Jen likes him - eh? The Liberals would put a road kill moose as leader if they thought it could keep them in power! It’s their policy that is the problem - the leader just delivers it! Come to think of it, the dead moose would do less damage to the country!
Jim Prentice was a good man. And smart. He would have been a good premier (I mean i know he was but I mean for more than a minute), but the PC party at that point was rotten. Obviously Mr. Prentice made some key mistakes (look in the mirror anyone?) not to mention the Danielle Smith floor crossing episode and the early election call reeked of cynicism and opportunism. Mr. Carney might win an election as leader of the Liberal Party one day - but like the Alberta PC’s a decade ago, the party is rotten and in need of soul searching, and renewal. I will not be voting for the Liberal Party no matter the leader next election. They have lost any semblance of credibly and trust. Destroyed it actually Unfortunately, Mr. Carney also wears all of the failed policies and decisions of the current Trudeau regime. He might sing a nice tune now using hindsight to guide his gaze - but all of the signature policies, and love for the globalist elite (he himself being one) he has supported in one form or another. In my view his judgment, nor that of the Liberal Party, cannot be trusted.
David Staples does not offer a coherent argument. He writes at the beginning, "If you’re looking for a leader who will put Canada first, Mark Carney is not your guy", but then he proceeds to make some scattershot observations about the man without any connective argument, and does not present any objective evidence of Carney doing anything to harm Canada at all. For example, Staples blandly cites Poilievre's accusations without independently analyzing whether they are supported by evidence or whether they are logical.
Your term "globalist elite" also does not appear in the piece. I don't think it is an accident that you did not attempt to summarize the piece, because there is respectfully no reasoning therein that can be remembered.
No, "globalist elite" does not appear in Staples' column, but that phrase is obviously deducible from his description of Carney's career as well as his views, which the quote from Peter Foster describes well: "Carney’s plan is to control the global economy by seizing the commanding heights of finance, not by nationalization but by exerting non-democratic pressure to divest from, and stop funding, fossil fuels. The private sector is to become a partner in imposing its own bondage. This will be do-it-yourself totalitarianism.” Having been born and grown up in Edmonton, and followed Carney's career for years, not only do I wholly agree but find Staples' argument eminently coherent. That you aren't able, or are unwilling, to understand its logic reflects your own desire to defend Carney rather than a serious analysis of Staples' column.
Since you seem to think Carney is PM material, where do you think he'll run as an MP if he wins the leadership? Having officially launched his bid in Edmonton, and claimed it as his home, it's where he should run, despite the Liberals' extreme unpopularity in Alberta Perhaps he could hold onto Edmonton Centre, which Randy Boissonnault won by only 600 votes in 2021, though I have my doubts he could. Or does he pick one of the Liberals' few remaining "safe" (or rather safer) seats in downtown Toronto?
If he does become leader, my bet is that he'll be the Liberals' Kim Campbell, winning even fewer seats than Ignatieff did in 2011.
"Oh my God, Carney is an individual with worldly experience who wants businesses to participate in a green reforms!" is not a thoughtful or coherent criticism of any kind. That is why, of course, you are quoting directly from Staples' argument but you are likewise unable to independently summarize an argument in your own words - there just is no argument there that can be summarized and that is directly justified by Staples' own observations.
Accusing Carney of promoting "do-it-yourself totalitarianism" is not an argument, it's just an accusation, and perhaps not even a coherent one. I have looked over Peter Foster's piece and I find two quotes using the word "totalitarian" without any attempt to define, justify, or limit its use, which is a strong hint that the word is being bandied about largely for the purpose of clickbait.
Lack of political experience matters, and if I were voting in the Liberal leadership contest I would probably not vote for Carney. But I am still going to pushback against thoughtless non-criticisms.
I didn't independently summarize Staples' argument because I think it's obvious to any intelligent person who reads it. But since you insist, here you are.
