Well, the reality is a leopard can't change its spots. Polievre excelled as an attack dog in question period, but there is not a statesman like bone in his body.
A leopard and his spots, an attack dog without a statesman-like bone in his body, huh? If you insist on going down that path, don't forget to reflect on Mark Carney in tgat manner too. How about his crocodile image - cold, quiet, unassuming, ready to pounce on others to gain power and then pull them in? He has it all now, and what has he done?
We must return to questioning government leaders, those actually sitting in positions that can do something for us:
"Enough of the slogans and intentions you've expressed last year for our attention and our vote. What have you done? What are your actions? What are the results? How did that benefit us?"
Let us stop predicting who's more the statesman and start measuring their words, demanding actions that lead to the outcomes we want. Otherwise, we'll just keep getting the same results, and continue wondering why the system never changes...
Carney gets away with the greasiest shit. Our democracy is being eroded by the day through underhanded tactics and we are headed for financial disaster while our competent citizens are either leaving in record number or straining in misery to pay for subsidies to the most useless. But by all means, it's the opposition leader's "tone" that is the problem.
In truth, it's Mark Carney who is most like Donald Trump of all the party leaders we have had since Trump has been part of the conversation. A corrupt autocratic oligarch whose financial acumen is vastly overstated while getting ahead due to excellent self-promotion. Someone with no regard whatsoever for democratic norms and willing to do anything for power. A propagandist willing to tell bald faced lies about foundational concepts of reality, divide and distort the public for their own gain. Very different outward styles, but I submit that Carney is fundamentally our Trump even more than Trudeau embodied the upside-down version of his empty showmanship and celebrity.
You think Canadians didn't run terrified into the arms of our own version of an authoritarian strongman? Surely more government will protect you! Just let the Liberals do whatever they want for another decade, and conveniently any criticism is now somewhere between "complaining" and unpatriotic.
Your comment is nonsensical. Justin Trudeau is not the PM anymore, he has thankfully been replaced by someone who understands global economics and geopolitics and actually knows how to lead a country.
With this level of delusion, I genuinely fear for our democracy should your ilk ever manage to gain office! Your POV is precisely why voters turned away from Poilievre at the first opportunity.
Canadians should be very, very concerned about how Carney got his majority floor crossers, and about everything to do with the spring quasi-budget* giving us record spending and debt and the laughable do-you-think-we-are-stupid "sovereign wealth fund", but no, the real issue is that Poilievre is criticizing these things and going to an MMA match.
I throw up my hands in hopelessness at our moron voters and the media who feed them. One day there will be a reckoning but I am not sure how many years must pass and how much damage we have to endure before that happens.
(*Note how we moved the actual budget to the fall so nobody would dare to bring down the government and have a Christmas election. Amazing. They covered all bases big and small.)
I agree with the thrust of your position on all this stuff but the reality is PP needs to deal with the moron voters and mediots. When I saw him at the MMA match my very first thought was, they're gonna cite Trump. Of course it's stupid!! But this is the world in which we live and PP's job is to navigate that world and not the fantasy world where 90% of the electorate is smart enough to know that PP is not "like Trump" just because he watches MMA.
And, as self destructive as that was, criticizing Carney's credentials is even worse if for no other reason than that there is plenty to criticize about Carney's performance! Why take the focus off his performance and put it on his, yes, impressive credentials? Talk about an own goal.
Furthermore, it is no response to this to say, the media gives Liberals a pass on worse missteps than this. I mean, obviously they do. But that truth is irrelevant and just reinforces the point above that PP needs to deal with the world as it is! He's like a kid annoyed at his parents because they don't hold his brother to the same standard that they hold him, constantly fails to live up to the standard that has been imposed on him and complains about the double standard. He absolutely has a legitimate point but until he starts adhering to the standard imposed on him his lot in life is unlikely to improve.
I don't think it matters what Poilievre says or does.
As long as Trump is in power and running around doing patently crazy shit, Canadians are going to vote for woke technocratic Liberals out of spite, erroneously believing they are the opposite, and not the mirror image of, the authoritarianism, corruption, chaos and incompetence south of the border.
I suspect you are right. But I still think PP needs to up his game from an electability perspective. You never know what will happen so best to position oneself as best as one possibility can.
If only the Conservatives could provide a credible alternative, instead we are stuck with an angry career politician as our only other option. Should have kept Erin O’Toole, a veteran with private sector experience.
An Erin O'Toole represents the Doug Ford do-nothing option. It hasn't worked well for Ontario. That might have been acceptable in 2021 but to fix this country's problems as they are now we need stronger medicine.
In my view Poilievre is currently the only credible alternative, because he's enough of an asshole to make at least some real reforms. That's why the media and Liberal aligned stakeholders/grifters hate and fear him. My only concern about him is that he would not go far enough.
I don't give a rats behind about credentials. I know a ton of credentialed morons.
The achieved majority was deserving. Two very different mechanisms demonstrating a lack of faith in the leader of the opposition.
1) Floor crossings are legitimate and have occurred dozens of times since Canada became a country, mostly MP’s departing Conservative ranks. LEGITIMATE NOT ILLEGAL.
2) The three by-elections April 13/26 showed a dramatic reduction and support for the opposition parties (2 byelections in Ontario and one in Quebec).
The people have spoken (or walked) and a majority was delivered. Done. Full stop.
Yes, those are the pro-Liberal talking points. Technically legal is the best kind of legal and all that.
But I suspect people saying this would be losing their minds if a Conservative government did this. Also consider the implications of "mass MP poaching" now becoming a standard tactic in our politics. This is a two way street you realize. How do we control the backroom exchange of favours when you can buy a government? What happens when someone - perhaps backed by a friendly billionaire or two - decides to promote their party from opposition to government this way? Also something that is "legitimate [because it's] not illegal"?
How is it we have another article criticizing Poilievre while the liberals take full control of committees, shut down all accountability and transparency, move to implement UK style censorship laws, have brought back the ability for police to open mail without warrants and all the rest.
Poilievre is a massive distraction that very very few journalists or commentators manage to look past. Poilievre is not in power. His job is opposition. How is he to oppose when all his tools are stripped from him. Be polite, be soft, smile, cooperate…. Sure, that’s always the advice to conservatives. Sit down and shut up
Marcie, I'm going to politely note that telling our valued contributors to shut up is out of line with even the fairly low bar for decorum I'm resigning myself to needing to tolerate here. This is a warning.
Matt, unless Marcie edited her comment, I think you are misreading it. My reading: "Sit down and shut up" is her paraphrase of MacDougall's advice to Conservatives (advice she does not agree with), not *her* advice for MacDougall.
"resigning myself to needing to tolerate"...a touch on the clunky and grumpy side of things Matt. Your fundraising success doesn't include a free pass for pissing on customers. You owe Marcie an apology not a warning.
I am also going to weigh in on Marcie’s behalf here Matt. I am fairly confident in my thinking that her “sit down and shut up” comment is rhetorical. In other words, that Journalists or Commentators advice to Conservatives is always to “Sit down and shut up.” I do not read this as a statement to the author in any way.
