to see the end of him but he doesn't repeat the same stupid slogans every single time a microphone is put in front of him. What Poilievre is doing is a tried and true technique for psychological manipulation. I saw a WW2 documentary years ago where they interviewed a former Nazi propagandist and he said "Zimplify und repeat, zimplify und repeat and people will believe anything." If Propaganda Pierre had good policies he wouldn't need to subconsciously manipulate people.
And if you repeat it enough times, they will believe it, said a Liberal politician not that long ago.
Godwin has spoken
Godwin never shuts up these days.
Godwin's Law doesn't apply when you're discussing the destruction of a democracy.
You just proved that it does
As most already know, I am very much pro-Poilievre and anti-Carney/Trudeau and the current iteration of Liberals to wnom I refer as the Liberal sneak of weasels. I would remind those who imply and state that Pierre has done nothing prime ministerial, that his long standing and pre-Trump policies of 1) axe the carbon tax, 2) increase housing, 3) increase defence, 4) strengthen the border, 5) stop the drugs & crime, 6) bring it [jobs, manufacturing, general productivity, etc.] home, and more have all been adopted by the Liberal annointed PM in waiting (albeit with the usual dishonest twists such as the switcharoo of where the carbon tax is applied, etc.) as his supposed prime ministerial and government plan while keeping everything Trudeau.
Poilievre is nothing like Trump! NOTHING! Repeating the lie that he is doesn’t make it true. Using clips and quotes of same words out of context is not “proof” it’s propaganda - something at which the Liberals excel, having the backing of their propaganda arm the CBC and the rest of the highly subsidized media. Do you not recall Catherine McKenna’s bar brag: “If you say it loud enough and keep repeating it, people will totally believe it; and it becomes your talking point”? This is what the Liberals (and their sycophants) are currently doing with: Poilievre=Trump; Poilievre = American health care, etc. And their most recent unsubstantiated drumbeat: seeding falsehoods re Pierre’s ability to obtain security clearance when he, with Tom Mulcair’s confirmation, has made it abundantly clear that reading the Liberal sanitized reports and briefings as Opposition Leader would gag him, thus preventing him from doing his primary job, which is to hold the government to account on behalf of Canadians.
As for the alleged problem of Pierre doing an interview with Jordan Peterson, so what? Did you listen to the interview? Pierre’s portion was excellent, and the interview was about 10,000 times more informative than the Jon Stewart or Bill Maher farces performed by Carney and Freeland. Jordan Peterson is Canadian and knows Canadian politics and history. Guess the Maple Leaf flag the “Canada is genocidal” Liberals are recently wrapped in get’s removed when there are audiences to be reached. Hmmm - what happened to the absolutely essential CBC for Canadian unity and national security? But Pierre’s media choices are the problem. Ha! Listen to the tone, tenor, and type of questions the media presents to Pierre Poilievre (go back as far as you like). Then listen to the same media personalities (few deserve the title reporter and even fewer journalist) when they are doing scrums with Trudeau, Carney, Freeland, or any of the Liberal Cabinet Ministers. If you are unable to discern the difference and recognize the bias, simple hearing aids will not correct the problem because it is a listening problem, not a hearing problem.
AND FINALLY, I liken the attitude of too many fickle, shallow, and shiny-new-thing lemmings toward Pierre Poilievre, and those waffling supporters, to the following quote from Tolstoy: “I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means—except by getting off his back.” To you, I suggest GET OFF HIS BACK and GET ON HIS TEAM!
Carney’s hidden agenda — he might *cancel* the carbon tax, but somebody (ie you and me) are going to pay for net zero somehow.
Definitely!
Thank you for putting my thoughts down here so succinctly. I appreciate your voice on “The Line”.
Yes. And the last paragraph hits the bullseye.
Thanks. That was the hope.
Thanks, Lynne. That’s kind of you. I appreciate your voice as well.
Here's the thing.
When PP got an endorsement from Alex Jones, I said to a conservative buddy "he has to say thanks but no thanks to that". His response: "Why? He can't control what someone else says about him".