Staples, citing Foster, argues that, contrary to his attempt to present himself as a mere local Edmonton boy made good, Carney is a globalist technocrat, who sees himself, and people like him, as the self-appointed experts the world requires in order to solve the problems facing it. This is especially the case when it comes to "Climate Change," for which he's been at the forefront of pushing a radical anti-CO2 agenda on governments all over the world, resisting democratic politics or accountability, while ignoring the effects of the policies he has advocated on the poor and middle class. No, accusing Carney of "promoting 'do-it-yourself totalitarianism' is not an argument," but neither does it pretend to be one. It is, rather, an attempt to label the kind of technocratic, elitist control that Carney embodies. Perhaps because I have a PhD in 20th-century history and have read extensively about totalitarianism (Arendt's On Totalitarianism as the classic analysis of it), I don't find anything incoherent or improper about Foster's use of it. Technocracy is totalitarian by definition because it seeks to evade the messiness of politics by entrusting all power in a governing elite of highly educated, credentialed "experts." Again, as a fellow former Edmontonian who has followed Carney's career for years, I think it would be difficult to imagine a better representative of technocratic totalitarianism than Mark Carney.
So much for your accusation of "thoughtless non-criticisms."
Current aggregate pollsters are showing only 3 "safe" Liberals seats so not a lot to pick from. Canada and politics is in such a mess. Trudeau who put himself first, his party second and Canada dead last! Singh who has only one priority himself and his pension. Eventually the voters will get their chance to be heard.
I doubt if Jagmeet Singh needs his pension. He is independently wealthy. He may be thinking of his MPs who come from more modest backgrounds and are unlikely to have much of a future when they get voted out of office.
Sure, Staples' hints at what a "globalist elite" would be. He does not offer an argument for why it's a bad thing to be. Staples hints at a bunch of potential problems but does not engage in the standard premise-to-proposition logical sequence that would present a coherent argument.
He "does not engage in the standard premise-to-proposition logical sequence that would present a coherent argument." What sophistical nonsense. Furthermore, if you don't understand what's wrong with globalist elites, especially with one of them becoming PM of Canada, then it's not up to the rest of us to explain the obvious, especially to someone who seems stuck in a 200-level university logic course, believing that there is only one way to make a coherent argument.
The other thing that I think is completely missed when discussing the NDP win in that election, is that the election was worded as "vote based on these hard decisions we have to make" and the NDP won the propaganda war with a bunch of disenfranchised voters. (I voted NDP because I got caught by the propaganda that election. Learned a lesson from it - but most of my friends who had elementary age kids at the time fell for exactly the same propaganda I did. We're all back voting conservative now - but never underestimate the power of propaganda when a government doesn't have a plan.)
Like you Jen, I think Carney is a serious man. But he has no track record as a politician and the Liberal brand is toxic. I will be interested to see if he sticks around after the election to do the hard work of rebuilding the Liberal brand sans Trudeau.
Don’t forget Telford and Butts are on board the Carney bandwagon. Wynn’s, Trudeau now Carney, they are going for 3 for 3 if Canadians are naive enough to buy it.
Yes, and Katie Telford is the Typhoid Mary of Canadian politics - just ask Kathleen Wynn and now Justin how great her advice was, while Butts gifted us Justin in the first place.
Kevin O'Leary has got Butts in his gun sight. I'm glad to see that as Butts has shuffled round the backs of enough now - disappeared politicians to warrant a good hard view.
I thought I read somewhere that Carney had made some comment to the effect that he’s going to give it his best shot at this election but if he’s not successful he won’t stick around. I’ve lost a lot of the context as I recall it was worded in almost a self effacing way like “I will give it my best shot” but since I haven’t heard much since on this it might not be correct.
Mark Carney could’ve made a great finance minister in the Chrétien-era Liberal Party or the Harper Conservative governments. I don’t know if he’s got the political chops to be prime minister, or his measure in all the other areas a prime minister has to manage. Finance and economics are one aspect of leading a nation: how about criminal justice, defense, or foreign policy? It’s not uncommon for people to be expert in one area but complete loons in other areas where they’re far from expert.