Sam Cooper's substack article today serves as the perfect counterpoint you are looking for.
"A prime minister who is systematically dismantling parliamentary oversight, suppressing document production on his own conflicts of interest, and rewarding a floor-crosser with a seat on the Public Accounts Committee, is simultaneously expanding the subsidy regime that keeps much of the national press afloat.
The Ottawa press gallery has been, at best, incurious. That incuriousness has consequences. When an organized effort to consolidate political power goes unreported as such — when it is processed as “Ottawa drama,” [...], rather than as the structural assault on accountability that it is — the media is not neutral. It is complicit.
The question Canadians should be asking is not whether Mark Carney is acting in the public interest. The question is whether anyone in a position to hold him accountable still has the independence — financial, institutional, and moral — to try."
Notwithstanding any of the above, the basic problem is that Canadians have had lots of time to decide between Mr Carney and Mr Poilievre, and they've made their choice. Politics is a popularity contest, and if the voting public doesn't like you, it is hard to get elected. If the Conservatives want to be competitive in the next election, they need a new leader. If not, expect Mr Carney to be around for the next 7 or 8 years.
As someone who is very close to being a free-speech absolutist, I will respect Marcie's right to tell dissenters from her view to "sit down and shut up" but I won't actually comply with such an authoritarian order.
Poilievre's job right now is to hold the majority government to account using the tools available to him. As the commentary outlines, whether or not Poilievre can get out of his own way and do this effectively (i.e. stop pissing on himself) is a very open question . By and large, the voting public just ain't buying what he is selling.
Claiming criticism of this nature is PDS is just as incisive an argument as claiming someone is infected with TDS ... it isn't an argument, nor is it a substitute for an argument, it is just an attempt at a slur.
Poilievre would do well to take some of these constructive criticisms to heart; but to date, it appears his intuition and reflexes are not up to the task.
Marcie says it like it is. I Consider the very diplomatic and quiet ‘shut up’ comment the result of a high degree of frustration with the media who ignores and refuses to dig into carney and his liberal minions. The level of corruption and disregard of the people is beyond disgusting.
The Liberals are in charge; nothing they did was against the rules of parliament. The Conservatives are whining. They need to use their time in question period wisely. There are lots of things to criticize the government about, and the Conservatives shouldn't have any problems getting their message out. With respect to censorship laws and police opening mail, what are you talking about?
Marcie you're outlining the problems with Carney's government, here, is much more concise and effective than anything Poilievre has done so far. That's the point of the article. The man is ineffective as opposition leader and can only play the political games that he's played his whole life. He should resign for the good of the Conservative party and the good of the country. We all deserve better.
Give it a rest already!! The Conservatives are the official opposition, that’s their job to hold the government to account. Given the Liberals shoddy record, questionable financial management, and skill at avoiding accountability - Canadian’s should be terrified if there was no opposition. That said - we could be closer to that reality, (the umm, uhhh, errr new world order, 😏) If Canada’s destiny and fortunes lie solely in the hands of Donald Trump, then what the hell are we a separate country for? We might as well eliminate the federal government, and the provinces could become states.
Would it be too much to ask for some *effective* opposition? Maybe more of Michelle Rempel Garner's evisceration of Carney's sovereign wealth fund, and less of Poilievre's attacks on a former central banker for supposed deficiencies in education?
Ok, Poilievre *phrased* a criticism wrong ("he's wrong on economics therefore he's badly educated" vs. "he's wrong on economics despite his education") so sure burn him for the technical gaffe.
The fact that this remains the headline above de facto MP bribery, suppression of documents on conflict of interest, blockbuster record deficits, and the expansion of media subsidies, is the problem.
That’s on Poilievre. He’s supposedly a seasoned politician, and yet his political malpractice sucked the oxygen from effective criticism. And it was just a verbal slip until he and Scheer doubled and tripled down.
Where does the phrase "political malpractice" come from? I've seen this used before in the harshest critics of Poilievre and his 2025 campaign, and really only ever in that context. Is it a particular journalist or influencer?
It’s been around a long time. It may have been coined in 1985 with a New York Times editorial criticizing a failure of politicians to address the problem of skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance.
Much of Canada may still be infatuated with our Technocratic PM, but that doesn't mean they won't one day wake up wondering how they ended up with a wicked hangover.
Persistent nipping at Carney's heels and messaging to Canadians may not get him anywhere today, but it will sure help in the long run...
For me, PP is a knob. For me, PP is being openly undermined by Jamil Jivani who probably is trying out for the role of leader. For me, PP represents the absolute worst representative of conservatives in this country.
The CPC consistently project perceived weirdness than by policy for conservative minded voters like me, the problem isn’t “Conservatives are too right-wing on tax policy". It's this:
“Why is there always some MP saying something deranged?”
“Why are they unable to control candidates?”
“Why do these social issues keep reappearing when nobody asked for them?”
Yes, CPC base. I know that it sucks monkey butt that nobody in the GTA, Metro Vancouver, and suburban ridings is ever going to vote for a conservative until the socons are shown the door.
Recurring social-conservative eruptions and attempts to sneak those priorities in through the back door are so @#$#% transparent. For me, the party is hostage to its base and its base doesn't realize that the vast majority of Canadians hate the high school garbage the CPC consistently put out there.
Pierre Poilievre is beholden to the social conservatives. Every leader in the future would face the same dislike of the party because of its garbage they keep putting out rather than showing Canadians why we should like and trust and like PP and the CPC itself.
So I guess a question I would ask socons is: what would have to exist for you to STFU and stop torpedoing the CPC election chances?
I suppose there could be any number of policies he could stake out which would show that he is beholden to socons, maybe some draconian position on abortion for example.
But I read your comment to mean that such policy positions do exist so I was wondering what you were referring to. It was not intended to be a gotcha question.
I am referring to perceived values. There is a reason the Liberals said the Conservatives were scary with a secret agenda. There is a reason they pull that out every election since the CPC became a thing ... it works. So, I am saying get rid of the stuff that proves everything your political opponents are saying about. Also, do not let Andrew Scheer talk to the news media ever again. He's already been rejected by 60% of voters, so it's doubtful he can change any minds.
"Just get Michael Chong as leader, then the media will stop reading tea leaves from every word every MP says trying to connect that to a spooky secret agenda to finally Ban Abortion!"
I’m going back to reading the economic history of Argentina. The parallels with Canada are there for everyone to see. From a resource rich wealthy country to massive inflation which led to hyperinflation and people taking any money out of the country and paying $US cash to buy houses since no bank will finance them.
Argentinian Banks won’t lend because of inflation. In Canada you also have aboriginal claims on land ownership to muddy the waters.
All because the Argentinian government fell into the trap of free everything including education and health care financed by debt.
Canada doesn’t seem to be there yet.
But it certainly not heading in the opposite direction.
The Argentina comparison is rhetorically powerful, but analytically weak.