At the time it didn't matter if Pierre got an endorsement from Atilla the Hun, everyone hated Trudeau and it didn't matter. Now Trudeau is gone and in the last two months Trump has personally erased that massive lead. LPC are gonna run ads with that Jones endorsement and Pierre is gonna wish he had said "thanks but no thanks".
Book it. And this is from a guy who things another LPC win would be very bad for this country.
Every move he makes, every breath he takes…, the Lieberals have been watching him. If people are stupid enough to believe that sh*t about Alex Jones, they deserve the Liberal sneak of weasels hurt they’re going to feel and there’s nothing can be done about it. Is an unacknowledged Alex Jones endorsement really worse than a private meeting with a known CCP money laundering king pin, and photos with a known UFWD/CCP agent whose arranged a fund raiser for your liberal party and your leadership candidacy? I don’t think so.
Nice puff piece. Three days in as leader is enough to conclude that "Mark Carney is, in just about every way, 'continuity Trudeau?'"
Please. Articles like this undermine the credibility of the Line.
Marco Mendicino, David Lametti, Gerald Butts, Katie Telford
And every probability that the same “electoral efficiency” crew will be plotting the slice and dice wedges to recapture the Ontario and Quebec votes.
He's not even sworn in yet..........
He's already posted a platform, so you can hardly say he needs more time. If he wanted to distinguish himself, that was his chance.
Carney doesn't even pretend he's going to make a break from the Trudeau liberal housing strategy of cramming young people into 'affordable' apartments while doing nothing on the low-density housing most want, serving the dual noble purposes of maintaining boomers' equity and somehow accommodating massive population growth all while fretting about its environmental impact. The changes (like the carbon tax or being slightly more pro-growth) are window dressing. There's no indication he understands what the actual tensions are, and is making policy plans that prioritize the interests of the same people (particularly older asset owners) who Trudeau prioritized.
He's a status quo candidate. That's why boomers like him most.
"maintaining boomers equity..."
More of the usual divisive stuff, dividing the population into groups you can name and hate, that LPC and NDP love so much.
Look, good policy maintains everyone's equity as best as possible and the world was never a simp-simp, binary place where boomers have to lose for the disappointed to win.
That kind of thinking lacks the imagination, creativity, and hope that builds a successful society.
So what is the alternative? Boomers maintain their equity and government subsidizes first time homeowners?
Good policy would be to let the market be the market and the government stop supporting real estate prices with every longer mortgage amortizations, allowing high LTV mortgages and continued growth in CHMC. Canada used to experience real estate busts every 7-10 years. What makes the current generation of homeowners special?
I'm not playing with false premises based on artificial binary choices, and oh-by-the-way, my community just came out of a R.E. bust that ended in 2016.
Also, the R.E. cycle is much, much longer than equites, for example, because of the difference in liquidity.
There are many alternatives depending on what outcome you'd like to see.
Mortgage amortizations and any other perceived incentives have waxed and waned, and I don't think you understand capital the way I do.
So real estate busta didn't occur around every 7 to 10 years prior to the early 2000's?
How does your understanding of capital explain the acceleration in real estate prices that started around the early 2000s?
I think it's divisive for a politician to say "houses have to maintain their value" while a whole generation struggles to afford space for children. It's divisive for his successor to propose policies that quietly guarantee that, whether he would be unwise enough to say it out loud of not.
Sorry if it hurts the feelings of the privileged to hear their good fortune came at others' expense and the disprivileged know it, but the reality is that the unearned windfall some older homeowners now believe they are owed came at the expense of affordability for the next generation. There's no 'imagination' that somehow avoids the inherent trade-off that higher prices for sellers means higher prices for buyers, only concessions on the part of the young (like Carney's gambit to shove everyone into apartments). Young people had to lose for boomers to win; at this point boomers are like a dim school bully who cried their victim took their lunch back instead of making a new one.
But hey, maybe it can be boomers who find some creativity to find another way to fund their retirement when we stop treating housing like a cartel and their house only fetches the free market price. You wouldn't demand something you wouldn't do yourself, eh?