The main challenge for Carney is that the current Liberal party is not the Liberal party of 20 years ago. It’s much further to the left, it’s been focused on progressive social policies, and it’s been conditioned to act like a cult of personality. It’s also exhausted after a decade in power, short on talent, and has lost the trust and patience of a majority of Canadians. Unless Carney’s ready for a long stretch of rebuilding, I think he’s going to realize hubris is a bitch…
Jen, before you go too far down that road please look at Carney's book, Values. His fundamental values are laid out at great length and show him to be a true Marxist who he mentions his admiration of many times. As a very influential banker he invented the idea of Environmentally Sustainable Governance to force banks into not providing loans for anything to do with fossil fuels. Carney is left of and even more woke than Trudeau-if that's possible.
Don't call him a marxist. I know what you mean, I used to be a big fan of the James Lindsay school of calling everything marxism, but it's counterproductive.
He's a globalist EU style technocrat, which definitely has it's roots in marxism/international leftism, but obviously as a finance guy and a central banker, he is not a marxist. Think of it the same way neo-cons are largely former trotskyites : they abandoned Marxist orthodoxy, its economics specifically, the underlying Trotskyist impulse toward moral universalism and the need for a vanguard to initiate global ideological struggle stayed more or less intact. All one needs to do to square this circle is replace “one-world communism” with “one-world liberal democracy.”
I am currently about two thirds of the way through the audio version of the book, and I have yet to see or hear the "Marxism" that you are talking about.
The Marxist theory of history puts class struggle as history’s driving force, and it sees capitalism as the most recent and most critical historical stage—most critical because at this stage the proletariat will at last arise united.
You are literally citing a quote that is both descriptive and objectively true - this is indeed the Marxist theory of the world works. There's no blanket endorsement of Marxism anywhere in the book.
The audio version of the book is more than 20 hours long. The book really goes into the weeds of economics and discusses various theories of economics, including but not limited to brief discussions of Marxist theory.
I do not trust him, because I do not trust Trudeau, who has been trying to parachute Carney into our midst for months. What if, by the time his parachute lands him in the PM's office, the two have fully baked their plan to have us in the midst of a "national emergency" where they can persuade the Bloc or the NDP to come to their aid and drag this out til October and beyond. Sorry. Too jaded to be as optimistic as Jen.
My immediate reaction to Carney, he is Prentice/Ignatieff 2.0. No charisma, he will be a lousy campaigner and lose more votes than he gains after he is coronated. He has Trudeaus policies and he will be worse at scolding us for our own good. His announcement today, kicked out 3 journalists, and refused to take questions, thats not a very personable guy who's winning over voters. As a guy who WILL be PM for at least a few weeks its a very bad look if you are trying to be different than what currently exists!
By biggest concern is the rumor that Butts and Telford are somehow involved in his campaign. Those two have already left trails of detritus across two governments.
It seems entirely possible that Telford, Butts and Chin are involved; however, Carney has enough of his own detritus (albeit, covered in satin, Peau de soie, velvet, and gold bullion) even without their load.
I recall seeing him years ago and he was good but very serious and not sleepy but not the firebrand of energy I think you need to have. I’ve also seen Stephen Poloz speak and I think he has much more of a “common touch” and relatability.
Mark Carnet a total cure for insomnia. Anyone notice his logo is the same as a collection agency in Jasper, Met Credit. Guess that speaks to the research of his team....oh ya that is G. Butts, K. Telford, J. Trudeau.
Loved it. But honestly I am so sick of the leadership race already and we haven't even really started. Just a fucking waste of time and energy. We are the Clowns of the world. It is so embarrassing and the fact that our next PM might not be elected in but voted in by a corrupt party of underage non canadian citizens is insulting as a citizen.
The last sentence needs to be broadcast loud and frequently, right up until the next federal voting day. LPC membership criteria are a real problem, I hope a great many citizens notice.
Prime Ministers in Westminster systems are not elected by the people but are instead approved by parliamentarians. Practically speaking that is not how it is perceived, but both technically and ideally that is the case.