Argentina’s crises are rooted in a specific macroeconomic and institutional failure set, that being persistent primary deficits, fiscal dominance over monetary policy, weak tax collection, liability dollarization, and repeated sovereign defaults. Those conditions produce currency instability, loss of monetary credibility, and ultimately inflation spirals. Canada does not exhibit those characteristics. The Bank of Canada maintains operational independence with an explicit inflation-targeting regime, the exchange rate is fully flexible, and sovereign debt is issued overwhelmingly in domestic currency with deep capital market access.
It is also worth noting that Argentina’s economic trajectory was shaped not just by fiscal choices, but by profound political instability, including periods of military rule such as the National Reorganization Process. These regimes undermined institutional continuity, distorted economic governance, and contributed to long-term loss of investor confidence. Canada’s political and institutional environment is not remotely comparable.
On debt: the presence of elevated public debt is not, in itself, predictive of crisis. What matters is the interaction of debt dynamics and institutional credibility. I would point out:
1) The effective interest rate relative to nominal growth (r–g)
2) The government’s ability to run primary balances consistent with debt stabilization
3) Investor confidence in policy continuity
By those measures, Canada remains within the range of advanced economies. High-debt OECD comparators who includes, among others:
1) Japan (very high debt-to-GDP, domestically financed, low yields)
2) United States (large deficits, reserve currency issuer)
3) United Kingdom and France (elevated debt with stable market access)
None of these cases resemble Argentina because they retain credible central banks, functioning bond markets, and the ability to roll over debt at sustainable rates.
The “free everything financed by debt” framing also misses composition. Advanced economies allocate significant public spending to health and education without destabilizing outcomes; the relevant question is medium-term fiscal anchors and expenditure efficiency, not the existence of social programs per se.
On the financial system, Canada continues to support long-duration lending at scale, including mortgages. That implies functioning inflation expectations and term structure. Those are conditions that do not exist in high-inflation economies where nominal contracts break down.
Finally, invoking Indigenous land claims as a macroeconomic parallel is a category error. Those are legal and constitutional issues affecting specific projects or jurisdictions; they do not operate as a systemic constraint on monetary stability or sovereign credit.
Canada does face policy trade-offs, particularly around debt trajectories, productivity growth, and housing supply. However, the reflex to declare that the country is on the verge of Argentina-style collapse is not serious analysis. It’s a familiar pattern - that much I will say with regards to a subset of our population. Those that take real issues, strip them of context, and inflate them into a narrative of imminent national ruin. "Everything is Broken", comes to mind. That kind of argument doesn’t clarify anything—it just signals that the speaker has substituted alarmism for understanding.
With all due respect I never stated that Canada was “on the verge” of an Argentina style collapse. Indeed I said it wasn’t there yet. And all the arguments above would have been equally valid in Argentina up to the 1920s.My belief is that Canada is not even considering the possibility of depression, recession, hyper-inflation etc and with the current unsustainable levels of government borrowing to support financially questionable investments and activities, it is making these events more plausible. And the private investment outflows out of Canada support this view more than any words ever could.
I’m in complete agreement. I’ve always thought the parallels between Argentina and Canada are glaringly obvious. Unfortunately, most Canadians can’t see those similarities.
Completely wrong. Trump won't be president during the next election.
Poilievre should focus on the truth: trust the Liberals are doing everything to enrich insiders and clients. And not just corruption, although that's a big part: also client groups that regular people aren't. DEI beneficiaries, transgender radicals, NGO workers, should ask be demonized as being on the take.
His goal should be to radicalize and infuriate as much of the country as possible, because as soon as Trump is even close to leaving office, all these people will go to their boomer grandparents and demand they vote Conservative.
Liberal lite has been tried again and again, and can only work with a widely hated Liberal PM like Trudeau. No Conservative can beat Carney in the "most Prime Ministerial Liberal" contest, and the Conservatives should stop trying.
Whenever I hear a critique of someone in power I always want to ask "so what would you do instead?" Poilievre's answer w.r.t. the trade tensions with the US seems to be (and I'm only loosely paraphrasing here) "well I'd just quit screwing around and get a great trade deal for Canada, that's what I'd do!" To which my response is "great! I'm going to go take Scarlett Johannsen on a date". In other words, the fact that you need the counterparty to agree with you is a constraint! Trump has successfully and completely convinced Canadians he's an unreasonable counterparty, so Poilievre's preferred course of action is seen as unfeasible, therefore his attack doesn't land.
To be fair, Mexico has been quietly negotiating with the US trade representatives to try and get the best deal possible. Our current PM has been mouthing off and posturing instead, because that is what his supporters want. Ron Butler just posted an excellent video about our current approach to CUSMA. Retired boomers and public servants, basically the people who vote Liberal, want to give the middle finger to Trump because they don't have to worry about losing their jobs.
A weak prior record/resume didn't hurt Trudeau (or Harper) and a strong one didn't help Erin O'Toole (or Michael Ignatieff). It's something partisans will always move the goalposts on depending on the relative advantages of their "guy". I'm interested in two things only: what are their policies, and how likely are they to implement them?
Clearly you disliked my take on Pollievre. Fair enough.
You stated Carney stole his policies. To the point your man never articulated anything concrete, he was caught up in the Canada is broken, Justine Trudeau blah blah blah, tRuntian politics
Your man didn’t have the confidence of the country and he blew a 30 point lead; had he shut his mouth he’d have been PM
Hell even his own riding turfed him
Carney may have used some of the CPC policies, I’m not privy to what his thoughts were in advance Given his talent set he may have had variations on tap, I don’t know, you don’t know
My point is simply this Is the country better off for the adoption of these policies? Simple yes or no
If we are better off is a thank you note what Pollievre needs for doing his job?
His job, Carney’s job, the job of every MP elected is to better the people of this country - full fucking stop!
Grandstanding, whinging, oh it’s broken, oh he’s uneducated the continual bloviating isn’t doing one bit of good
I don’t give a fiddlers fuck where the best ideas come from, I care they get implemented to better our country
The job of a politician is not to secure lifelong employment for themselves and their party it’s to serve Canadians
On a broader note, we are at a point where the next few years have the potential to have the worst economy - high unemployment, high crime, high inflation, etc. And there is nothing our illustrious Prime Minister seems to be willing to do to address the structural issues at hand. And even if he did, it would take several years for it to bear any fruit.
All this to say that very little of any campaign rhetoric - CPC or LPC - is likely to matter when a vast portion of Canadians have no job and can't pay for food. People will simply vote against the incumbent.
And as the article notes, "If Canada is no better off in a few years, Poilievre will be the natural beneficiary".
When you say Canadians are in trance of Carney which Canadians are you referring to? Liberal supporters in the eastern half of Canada who have drunk the kool aid and would vote Liberal regardless of who led them (see Justin Trudeau) because he certainly does not have a country wide level of support.
This is the thing. It sounds like you blame Trudeau for winning rather than taking responsibility and adjusting to why you lost. It defines the CPC going back to Andrew Scheer.