My feelings are not hurt and I started my adult life on the streets of Winnipeg, without food or a place to be warm, for 3 years on and off.
For your sake (lol): I'm VERY grateful for the good luck to born Canadian, and all the lucky things that, combined with a LOT of hard work and suffering, brought me to some security. I've sacrificed a lot for the life I have today and feel really good about it, so you can stuff it, lol.
To repeat myself, your narrow, tear-someone-down-to-make-your-life-better POV is necessarily marginalized and unless and until you learn to love people, you don't get a seat at the table because you don't deserve it.
You didn't sacrifice anything for your home price to increase past inflation (although if you live in Winnipeg you are possibly just clueless about what is happening in the rest of the country). Your hardship does not justify imposing policy-induced hardship on the next generation. Stuff it.
Home prices are not the only hardship imposed on future generations. The government is also leaving a legacy of massive debt that will be difficult to service in a low GDP growth reality. The Boomer really had their cake and expect to eat it too.
"clueless about ..."
You're hilarious (and a poopy-head)
Every "older asset owner" I've ever met hates Trudeau's guts. Because they have plenty of assets beyond RE and Justin prevented those assets from reaching their potential.
"they, them, their" lol
attaboy
I wonder what "bigot" means?
This I don't get...
If Carney wants me to believe his policies will be a change from the last government, he needs to clean house in a dramatic, even performative, but substantial way. Until he does something like that, I'm suspicious.
If you've led a large organization, made up of different sized teams working on different things, you well know this is a ship pointed in one direction, and slow to turn. The drama of publicly firing someone who deserves it, but also represents what you DON'T WANT, sends a message to the organization that everyone with any wit hears clearly.
If he wants us to believe he's different, I need to see some of this.
I completely agree with you, and that's one reason among many that I'm opposed to the Mendecino appointment.
He is in something of a bind here; until he knows what his caucus will be (operating under the premise, as he must, that he will win) his options are artificially limited to the present caucus. For one who wants to be pragmatic and effective, he can only go so far with the theatre of performative appointments to prove a point - especially when many of the strongest and most public-facing Ministers are the ones on key Trump files.
However I agree that if he does not sweep the decks, it will look and feel very much like a Trudeau cabinet, which carries with it so much baggage that it could very well sink the Liberal's burgeoning electoral chances. I was counting on a big shuffle after the election once he has a mandate and a proper sense of the new caucus, but you may be right that he needs to make his moves *now*, or he may not get the chance to make any at all later.
McDougall has a knack for making a lot grandiose assertions, only to back them up with... absolutely nothing.
I'm don't even believe that his thesis is necessarily wrong, just that partisan potshots don't make good arguments.
Carney has been advising Trudeau since, I believe, late 2003, and has chosen to retain Trudeau’s inner circle of policy wonks led by Telford and Butts. To me that signals Canadians will continue to be subjected to Ontario-Quebec focused policy thrusts and the same apologist agenda favoured by the Liberal elite.
I fully expect Carney.1 will closely resemble the self-congratulatory nine years of Trudeau’s “Reign of Error”.
"and has chosen to retain Trudeau's inner circle of policy wonks..."
I haven't read that he's said this, and I want to know... please share the source? It's very important to know what team he chooses and I'm surprised to hear he's said anything about that before being invested.
Marco Mendocino is a great example of same old same be old. There will be others I’m sure.
So you claim for a fact that Telford and Butts have been retained, and when pressed for a source (because you just made it up) you just walk away? Classy!
Whatever Poilievre has been in the past, it is now time for him to start looking and acting Prime Ministerial, the PM in waiting. There are many red Tories currently in the Liberal camp who would be willing to give him a shot, but he has to stop acting like an attack dog. It may be time for a new advisor. In fact, it would be great to see new political advisors for both parties. Both Telford and Byrne should be replaced with fresh thinking.
"It may be time for a new advisor..."
This may be exactly right, and a quick way to change strategy. I'd add, "it may be time for a new advisor/comms team."
President Trump got elected - in spite of his mass media reported flaws - because the average working American felt Trump understood him and the Washington elites didn’t . (per NY Times Analysis). If Pierre concentrates on that aspect of his personality he will win.