The voice of parliamentarians (MPs) is limited to voting confidence in the Government, of which the PM is the party leader (by convention.) MPs don't otherwise vet the PM. That is technically up to the Governor-General to accept him (or not) as a member of her Privy Council.
I think Jason McNiven is correct to worry that the party leader (who will almost automatically become PM if the G-G approves, and of course she will) will be chosen not by any public election at all but by ballot of members of the Liberal Party who may not have Canada's interests at heart, in that they are not necessarily Canadian citizens. That is his central point and it is a good one. He would not be correct to say that the PM is ever (or ought to be) elected by general vote of the country but I don't think that is what he meant.
I am already sick of reading about how awful Trudeau is and how most if not all of the liberal MP's didn't agree with him. We know this and there is no need to bang on about Trudeau.
Read his book Values you will run fast and far away from him. He didn’t look so comfortable with the supposed ordinary behind him. I detest how the Liberal always have to have a backdrop of politically correct people behind them when they speak so oft putting. He kept looking down at his notes especially when announcing his Leadership didn’t seem to not speaking his true convictions with ease. Trudeau 2.0! No thanks. His leadership seems to have been planned albiet poorly and executed by one faction of the Liberals party. The Liberal leadership will be fascinating to watch.
Yes, this was a very evocative piece and had many excellent descriptions.
It also led me to think about the challenges of being a political leader in terms of how you need to be able to persuade and convince the great masses of your capabilities, your plan, etc. whereas I would expect in his prior roles Mark Carney has needed to persuade only a select few people, ie Boards, other executives etc. who have very similar world visions and decision criteria as himself. Much different communications and “selling” skills required.
What I'd love to see in a leader is someone with a vision for the future, an idea how to get there, who then picks good ministers, tells them what to do, and then lets them do it.
As much as Jason Kenney was disliked in AB after the pandemic hit, he actually did this if you look at his choices for ministers. An accountant as the finance minister who balanced the budget - and was incredibly competent. As much as I disagree with some things Kenney did, I feel like his actual minister appointments were thoughtfully considered.
A serious, articulate man with the wrong policies is still a dangerous man when also given power. So, no thanks. I am Most looking forward to seeing him not win a Liberal riding and then pretend to be leader of Liberal party as a non-MP.
I was happy to learn that Jen was as underwhelmed as I to watch the painfully awkward coming- out of Mr Carney. Mr Carney certainly has the money to have hired a team of pros to script and stage his launch in a hockey rink in Edmonton. I could not believe how amateurish the whole event appeared. Chrystia looks like a much more certain front-runner. Was anyone else slightly embarrassed?
Elections laws regulate only the spending and donation limits of leadership contests, and nothing else. But the laws do impose the crucial stipulation that a leadership contestant candidate may spend no more than $25,000 on their own campaign: https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&document=lea_faq&lang=e&cid=e
Obviously that permits much more political spending that the vast majority of Canadians are eligible, let alone resourceful enough, to donate to a campaign ($1,625). But Carney won't be allowed to spend even a tiny fraction of his wealth on his candidacy.
A very understated and charming satire of Mark Carney. David Frost would be proud. I watched Carney’s speech and found it very underwhelming, he is nowhere near the class of oratory and charisma that Poilievre portrays. I also heard that there was air tight security around the speech venue and seven right week reporters were blocked from coming in to cover his speech. It’s going to be an interesting leadership race.
Jen Gerson is the alias for the real White Sorceress Of Destiny. I would not want to be in her crosshairs. As a frequent loudmouth, I already might be.
I take one day off and this happens.
You two are keeping me from personal work I do need to do. I admit I get great info and entertainment in return.
Y'all have the same problem?
Supper is still "on hold" ...
Jen likes him - eh? The Liberals would put a road kill moose as leader if they thought it could keep them in power! It’s their policy that is the problem - the leader just delivers it! Come to think of it, the dead moose would do less damage to the country!
But the "deductible" on the vehicle insurance is gonna be brutal.