I don’t blame Trudeau for winning rather I question the ability of those who voted for him on more than one occasion to actually put some thought into who they vote for and why. It’s the old fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me in real life.
I understand that. I couldn't vote for Scheer, because he was imitating Doug Ford and thinking he'd coast to a win. The CPC told me not to vote for Erin, and Pierre is an asshole. I say that, having voted for Harper 3 times. Trudeau won because of the CPC.
That’s just too pat of an answer. The sheer superficiality of Justin Trudeau should have been readily apparent to voters if not initially at least shortly after he took office and then to re-elect him again (and again) reflects very poorly upon the intellect of far too many Canadians. The CPC could have run Santa Clause and for some unknown reason likely would have still failed. As far as assholes go wait until Carney gets finished with the country.
So you're blaming the voters for losing instead of addressing why you lost, and then having a pouting, pity party, saying it was impossible for you to win under any circumstances. Based on that, you may as well disband the party.
It was readily apparent that Trudeau was an idiot. SNC locked it in stone, and Andrew Scheer still found a way to lose. His judgment was terrible. FWIW, Pierre supported the Convoy, so his appears to be no better. You neutered Erin.
I don't know how Carney will do. I do know that I will never vote for Pierre. Right now, the pace of change is frustrating. But I'm very comfortable saying I voted for the right person. The big threats of what will happen hold no water. Maybe focus on saying what you're going to do, get rid of every candidate with social conservative baggage, and stop trying to fear-monger. Step 1 is picking a new leader.
Not a new insight but yes, absolutely, Pierre is toast. He’s now a laughable caricature of how to lose badly and somehow not understand why. The sooner the CPC dumps him the better for everyone.
The Poilievre-led opposition is actually pretty effective on a day to day basis. They just don't get any credit for it in our Liberal-friendly national media, where holding Poilievre to account is job number one.
As with PMJT, Carney will be popular until he's not. Carney has made a lot of promises and gambled a lot of taxpayer money for very little return to date. The tough part for the CPC at this point is to be patient and not tear itself to shreds while Carney's extended honeymoon proceeds to its inevitable end.
No snark intended, but the CPC is sinking in the polls, losing MPs to floor crossing, and Carney's personal approval is solid or even improving. On what basis can we deem the CPC's opposition effective?
We are in a situation where criticizing the government - apparently no matter what they do - is seen as rude and un-Canadian. Thanks to the whole 'wave hands in the general direction of everything' situation in the world.
The opposition is quite effective at pointing out what the government is doing wrong, they are just 'rewarded' for it with falling support. Because a large chunk of the population doesn't want to hear what any opposition has to say right now. Because we are in a moral panic reminiscent of early Covid but seemingly permanent.
I'm not sure I would suggest they stop criticizing the government though.
I mean the day to day grind of being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and holding the government to account in question period, criticizing the government, raising issues of concern at committees (although that's been snuffed now), that kind of boring stuff. Media tend to focus on party infighting and horse race polls so these operational matters don't get a lot of attention or analysis.
This is separate from the goal of the CPC to win more seats than the Liberals in the next election. In the current political climate any criticism of Carney is portrayed negatively (or even as un-Canadian according to Patty Hajdu) and ironically is likely to cost Poilievre votes. It's very similar to the constant media accolades and Vogue-cover treatment we saw PMJT get back in 2015 - and look how that ended. That's why I recommend patience. Everyone wants to fire PP, but that would be incredibly stupid and just further make Canada a one-party Liberal state (quite possibly without Alberta as it's currently going).
Yes, indeed, patience is warranted and forcing the issue (trying to create an opportunity when one doesn't really exist) is ultimately counterproductive. Sadly for PP, his chance to make a good first impression with voters has long passed, and his efforts to make a good second one come across as desperate.
Indeed. That's why his return to natural form is potentially a good thing. The old Poilievre utterly crushed PMJT and he doesn't get enough credit for that. He didn't elect Trump, nor did he create the perfect Trump-oppo in the form of a congenial central banker who is apparently charming and looks like George Clooney (WTF??). Trump is the Liberals only prop - they will crumble to dust as they did with Trudeau once he is gone.
Until then, hold fire and bide your time. Patience will be rewarded.
Short term thinking. There’s little reason to think Carney’s popularity will stay high given how ineffective he’s been so far. He’s not going to build stuff, he’s already running massive deficits, and CUSMA will not be re-negotiated favourably for us.
Yes, according to the polls, which are, in the Canadian context, very accurate, year over year. And, not for nothing, according to the former CPC MPs now enjoying their new lives as Liberals.
Sadly, you are correct. The Canadian public at large has managed to bamboozle itself (one can give corrupt media and politicians only so much credit) on one major question after another. I would have said it is a residual effect of the Covid-19 debacle, where even now the near-daily shoe drops of its fraudulent and downright sinister pushing of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic potions on the population or, even worse, suppression of viable treatments, is met with a blank stare or the raising of elbows. But unfortunately, that refusal to consider realities beyond flatulent self-affirming pieties long preceded 2020.
Take a statistics course, pass it, and then we'll talk about what's necessary for a representative sample. Or maybe not, because you won't say things like this.
Well, the reality is a leopard can't change its spots. Polievre excelled as an attack dog in question period, but there is not a statesman like bone in his body.
Nor any meaty work experience outside of politics. The criticism of Carney’s economics education is a case in point.
A leopard and his spots, an attack dog without a statesman-like bone in his body, huh? If you insist on going down that path, don't forget to reflect on Mark Carney in tgat manner too. How about his crocodile image - cold, quiet, unassuming, ready to pounce on others to gain power and then pull them in? He has it all now, and what has he done?
We must return to questioning government leaders, those actually sitting in positions that can do something for us:
"Enough of the slogans and intentions you've expressed last year for our attention and our vote. What have you done? What are your actions? What are the results? How did that benefit us?"
Let us stop predicting who's more the statesman and start measuring their words, demanding actions that lead to the outcomes we want. Otherwise, we'll just keep getting the same results, and continue wondering why the system never changes...
Carney gets away with the greasiest shit. Our democracy is being eroded by the day through underhanded tactics and we are headed for financial disaster while our competent citizens are either leaving in record number or straining in misery to pay for subsidies to the most useless. But by all means, it's the opposition leader's "tone" that is the problem.
In truth, it's Mark Carney who is most like Donald Trump of all the party leaders we have had since Trump has been part of the conversation. A corrupt autocratic oligarch whose financial acumen is vastly overstated while getting ahead due to excellent self-promotion. Someone with no regard whatsoever for democratic norms and willing to do anything for power. A propagandist willing to tell bald faced lies about foundational concepts of reality, divide and distort the public for their own gain. Very different outward styles, but I submit that Carney is fundamentally our Trump even more than Trudeau embodied the upside-down version of his empty showmanship and celebrity.
Seriously? Carney is leader who is the most like Trump? That is seriously delusional and an example of political tribalism at its worst.