Setting up President Trump as Satan - hoping voters will ignore or downplay Liberal links to Chinese communists and Quebec criminal engineering companies and organizations - and then taking refuge in pretend patriotism can only fool people for a while. Canadian federal voters have been giving power -with the odd exception - to self appointed Quebec elites for generations. We’ll see if 2025 turns out to be an “exceptional” year. If not, mediocrity will continue…
Excellent comments.
I have been waiting for Poilievre to start auditioning for a Prime Ministership for two years and he can’t help himself but to run everyone and everything through a political meat grinder.
I will give Poilievre credit for one thing: the Liberals have been taunting him as a person with nothing but slogans but have made darn sure to neuter his talking points by adopting them. Now he has the opportunity to reframe himself and get ahead of the Trump Wars that the Liberals are fomenting to stay in power.
Do people really believe the Liberals are going to start changing the positions they’ve been locked into for years? They are throwing some magic dust our way and pretending it’s a new party and they will change all those things we hated but really? The core of the party insiders don’t really want to change and so while they might pay lip service to new positions or pretend the carbon tax is going away, we shouldn’t really believe this. There are also far to many organizations and frankly businesses who have done very well by adhering themselves to the flow of government money, our money. Only by a thorough cleaning of house, can we do a re-set. And yes, in a number of years we will then need to do another re-set.
Beating the Trump menace will take political experience . . .and an empathy grounded in the lives of the millions of ordinary people who are struggling, i.e. the people who haven’t been wealthy bankers, or central bankers." I think the writer should have written a few more lines to back that one up. Like, why does it take political experience to deal with Trump? Sounds like the usual demonizing of anyone who has made a success of himself outside the world of politics. Like Carney said, he knows how the world works. All PP offers are slogans and attitude.
“…why does it take political experience to deal with Trump?”
I’ll take a stab at this. Trump is a showman and cares about appearances. He wants to be seen as the greatest president in history, the dealmaker, he wants people to love, respect, and fear him.
Our leaders will need to make a Canadian win look and feel to Trump like he won. Take the UK for example….they may secure a trade deal with the US at the cost of treating Trump like literal royalty. Who wins? They both win. This is political skill. You understand symbolism, emotions, motivation, ego.
I think it’s reasonable to suggest that a successful career politician has more political skill than a novice politician. Maybe Carney will surprise us all?
“…a successful career politician…” ??? Who would that be? Surely not the guy whose highest achievement has been leading the pack of nasty little twerps who were Harper’s “Rat pack”
Trump understands one thing and that's a punch in the face. Why do you think he was fluffing Doug Ford yesterday? Ford punched him in the face and that's something Trump respects. He doesn't give a rat's backside about political skill. He's not a politician.
Is it just me, or is it sort of funny to watch Liberals in 2025 discover all the rational arguments about experience the Conservatives were making in 2015? (re: relatively inexperienced guy vs. acknowledged economist) ...except Poilievre isn't actually inexperienced AT ALL.
After their wholesale rejection of Harper, somehow they've decided that a boring technocrat is just what we need as PM, after all. I just find this funny.
Poilievre doesn't need to worry about his balls being in a vice until he grows a pair. I've been waiting for him to actually come up with his answers to tough questions. Insulting journalists doesn't make him a leader. I've had enough of his arrogant BS. Rage farming got him into this position but it's day is done.
I would suggest you need to broaden your scope from liberal leaning sources of PP clips online., which obviously highlight the things you believe. The guy has answered many policy questions in long form format many times over the years.
I watched his interview with Juno News which certainly doesn’t qualify as a leftist news organization. He was comfortable, relaxed and spoke well. It was batting practice; the interviewer was tossing softballs. She only challenged him faintly, once (about tariffs which she called Liberal taxes). He gave a bland answer and there was no follow-up. Nary an apple was chomped….
Even as a centrist liberal I'd love to see the Pierre Andrew envsions exists to show up to create a race full of ideas and policy.
But even if Pierre isn't Trump, I think we are at the what you see is what you get version of what he is.