But I drive a 2006 Hyundai ... so I'll eat generic KD until we can come back out of our bunkers ...
Jim Prentice was a good man. And smart. He would have been a good premier (I mean i know he was but I mean for more than a minute), but the PC party at that point was rotten. Obviously Mr. Prentice made some key mistakes (look in the mirror anyone?) not to mention the Danielle Smith floor crossing episode and the early election call reeked of cynicism and opportunism. Mr. Carney might win an election as leader of the Liberal Party one day - but like the Alberta PC’s a decade ago, the party is rotten and in need of soul searching, and renewal. I will not be voting for the Liberal Party no matter the leader next election. They have lost any semblance of credibly and trust. Destroyed it actually Unfortunately, Mr. Carney also wears all of the failed policies and decisions of the current Trudeau regime. He might sing a nice tune now using hindsight to guide his gaze - but all of the signature policies, and love for the globalist elite (he himself being one) he has supported in one form or another. In my view his judgment, nor that of the Liberal Party, cannot be trusted.
Of all the (potential) problems facing the country, why would a "globalist elite" occupying the highest office be among the highest of them?
I’ll let the Great David Staples speak to this. An Edmonton based columnist for the Edmonton Journal speaking about Edmonton’s own. https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/david-staples-numerous-reasons-we-cant-trust-mark-carney-to-put-canada-first
David Staples does not offer a coherent argument. He writes at the beginning, "If you’re looking for a leader who will put Canada first, Mark Carney is not your guy", but then he proceeds to make some scattershot observations about the man without any connective argument, and does not present any objective evidence of Carney doing anything to harm Canada at all. For example, Staples blandly cites Poilievre's accusations without independently analyzing whether they are supported by evidence or whether they are logical.
Your term "globalist elite" also does not appear in the piece. I don't think it is an accident that you did not attempt to summarize the piece, because there is respectfully no reasoning therein that can be remembered.
No, "globalist elite" does not appear in Staples' column, but that phrase is obviously deducible from his description of Carney's career as well as his views, which the quote from Peter Foster describes well: "Carney’s plan is to control the global economy by seizing the commanding heights of finance, not by nationalization but by exerting non-democratic pressure to divest from, and stop funding, fossil fuels. The private sector is to become a partner in imposing its own bondage. This will be do-it-yourself totalitarianism.” Having been born and grown up in Edmonton, and followed Carney's career for years, not only do I wholly agree but find Staples' argument eminently coherent. That you aren't able, or are unwilling, to understand its logic reflects your own desire to defend Carney rather than a serious analysis of Staples' column.
Since you seem to think Carney is PM material, where do you think he'll run as an MP if he wins the leadership? Having officially launched his bid in Edmonton, and claimed it as his home, it's where he should run, despite the Liberals' extreme unpopularity in Alberta Perhaps he could hold onto Edmonton Centre, which Randy Boissonnault won by only 600 votes in 2021, though I have my doubts he could. Or does he pick one of the Liberals' few remaining "safe" (or rather safer) seats in downtown Toronto?
If he does become leader, my bet is that he'll be the Liberals' Kim Campbell, winning even fewer seats than Ignatieff did in 2011.
"Oh my God, Carney is an individual with worldly experience who wants businesses to participate in a green reforms!" is not a thoughtful or coherent criticism of any kind. That is why, of course, you are quoting directly from Staples' argument but you are likewise unable to independently summarize an argument in your own words - there just is no argument there that can be summarized and that is directly justified by Staples' own observations.
Accusing Carney of promoting "do-it-yourself totalitarianism" is not an argument, it's just an accusation, and perhaps not even a coherent one. I have looked over Peter Foster's piece and I find two quotes using the word "totalitarian" without any attempt to define, justify, or limit its use, which is a strong hint that the word is being bandied about largely for the purpose of clickbait.
Lack of political experience matters, and if I were voting in the Liberal leadership contest I would probably not vote for Carney. But I am still going to pushback against thoughtless non-criticisms.
I didn't independently summarize Staples' argument because I think it's obvious to any intelligent person who reads it. But since you insist, here you are.