You think Canadians didn't run terrified into the arms of our own version of an authoritarian strongman? Surely more government will protect you! Just let the Liberals do whatever they want for another decade, and conveniently any criticism is now somewhere between "complaining" and unpatriotic.
Your comment is nonsensical. Justin Trudeau is not the PM anymore, he has thankfully been replaced by someone who understands global economics and geopolitics and actually knows how to lead a country.
With this level of delusion, I genuinely fear for our democracy should your ilk ever manage to gain office! Your POV is precisely why voters turned away from Poilievre at the first opportunity.
Carney gets away with it because Poilievre keeps pulling his punches.
Canadians should be very, very concerned about how Carney got his majority floor crossers, and about everything to do with the spring quasi-budget* giving us record spending and debt and the laughable do-you-think-we-are-stupid "sovereign wealth fund", but no, the real issue is that Poilievre is criticizing these things and going to an MMA match.
I throw up my hands in hopelessness at our moron voters and the media who feed them. One day there will be a reckoning but I am not sure how many years must pass and how much damage we have to endure before that happens.
(*Note how we moved the actual budget to the fall so nobody would dare to bring down the government and have a Christmas election. Amazing. They covered all bases big and small.)
I agree with the thrust of your position on all this stuff but the reality is PP needs to deal with the moron voters and mediots. When I saw him at the MMA match my very first thought was, they're gonna cite Trump. Of course it's stupid!! But this is the world in which we live and PP's job is to navigate that world and not the fantasy world where 90% of the electorate is smart enough to know that PP is not "like Trump" just because he watches MMA.
And, as self destructive as that was, criticizing Carney's credentials is even worse if for no other reason than that there is plenty to criticize about Carney's performance! Why take the focus off his performance and put it on his, yes, impressive credentials? Talk about an own goal.
Furthermore, it is no response to this to say, the media gives Liberals a pass on worse missteps than this. I mean, obviously they do. But that truth is irrelevant and just reinforces the point above that PP needs to deal with the world as it is! He's like a kid annoyed at his parents because they don't hold his brother to the same standard that they hold him, constantly fails to live up to the standard that has been imposed on him and complains about the double standard. He absolutely has a legitimate point but until he starts adhering to the standard imposed on him his lot in life is unlikely to improve.
I don't think it matters what Poilievre says or does.
As long as Trump is in power and running around doing patently crazy shit, Canadians are going to vote for woke technocratic Liberals out of spite, erroneously believing they are the opposite, and not the mirror image of, the authoritarianism, corruption, chaos and incompetence south of the border.
I suspect you are right. But I still think PP needs to up his game from an electability perspective. You never know what will happen so best to position oneself as best as one possibility can.
The opposition should always push for an election. What's the worst that can happen? A Liberal majority?
If only the Conservatives could provide a credible alternative, instead we are stuck with an angry career politician as our only other option. Should have kept Erin O’Toole, a veteran with private sector experience.
An Erin O'Toole represents the Doug Ford do-nothing option. It hasn't worked well for Ontario. That might have been acceptable in 2021 but to fix this country's problems as they are now we need stronger medicine.
In my view Poilievre is currently the only credible alternative, because he's enough of an asshole to make at least some real reforms. That's why the media and Liberal aligned stakeholders/grifters hate and fear him. My only concern about him is that he would not go far enough.
I don't give a rats behind about credentials. I know a ton of credentialed morons.
Kind of like the Project 2025 cleanup they are doing south of the border.
The achieved majority was deserving. Two very different mechanisms demonstrating a lack of faith in the leader of the opposition.
1) Floor crossings are legitimate and have occurred dozens of times since Canada became a country, mostly MP’s departing Conservative ranks. LEGITIMATE NOT ILLEGAL.
2) The three by-elections April 13/26 showed a dramatic reduction and support for the opposition parties (2 byelections in Ontario and one in Quebec).
The people have spoken (or walked) and a majority was delivered. Done. Full stop.
Yes, those are the pro-Liberal talking points. Technically legal is the best kind of legal and all that.
But I suspect people saying this would be losing their minds if a Conservative government did this. Also consider the implications of "mass MP poaching" now becoming a standard tactic in our politics. This is a two way street you realize. How do we control the backroom exchange of favours when you can buy a government? What happens when someone - perhaps backed by a friendly billionaire or two - decides to promote their party from opposition to government this way? Also something that is "legitimate [because it's] not illegal"?
How is it we have another article criticizing Poilievre while the liberals take full control of committees, shut down all accountability and transparency, move to implement UK style censorship laws, have brought back the ability for police to open mail without warrants and all the rest.
Poilievre is a massive distraction that very very few journalists or commentators manage to look past. Poilievre is not in power. His job is opposition. How is he to oppose when all his tools are stripped from him. Be polite, be soft, smile, cooperate…. Sure, that’s always the advice to conservatives. Sit down and shut up
Marcie, I'm going to politely note that telling our valued contributors to shut up is out of line with even the fairly low bar for decorum I'm resigning myself to needing to tolerate here. This is a warning.
Matt, unless Marcie edited her comment, I think you are misreading it. My reading: "Sit down and shut up" is her paraphrase of MacDougall's advice to Conservatives (advice she does not agree with), not *her* advice for MacDougall.
Possible! That's not my read, but if it's hers, I'll be glad to know it.
Your "read" demonstrates a clear lack of reading comprehension skills. Do better.
I regret to inform everyone that this is as good as it gets.
"resigning myself to needing to tolerate"...a touch on the clunky and grumpy side of things Matt. Your fundraising success doesn't include a free pass for pissing on customers. You owe Marcie an apology not a warning.
I don't. I owe everyone clarity on what I'll tolerate and what I won't. I hope it proves useful.
When you're wrong and you make an inaccurate accusation you absolutely owe an apology to the person you wrongly accused.
I am also going to weigh in on Marcie’s behalf here Matt. I am fairly confident in my thinking that her “sit down and shut up” comment is rhetorical. In other words, that Journalists or Commentators advice to Conservatives is always to “Sit down and shut up.” I do not read this as a statement to the author in any way.
As I said above, that wasn't my read, and if I was wrong, I'd be glad to hear it.
Jfc, Matt. Try reading the comment. She was characterizing the advice your contributor is giving to the Cons not telling him to shut up.
Congrats on being the third person to say this. My response remains the same as it was to the others.
And yet you still haven’t acknowledged that you misconstrued her comment.
I don’t agree that I did. Thanks again.
Sam Cooper's substack article today serves as the perfect counterpoint you are looking for.
"A prime minister who is systematically dismantling parliamentary oversight, suppressing document production on his own conflicts of interest, and rewarding a floor-crosser with a seat on the Public Accounts Committee, is simultaneously expanding the subsidy regime that keeps much of the national press afloat.
The Ottawa press gallery has been, at best, incurious. That incuriousness has consequences. When an organized effort to consolidate political power goes unreported as such — when it is processed as “Ottawa drama,” [...], rather than as the structural assault on accountability that it is — the media is not neutral. It is complicit.