This is the guy who with the spectre of a Trump presidency on the horizon chose to go on Jordan Peterson's show to further burnish his right wing anti media character. When it became clear the general was just on the horizon he doubled down on vicious negative attacks on everybody and everything not in his orbit rather than look to solidify the left flank of swing voters.
When Carney gained his momentum he tried to maintain the same strategy he used against an unpopular incumbent rather than challenge on ideas.
Pierre may be smart and hard working but for all his time in government he has nothing to show for it. He is nearing 3 years as leader of the official opposition and I'm struggling to point out a meaningful moment in that time. It has all been nastiness and slogans. And now when the situation has turned I seriously doubt he and his advisors have any sort of plan B.
He had spent the last 3 plus years catering the far right of his party and has benefitted from an unpopular incumbent. Now without that incumbent and with no effort to cater to those he will need to be comfortably elected, he has turned what should've been a walk over into a competitive battle.
I don't think he's all that smart to be fair.
“…to be fair” there is nothing “fair” in your entire comment. Do you understand “fair”?
So you come in, criticize but then don't tell where I was incorrect. Trying to be fair but I can't see much of anything he has done since he became leader that wasn't in service to a far right base. His whole gameplan was to win on the basis of an unpopular incumbent so he hasn't looked to appeal to anybody beyond his core base. He demonizes the media most Canadians get their information from and allows his tightly controlled Caucus to echo his attacks.
Now that the incumbent is gone he is using the same tactics on the new guy and the polls are sinking. One of his MPs called Carney a Communist the other day.
I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is going to be capable to provide a fleshed out platform to create a campaign of ideas but nothing in his CV says he can.
Please by all means correct me where I'm wrong. Examples required or you're just a drive by sniper
Behave, guys.
> chose to go on Jordan Peterson's show to further burnish his right wing anti media character.
Like it or not, Jordan Peterson is a significant voice in the Canadian sphere. Mark Carney would do well to go on his podcast too.... because going where the listeners are MATTERS. (But of course he would have been smarter to appear on On The Line). And quite frankly, Mr. Polievre would do well to go on liberal friendly podcasts because again.. going where the listeners are MATTERS.
I read somewhere that Kamala Harris was invited to go on Joe Rogan and was pushed by her media people to refuse... because can't talk to the bad man. Good grief that's a bad idea.
Is he though? He's a voice in a community that isn't in going to vote for Carney in a billion years. He's a voice that went to Russia for 'treatment' and now goes out of his way to attack Canada.
I agree you talk to different voices but not all voices regardless of reach are going to be beneficial.
There is a core of good conservative journalists who will ask difficult questions and it may benefit Carney going on.
But Peterson, Rogan, Levant and the numerous other factories for far right thought aren't the places.
> Is he though?
Yes.
You'd be surprised, but your experience isn't the full view of Jordan Peterson.
I got a ride with my boss the other day to a meeting. Our company tries to be apolitical, so he'd never tell me how he votes, but based on who he is and what he talks about in business and management, he's the kind of guy that would like a Mark Carney type Prime Minister. Almost certainly not a Trudeau fan or a Poilievre fan. All the things that Mark Carney's supporters say he's got in spade, (steady hand, business/management/financial experience, etc.) that's what my boss would like to see in a Prime Minister.
Guess what I saw was playing last on his podcast displayed on the dash. That's right. Jordan Peterson.
Another thing about my boss? The chances of him commenting online about politics are zero.
Edit: oh and one more thing. None of those people listed are "far right". Far right means skinhead nazi. Left-wing people co-opting it to mean "anyone to the right of Stephen Harper and probably him too" doesn't make them far right. It's like the people who insist that Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh are communists. So very ridiculous.
We may have to agree to disagree here because Peterson is absolutely not mainstream
You can disagree all you like, but your dislike of Jordan Peterson doesn't change the fact his listeners have the Mark Carney accessible vote sprinkled in there.
Which means that Mark Carney would be wise to go where the accessible votes are.