Staples, citing Foster, argues that, contrary to his attempt to present himself as a mere local Edmonton boy made good, Carney is a globalist technocrat, who sees himself, and people like him, as the self-appointed experts the world requires in order to solve the problems facing it. This is especially the case when it comes to "Climate Change," for which he's been at the forefront of pushing a radical anti-CO2 agenda on governments all over the world, resisting democratic politics or accountability, while ignoring the effects of the policies he has advocated on the poor and middle class. No, accusing Carney of "promoting 'do-it-yourself totalitarianism' is not an argument," but neither does it pretend to be one. It is, rather, an attempt to label the kind of technocratic, elitist control that Carney embodies. Perhaps because I have a PhD in 20th-century history and have read extensively about totalitarianism (Arendt's On Totalitarianism as the classic analysis of it), I don't find anything incoherent or improper about Foster's use of it. Technocracy is totalitarian by definition because it seeks to evade the messiness of politics by entrusting all power in a governing elite of highly educated, credentialed "experts." Again, as a fellow former Edmontonian who has followed Carney's career for years, I think it would be difficult to imagine a better representative of technocratic totalitarianism than Mark Carney.
So much for your accusation of "thoughtless non-criticisms."
Didn't the 'twoRandys' just announce he was running again in Edmonton Centre? Coincidence?
Current aggregate pollsters are showing only 3 "safe" Liberals seats so not a lot to pick from. Canada and politics is in such a mess. Trudeau who put himself first, his party second and Canada dead last! Singh who has only one priority himself and his pension. Eventually the voters will get their chance to be heard.
I doubt if Jagmeet Singh needs his pension. He is independently wealthy. He may be thinking of his MPs who come from more modest backgrounds and are unlikely to have much of a future when they get voted out of office.
don't underestimate the number of people who are looking for a reason to vote LPC. There are lots of disenchanted NDPers too.
The article summarizes what is meant by the term “Globalist Elite.” I appreciate you took the time to read it.
Sure, Staples' hints at what a "globalist elite" would be. He does not offer an argument for why it's a bad thing to be. Staples hints at a bunch of potential problems but does not engage in the standard premise-to-proposition logical sequence that would present a coherent argument.
He "does not engage in the standard premise-to-proposition logical sequence that would present a coherent argument." What sophistical nonsense. Furthermore, if you don't understand what's wrong with globalist elites, especially with one of them becoming PM of Canada, then it's not up to the rest of us to explain the obvious, especially to someone who seems stuck in a 200-level university logic course, believing that there is only one way to make a coherent argument.
The other thing that I think is completely missed when discussing the NDP win in that election, is that the election was worded as "vote based on these hard decisions we have to make" and the NDP won the propaganda war with a bunch of disenfranchised voters. (I voted NDP because I got caught by the propaganda that election. Learned a lesson from it - but most of my friends who had elementary age kids at the time fell for exactly the same propaganda I did. We're all back voting conservative now - but never underestimate the power of propaganda when a government doesn't have a plan.)
Like you Jen, I think Carney is a serious man. But he has no track record as a politician and the Liberal brand is toxic. I will be interested to see if he sticks around after the election to do the hard work of rebuilding the Liberal brand sans Trudeau.
Don’t forget Telford and Butts are on board the Carney bandwagon. Wynn’s, Trudeau now Carney, they are going for 3 for 3 if Canadians are naive enough to buy it.
Yes, and Katie Telford is the Typhoid Mary of Canadian politics - just ask Kathleen Wynn and now Justin how great her advice was, while Butts gifted us Justin in the first place.
I can tell you where to attack ads are going to focus…
Kevin O'Leary has got Butts in his gun sight. I'm glad to see that as Butts has shuffled round the backs of enough now - disappeared politicians to warrant a good hard view.
Exactly what has/is happening!
Agree. If he isn't interested in sitting on the Opposition side and holding the government to account I don't think he should be running.