The question Canadians should be asking is not whether Mark Carney is acting in the public interest. The question is whether anyone in a position to hold him accountable still has the independence — financial, institutional, and moral — to try."
Notwithstanding any of the above, the basic problem is that Canadians have had lots of time to decide between Mr Carney and Mr Poilievre, and they've made their choice. Politics is a popularity contest, and if the voting public doesn't like you, it is hard to get elected. If the Conservatives want to be competitive in the next election, they need a new leader. If not, expect Mr Carney to be around for the next 7 or 8 years.
As someone who is very close to being a free-speech absolutist, I will respect Marcie's right to tell dissenters from her view to "sit down and shut up" but I won't actually comply with such an authoritarian order.
Poilievre's job right now is to hold the majority government to account using the tools available to him. As the commentary outlines, whether or not Poilievre can get out of his own way and do this effectively (i.e. stop pissing on himself) is a very open question . By and large, the voting public just ain't buying what he is selling.
Claiming criticism of this nature is PDS is just as incisive an argument as claiming someone is infected with TDS ... it isn't an argument, nor is it a substitute for an argument, it is just an attempt at a slur.
Poilievre would do well to take some of these constructive criticisms to heart; but to date, it appears his intuition and reflexes are not up to the task.
The tone of your post is very similar to Poilievre , but angrier.
Marcie says it like it is. I Consider the very diplomatic and quiet ‘shut up’ comment the result of a high degree of frustration with the media who ignores and refuses to dig into carney and his liberal minions. The level of corruption and disregard of the people is beyond disgusting.
The Liberals are in charge; nothing they did was against the rules of parliament. The Conservatives are whining. They need to use their time in question period wisely. There are lots of things to criticize the government about, and the Conservatives shouldn't have any problems getting their message out. With respect to censorship laws and police opening mail, what are you talking about?
Marcie you're outlining the problems with Carney's government, here, is much more concise and effective than anything Poilievre has done so far. That's the point of the article. The man is ineffective as opposition leader and can only play the political games that he's played his whole life. He should resign for the good of the Conservative party and the good of the country. We all deserve better.
Endless Poilievre derangement syndrome
Almost as serious an affliction as Trudeau derangement syndrome. Always so sad to see another poor soul succumb to it.
Give it a rest already!! The Conservatives are the official opposition, that’s their job to hold the government to account. Given the Liberals shoddy record, questionable financial management, and skill at avoiding accountability - Canadian’s should be terrified if there was no opposition. That said - we could be closer to that reality, (the umm, uhhh, errr new world order, 😏) If Canada’s destiny and fortunes lie solely in the hands of Donald Trump, then what the hell are we a separate country for? We might as well eliminate the federal government, and the provinces could become states.
Would it be too much to ask for some *effective* opposition? Maybe more of Michelle Rempel Garner's evisceration of Carney's sovereign wealth fund, and less of Poilievre's attacks on a former central banker for supposed deficiencies in education?
Ok, Poilievre *phrased* a criticism wrong ("he's wrong on economics therefore he's badly educated" vs. "he's wrong on economics despite his education") so sure burn him for the technical gaffe.
The fact that this remains the headline above de facto MP bribery, suppression of documents on conflict of interest, blockbuster record deficits, and the expansion of media subsidies, is the problem.
That’s on Poilievre. He’s supposedly a seasoned politician, and yet his political malpractice sucked the oxygen from effective criticism. And it was just a verbal slip until he and Scheer doubled and tripled down.
Where does the phrase "political malpractice" come from? I've seen this used before in the harshest critics of Poilievre and his 2025 campaign, and really only ever in that context. Is it a particular journalist or influencer?
Not a criticism, actually curious.
It’s been around a long time. It may have been coined in 1985 with a New York Times editorial criticizing a failure of politicians to address the problem of skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance.
Looks like the current usage comes from Doug Ford ally Kory Teneycke who said this during the campaign. Mystery solved.
The first I heard said invective hurled at Pierre Poilievre was from the b-$—— Kory Teneycke in a foul-mouthed rant that was ignorant as hell!
Or maybe you could listen to what PP said, which is that Carney was wrong about monetary policy.
This makes better sense.
How about a little of both, Andrew?
Much of Canada may still be infatuated with our Technocratic PM, but that doesn't mean they won't one day wake up wondering how they ended up with a wicked hangover.
Persistent nipping at Carney's heels and messaging to Canadians may not get him anywhere today, but it will sure help in the long run...
For me, PP is a knob. For me, PP is being openly undermined by Jamil Jivani who probably is trying out for the role of leader. For me, PP represents the absolute worst representative of conservatives in this country.
The CPC consistently project perceived weirdness than by policy for conservative minded voters like me, the problem isn’t “Conservatives are too right-wing on tax policy". It's this:
“Why is there always some MP saying something deranged?”
“Why are they unable to control candidates?”
“Why do these social issues keep reappearing when nobody asked for them?”
Yes, CPC base. I know that it sucks monkey butt that nobody in the GTA, Metro Vancouver, and suburban ridings is ever going to vote for a conservative until the socons are shown the door.
Recurring social-conservative eruptions and attempts to sneak those priorities in through the back door are so @#$#% transparent. For me, the party is hostage to its base and its base doesn't realize that the vast majority of Canadians hate the high school garbage the CPC consistently put out there.
Pierre Poilievre is beholden to the social conservatives. Every leader in the future would face the same dislike of the party because of its garbage they keep putting out rather than showing Canadians why we should like and trust and like PP and the CPC itself.
So I guess a question I would ask socons is: what would have to exist for you to STFU and stop torpedoing the CPC election chances?
Seriously. What would have to exist?
What policy positions do you think PP has staked out that show he is beholden to so-cons?
Gordo. What would have to exist? You answer first and then I will do mine! :)
I suppose there could be any number of policies he could stake out which would show that he is beholden to socons, maybe some draconian position on abortion for example.
But I read your comment to mean that such policy positions do exist so I was wondering what you were referring to. It was not intended to be a gotcha question.
I am referring to perceived values. There is a reason the Liberals said the Conservatives were scary with a secret agenda. There is a reason they pull that out every election since the CPC became a thing ... it works. So, I am saying get rid of the stuff that proves everything your political opponents are saying about. Also, do not let Andrew Scheer talk to the news media ever again. He's already been rejected by 60% of voters, so it's doubtful he can change any minds.
"Just get Michael Chong as leader, then the media will stop reading tea leaves from every word every MP says trying to connect that to a spooky secret agenda to finally Ban Abortion!"
"Toronto and Vancouver will never vote for you unless you allow people to shoot drugs in the street and pre-teen prostitution! Stupid So-Cons!"
Puh-leaze, lets not pretend the freakshow you have going on in the cities is any kind of a success.
Whenever I see a word liked ‘puh-lease’ it’s time to move on. See you another time, friend.