Peterson has a huge following, and I often enjoy his point of view because he's thoughtful and listens. Most of all he's very respectful of his guests, especially those with whom he openly disagrees. He embraces those conversations and I think that's a great example to set for everyone.
That he and I might have a different opinion on when it's OK to give a child puberty blockers is no more reason to refuse to engage than with the CBC for some of its commentary. Just childish, and sad..
Anyone who would suggest that Jordan Peterson hates anyone or would wish harm on anyone isn't worth listening to. It's just not true.
However that attitude does sound a lot like the left-leaning, anti-free-speech bullshit we've suffered under in institutions of the last 10 years. Left-leaning oppression it's just shitty is right wing oppression, the difference being only on the left do they think they're doing the work of the righteous. The right just thinks they're doing what they want, because they can.
This is a really important point and exactly what I would do if I was responsible for comms and strategy for either party.
The fact that this is out of fashion is really bad news for the human race. It's immature, childish, and ineffective not to have the guts to appear and answer questions in a forum favoured by people who aren't inclined to vote for you.
I'd argue that today, a real leader has an opportunity to be different just by doing this one thing. This would also reverse course on a terrible trend of throwing our toys out of the pram, and picking up our bat and ball and going home when things are going our way.
I've read that Rogan played "keep away" with the Harris team. He did not make it easy for them to get on the show. I used to like him but he's so Trump/oligarch now it's like he's a different person.
Yes.
What really worries me, and we should see better from a "career politician", is that politics turns on a dime. When that happens the old strategy can become a liability and a "career politician" ... well, what tools should they bring to the table if not the ability to change strategy to meet the moment?
It is still taking too long for him to sound like a leader of the country, rather than the leader of the opposition.
We need him to be better, fast. Nothing good comes from a landslide in either direction today, especially not the LPC.
We should see more. I accept that when Trudeau was imploding he didn't have to do much, but I've not seen anything in his time in office that suggest he can pivot into a different person that Andrew suggests is there. I hope to be proven wrong. This is going to be a vital election and if it's going to be fought on trying to nick name Carney or trying to get some weak mud to stick then it's a waste.
The Liberals will be fortunate to achieve 80 seats and, the longer an election takes, the fewer they'll get.
46 of the current Liberals will not be candidates in the next election--30% of their current total. The NDP will fade into Green Party invisibility. Poilievre's effectiveness will be retained.
Conservatives will get a very significant majority in the next election.
This would be the most desirable outcome!
I think "Mark Carney is, in just about every way, “continuity Trudeau.” He’s got the same team, the same policies, the same modus operandi, and the same worldview" is a pretty bold assumption. He hasn't even taken over the job yet. One thing we haven't seen is the basic arrogant asshole with dubious judgement (the Convoy) that Pierre has made quite clear. That's not an insurmountable hurdle, but Pierre needs to start looking like a leader in waiting; something he hasn't shown to date.
Being a central banker or an investment broker doesn't mean one will be capable of running a G7 economy or the minutia of day to day life in Canada. By many accounts Carney's record is spotty at best. The only thing making him seemingly so popular in central and eastern Canada is the fact that the liberal propaganda machine is extremely powerful and persuasive. That combined with a high level of apathy and a low level of political awareness in Canada make for a very strange dichotomy. We just went through ten years of liberal mismanagement and now that the liberals have put a different lipstick on the same inept pig, Canadians are flocking back. No wonder Canada is leading in the race to the bottom. We have a chance for a change with Poilievre and his team, maybe it's time for Canadians to get their heads out of the sand!
Pierre has never been MAGA. Pierre’s goal to bring back our History and John A. is a place to start.
If that is Pierre's goal then I suggest he apply for job with the Liberals as Minister of Culture.
I agree it’s time for Poilievre to refocus and have a fight plan in place. That he hasn’t yet went full throttle is just good politics. There is no point in shadow boxing while leaving yourself open. Planning your talking points when the new leader is in the chair and making questionable decisions that can be easily illustrated gives you the needed ammunition. The Mendicino appointment has to be the lead story so far. His history brings to mind the old army plan that after what he did previously we either need to court martial him or give him a promotion. Promotion it is.