I thought I read somewhere that Carney had made some comment to the effect that he’s going to give it his best shot at this election but if he’s not successful he won’t stick around. I’ve lost a lot of the context as I recall it was worded in almost a self effacing way like “I will give it my best shot” but since I haven’t heard much since on this it might not be correct.
Mark Carney could’ve made a great finance minister in the Chrétien-era Liberal Party or the Harper Conservative governments. I don’t know if he’s got the political chops to be prime minister, or his measure in all the other areas a prime minister has to manage. Finance and economics are one aspect of leading a nation: how about criminal justice, defense, or foreign policy? It’s not uncommon for people to be expert in one area but complete loons in other areas where they’re far from expert.
The main challenge for Carney is that the current Liberal party is not the Liberal party of 20 years ago. It’s much further to the left, it’s been focused on progressive social policies, and it’s been conditioned to act like a cult of personality. It’s also exhausted after a decade in power, short on talent, and has lost the trust and patience of a majority of Canadians. Unless Carney’s ready for a long stretch of rebuilding, I think he’s going to realize hubris is a bitch…
Jen, before you go too far down that road please look at Carney's book, Values. His fundamental values are laid out at great length and show him to be a true Marxist who he mentions his admiration of many times. As a very influential banker he invented the idea of Environmentally Sustainable Governance to force banks into not providing loans for anything to do with fossil fuels. Carney is left of and even more woke than Trudeau-if that's possible.
Don't call him a marxist. I know what you mean, I used to be a big fan of the James Lindsay school of calling everything marxism, but it's counterproductive.
He's a globalist EU style technocrat, which definitely has it's roots in marxism/international leftism, but obviously as a finance guy and a central banker, he is not a marxist. Think of it the same way neo-cons are largely former trotskyites : they abandoned Marxist orthodoxy, its economics specifically, the underlying Trotskyist impulse toward moral universalism and the need for a vanguard to initiate global ideological struggle stayed more or less intact. All one needs to do to square this circle is replace “one-world communism” with “one-world liberal democracy.”
I am currently about two thirds of the way through the audio version of the book, and I have yet to see or hear the "Marxism" that you are talking about.
Bold of you to assume people who reflexively panic about Marxism have ever read any of his works.
Or that they read the works which they proclaim to be indicative of a Marxist bent.
Or, seemingly, that they read much at all.
The Marxist theory of history puts class struggle as history’s driving force, and it sees capitalism as the most recent and most critical historical stage—most critical because at this stage the proletariat will at last arise united.
This is Mark Carney? Hmm...
You are literally citing a quote that is both descriptive and objectively true - this is indeed the Marxist theory of the world works. There's no blanket endorsement of Marxism anywhere in the book.
The audio version of the book is more than 20 hours long. The book really goes into the weeds of economics and discusses various theories of economics, including but not limited to brief discussions of Marxist theory.
I do not trust him, because I do not trust Trudeau, who has been trying to parachute Carney into our midst for months. What if, by the time his parachute lands him in the PM's office, the two have fully baked their plan to have us in the midst of a "national emergency" where they can persuade the Bloc or the NDP to come to their aid and drag this out til October and beyond. Sorry. Too jaded to be as optimistic as Jen.
It’s not really even a “what if” in my mind. It’s a “given”, or at the very least “a highly probable.”
Nailed it.
My immediate reaction to Carney, he is Prentice/Ignatieff 2.0. No charisma, he will be a lousy campaigner and lose more votes than he gains after he is coronated. He has Trudeaus policies and he will be worse at scolding us for our own good. His announcement today, kicked out 3 journalists, and refused to take questions, thats not a very personable guy who's winning over voters. As a guy who WILL be PM for at least a few weeks its a very bad look if you are trying to be different than what currently exists!
By biggest concern is the rumor that Butts and Telford are somehow involved in his campaign. Those two have already left trails of detritus across two governments.
It seems entirely possible that Telford, Butts and Chin are involved; however, Carney has enough of his own detritus (albeit, covered in satin, Peau de soie, velvet, and gold bullion) even without their load.