To get to be party leader, you have to mollify the base. After you win, then you move politically to wherever you have to be to win.
For me, mollification of the base is the CPC's raison d'etre.
I’m going back to reading the economic history of Argentina. The parallels with Canada are there for everyone to see. From a resource rich wealthy country to massive inflation which led to hyperinflation and people taking any money out of the country and paying $US cash to buy houses since no bank will finance them.
Argentinian Banks won’t lend because of inflation. In Canada you also have aboriginal claims on land ownership to muddy the waters.
All because the Argentinian government fell into the trap of free everything including education and health care financed by debt.
Canada doesn’t seem to be there yet.
But it certainly not heading in the opposite direction.
The Argentina comparison is rhetorically powerful, but analytically weak.
Argentina’s crises are rooted in a specific macroeconomic and institutional failure set, that being persistent primary deficits, fiscal dominance over monetary policy, weak tax collection, liability dollarization, and repeated sovereign defaults. Those conditions produce currency instability, loss of monetary credibility, and ultimately inflation spirals. Canada does not exhibit those characteristics. The Bank of Canada maintains operational independence with an explicit inflation-targeting regime, the exchange rate is fully flexible, and sovereign debt is issued overwhelmingly in domestic currency with deep capital market access.
It is also worth noting that Argentina’s economic trajectory was shaped not just by fiscal choices, but by profound political instability, including periods of military rule such as the National Reorganization Process. These regimes undermined institutional continuity, distorted economic governance, and contributed to long-term loss of investor confidence. Canada’s political and institutional environment is not remotely comparable.
On debt: the presence of elevated public debt is not, in itself, predictive of crisis. What matters is the interaction of debt dynamics and institutional credibility. I would point out:
1) The effective interest rate relative to nominal growth (r–g)
2) The government’s ability to run primary balances consistent with debt stabilization
3) Investor confidence in policy continuity
By those measures, Canada remains within the range of advanced economies. High-debt OECD comparators who includes, among others:
1) Japan (very high debt-to-GDP, domestically financed, low yields)
2) United States (large deficits, reserve currency issuer)
3) United Kingdom and France (elevated debt with stable market access)
None of these cases resemble Argentina because they retain credible central banks, functioning bond markets, and the ability to roll over debt at sustainable rates.
The “free everything financed by debt” framing also misses composition. Advanced economies allocate significant public spending to health and education without destabilizing outcomes; the relevant question is medium-term fiscal anchors and expenditure efficiency, not the existence of social programs per se.
On the financial system, Canada continues to support long-duration lending at scale, including mortgages. That implies functioning inflation expectations and term structure. Those are conditions that do not exist in high-inflation economies where nominal contracts break down.
Finally, invoking Indigenous land claims as a macroeconomic parallel is a category error. Those are legal and constitutional issues affecting specific projects or jurisdictions; they do not operate as a systemic constraint on monetary stability or sovereign credit.
Canada does face policy trade-offs, particularly around debt trajectories, productivity growth, and housing supply. However, the reflex to declare that the country is on the verge of Argentina-style collapse is not serious analysis. It’s a familiar pattern - that much I will say with regards to a subset of our population. Those that take real issues, strip them of context, and inflate them into a narrative of imminent national ruin. "Everything is Broken", comes to mind. That kind of argument doesn’t clarify anything—it just signals that the speaker has substituted alarmism for understanding.
With all due respect I never stated that Canada was “on the verge” of an Argentina style collapse. Indeed I said it wasn’t there yet. And all the arguments above would have been equally valid in Argentina up to the 1920s.My belief is that Canada is not even considering the possibility of depression, recession, hyper-inflation etc and with the current unsustainable levels of government borrowing to support financially questionable investments and activities, it is making these events more plausible. And the private investment outflows out of Canada support this view more than any words ever could.
amen brother
I’m in complete agreement. I’ve always thought the parallels between Argentina and Canada are glaringly obvious. Unfortunately, most Canadians can’t see those similarities.
Completely wrong. Trump won't be president during the next election.
Poilievre should focus on the truth: trust the Liberals are doing everything to enrich insiders and clients. And not just corruption, although that's a big part: also client groups that regular people aren't. DEI beneficiaries, transgender radicals, NGO workers, should ask be demonized as being on the take.
His goal should be to radicalize and infuriate as much of the country as possible, because as soon as Trump is even close to leaving office, all these people will go to their boomer grandparents and demand they vote Conservative.
Liberal lite has been tried again and again, and can only work with a widely hated Liberal PM like Trudeau. No Conservative can beat Carney in the "most Prime Ministerial Liberal" contest, and the Conservatives should stop trying.
Whenever I hear a critique of someone in power I always want to ask "so what would you do instead?" Poilievre's answer w.r.t. the trade tensions with the US seems to be (and I'm only loosely paraphrasing here) "well I'd just quit screwing around and get a great trade deal for Canada, that's what I'd do!" To which my response is "great! I'm going to go take Scarlett Johannsen on a date". In other words, the fact that you need the counterparty to agree with you is a constraint! Trump has successfully and completely convinced Canadians he's an unreasonable counterparty, so Poilievre's preferred course of action is seen as unfeasible, therefore his attack doesn't land.
To be fair, Mexico has been quietly negotiating with the US trade representatives to try and get the best deal possible. Our current PM has been mouthing off and posturing instead, because that is what his supporters want. Ron Butler just posted an excellent video about our current approach to CUSMA. Retired boomers and public servants, basically the people who vote Liberal, want to give the middle finger to Trump because they don't have to worry about losing their jobs.
A simple ask of Pollievre- what have you actually achieved in your 20+ years as an elected legislator. SFA.
Yup that’s reason to keep the Boy Blunder to keep his legacy of nothingness alive.
Time for the CPC to roll back the clock to the AGM and allow an actual free vote. Then we’ll see who leads the Official Opposition!
A weak prior record/resume didn't hurt Trudeau (or Harper) and a strong one didn't help Erin O'Toole (or Michael Ignatieff). It's something partisans will always move the goalposts on depending on the relative advantages of their "guy". I'm interested in two things only: what are their policies, and how likely are they to implement them?
(edits for cross partisan examples)
Fair enough. His policies are non-evident
You mean besides the one Carney stole?
Do you like what you see? Were you willing to wait another 10 years for a conservative government
Think of it differently a cooperative parliament achieves for the country. An obstructionist one does SFA for the country.
I choose progress and so should the conservatives. The country isn’t broken but the narcissistic leader of the opposition is
Wtf does that nonsensical response have to do with what I wrote?
Clearly you disliked my take on Pollievre. Fair enough.
You stated Carney stole his policies. To the point your man never articulated anything concrete, he was caught up in the Canada is broken, Justine Trudeau blah blah blah, tRuntian politics
Your man didn’t have the confidence of the country and he blew a 30 point lead; had he shut his mouth he’d have been PM
Hell even his own riding turfed him
Carney may have used some of the CPC policies, I’m not privy to what his thoughts were in advance Given his talent set he may have had variations on tap, I don’t know, you don’t know
My point is simply this Is the country better off for the adoption of these policies? Simple yes or no
If we are better off is a thank you note what Pollievre needs for doing his job?
His job, Carney’s job, the job of every MP elected is to better the people of this country - full fucking stop!
Grandstanding, whinging, oh it’s broken, oh he’s uneducated the continual bloviating isn’t doing one bit of good
I don’t give a fiddlers fuck where the best ideas come from, I care they get implemented to better our country
The job of a politician is not to secure lifelong employment for themselves and their party it’s to serve Canadians
That’s WTF my reply intended
This post is an indictment, deservedly, of the Canadian electorate.
On a broader note, we are at a point where the next few years have the potential to have the worst economy - high unemployment, high crime, high inflation, etc. And there is nothing our illustrious Prime Minister seems to be willing to do to address the structural issues at hand. And even if he did, it would take several years for it to bear any fruit.
All this to say that very little of any campaign rhetoric - CPC or LPC - is likely to matter when a vast portion of Canadians have no job and can't pay for food. People will simply vote against the incumbent.
And as the article notes, "If Canada is no better off in a few years, Poilievre will be the natural beneficiary".
When you say Canadians are in trance of Carney which Canadians are you referring to? Liberal supporters in the eastern half of Canada who have drunk the kool aid and would vote Liberal regardless of who led them (see Justin Trudeau) because he certainly does not have a country wide level of support.
This is the thing. It sounds like you blame Trudeau for winning rather than taking responsibility and adjusting to why you lost. It defines the CPC going back to Andrew Scheer.
I don’t blame Trudeau for winning rather I question the ability of those who voted for him on more than one occasion to actually put some thought into who they vote for and why. It’s the old fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me in real life.
I understand that. I couldn't vote for Scheer, because he was imitating Doug Ford and thinking he'd coast to a win. The CPC told me not to vote for Erin, and Pierre is an asshole. I say that, having voted for Harper 3 times. Trudeau won because of the CPC.
That’s just too pat of an answer. The sheer superficiality of Justin Trudeau should have been readily apparent to voters if not initially at least shortly after he took office and then to re-elect him again (and again) reflects very poorly upon the intellect of far too many Canadians. The CPC could have run Santa Clause and for some unknown reason likely would have still failed. As far as assholes go wait until Carney gets finished with the country.
So you're blaming the voters for losing instead of addressing why you lost, and then having a pouting, pity party, saying it was impossible for you to win under any circumstances. Based on that, you may as well disband the party.
It was readily apparent that Trudeau was an idiot. SNC locked it in stone, and Andrew Scheer still found a way to lose. His judgment was terrible. FWIW, Pierre supported the Convoy, so his appears to be no better. You neutered Erin.
I don't know how Carney will do. I do know that I will never vote for Pierre. Right now, the pace of change is frustrating. But I'm very comfortable saying I voted for the right person. The big threats of what will happen hold no water. Maybe focus on saying what you're going to do, get rid of every candidate with social conservative baggage, and stop trying to fear-monger. Step 1 is picking a new leader.
You sound like a very unhappy and frustrated individual.
At least the polls seem to say so.
Not a new insight but yes, absolutely, Pierre is toast. He’s now a laughable caricature of how to lose badly and somehow not understand why. The sooner the CPC dumps him the better for everyone.
The Poilievre-led opposition is actually pretty effective on a day to day basis. They just don't get any credit for it in our Liberal-friendly national media, where holding Poilievre to account is job number one.
As with PMJT, Carney will be popular until he's not. Carney has made a lot of promises and gambled a lot of taxpayer money for very little return to date. The tough part for the CPC at this point is to be patient and not tear itself to shreds while Carney's extended honeymoon proceeds to its inevitable end.
No snark intended, but the CPC is sinking in the polls, losing MPs to floor crossing, and Carney's personal approval is solid or even improving. On what basis can we deem the CPC's opposition effective?
We are in a situation where criticizing the government - apparently no matter what they do - is seen as rude and un-Canadian. Thanks to the whole 'wave hands in the general direction of everything' situation in the world.
The opposition is quite effective at pointing out what the government is doing wrong, they are just 'rewarded' for it with falling support. Because a large chunk of the population doesn't want to hear what any opposition has to say right now. Because we are in a moral panic reminiscent of early Covid but seemingly permanent.
I'm not sure I would suggest they stop criticizing the government though.
So much this. (Arrow pointing up. Arrow pointing up.)
No snark taken, my point was a little obtuse.
I mean the day to day grind of being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and holding the government to account in question period, criticizing the government, raising issues of concern at committees (although that's been snuffed now), that kind of boring stuff. Media tend to focus on party infighting and horse race polls so these operational matters don't get a lot of attention or analysis.
This is separate from the goal of the CPC to win more seats than the Liberals in the next election. In the current political climate any criticism of Carney is portrayed negatively (or even as un-Canadian according to Patty Hajdu) and ironically is likely to cost Poilievre votes. It's very similar to the constant media accolades and Vogue-cover treatment we saw PMJT get back in 2015 - and look how that ended. That's why I recommend patience. Everyone wants to fire PP, but that would be incredibly stupid and just further make Canada a one-party Liberal state (quite possibly without Alberta as it's currently going).
Yes, indeed, patience is warranted and forcing the issue (trying to create an opportunity when one doesn't really exist) is ultimately counterproductive. Sadly for PP, his chance to make a good first impression with voters has long passed, and his efforts to make a good second one come across as desperate.
Indeed. That's why his return to natural form is potentially a good thing. The old Poilievre utterly crushed PMJT and he doesn't get enough credit for that. He didn't elect Trump, nor did he create the perfect Trump-oppo in the form of a congenial central banker who is apparently charming and looks like George Clooney (WTF??). Trump is the Liberals only prop - they will crumble to dust as they did with Trudeau once he is gone.
Until then, hold fire and bide your time. Patience will be rewarded.
Short term thinking. There’s little reason to think Carney’s popularity will stay high given how ineffective he’s been so far. He’s not going to build stuff, he’s already running massive deficits, and CUSMA will not be re-negotiated favourably for us.
According to the jigged polls? When they ask the majority of voters from all over the country, I might believe the polls.
Yes, according to the polls, which are, in the Canadian context, very accurate, year over year. And, not for nothing, according to the former CPC MPs now enjoying their new lives as Liberals.
Sadly, you are correct. The Canadian public at large has managed to bamboozle itself (one can give corrupt media and politicians only so much credit) on one major question after another. I would have said it is a residual effect of the Covid-19 debacle, where even now the near-daily shoe drops of its fraudulent and downright sinister pushing of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic potions on the population or, even worse, suppression of viable treatments, is met with a blank stare or the raising of elbows. But unfortunately, that refusal to consider realities beyond flatulent self-affirming pieties long preceded 2020.
Take a statistics course, pass it, and then we'll talk about what's necessary for a representative sample. Or maybe not, because you won't say things like this.