Perfect wording, laughing.
I recall seeing him years ago and he was good but very serious and not sleepy but not the firebrand of energy I think you need to have. I’ve also seen Stephen Poloz speak and I think he has much more of a “common touch” and relatability.
Mark Carnet a total cure for insomnia. Anyone notice his logo is the same as a collection agency in Jasper, Met Credit. Guess that speaks to the research of his team....oh ya that is G. Butts, K. Telford, J. Trudeau.
Loved it. But honestly I am so sick of the leadership race already and we haven't even really started. Just a fucking waste of time and energy. We are the Clowns of the world. It is so embarrassing and the fact that our next PM might not be elected in but voted in by a corrupt party of underage non canadian citizens is insulting as a citizen.
The last sentence needs to be broadcast loud and frequently, right up until the next federal voting day. LPC membership criteria are a real problem, I hope a great many citizens notice.
Prime Ministers in Westminster systems are not elected by the people but are instead approved by parliamentarians. Practically speaking that is not how it is perceived, but both technically and ideally that is the case.
The voice of parliamentarians (MPs) is limited to voting confidence in the Government, of which the PM is the party leader (by convention.) MPs don't otherwise vet the PM. That is technically up to the Governor-General to accept him (or not) as a member of her Privy Council.
I think Jason McNiven is correct to worry that the party leader (who will almost automatically become PM if the G-G approves, and of course she will) will be chosen not by any public election at all but by ballot of members of the Liberal Party who may not have Canada's interests at heart, in that they are not necessarily Canadian citizens. That is his central point and it is a good one. He would not be correct to say that the PM is ever (or ought to be) elected by general vote of the country but I don't think that is what he meant.
I am already sick of reading about how awful Trudeau is and how most if not all of the liberal MP's didn't agree with him. We know this and there is no need to bang on about Trudeau.
I have no words. Actually I have a lot but I'm tired of questioning my reality on their lack of Integrity
Read his book Values you will run fast and far away from him. He didn’t look so comfortable with the supposed ordinary behind him. I detest how the Liberal always have to have a backdrop of politically correct people behind them when they speak so oft putting. He kept looking down at his notes especially when announcing his Leadership didn’t seem to not speaking his true convictions with ease. Trudeau 2.0! No thanks. His leadership seems to have been planned albiet poorly and executed by one faction of the Liberals party. The Liberal leadership will be fascinating to watch.
You do have a gift with words....that was a delight
Yes, this was a very evocative piece and had many excellent descriptions.
It also led me to think about the challenges of being a political leader in terms of how you need to be able to persuade and convince the great masses of your capabilities, your plan, etc. whereas I would expect in his prior roles Mark Carney has needed to persuade only a select few people, ie Boards, other executives etc. who have very similar world visions and decision criteria as himself. Much different communications and “selling” skills required.
What I'd love to see in a leader is someone with a vision for the future, an idea how to get there, who then picks good ministers, tells them what to do, and then lets them do it.
As much as Jason Kenney was disliked in AB after the pandemic hit, he actually did this if you look at his choices for ministers. An accountant as the finance minister who balanced the budget - and was incredibly competent. As much as I disagree with some things Kenney did, I feel like his actual minister appointments were thoughtfully considered.
A serious, articulate man with the wrong policies is still a dangerous man when also given power. So, no thanks. I am Most looking forward to seeing him not win a Liberal riding and then pretend to be leader of Liberal party as a non-MP.
I was happy to learn that Jen was as underwhelmed as I to watch the painfully awkward coming- out of Mr Carney. Mr Carney certainly has the money to have hired a team of pros to script and stage his launch in a hockey rink in Edmonton. I could not believe how amateurish the whole event appeared. Chrystia looks like a much more certain front-runner. Was anyone else slightly embarrassed?
Elections laws would not allow Carney to dump his wealth into the race.
Not into the General, no. But into the internal leadership race?
Elections laws regulate only the spending and donation limits of leadership contests, and nothing else. But the laws do impose the crucial stipulation that a leadership contestant candidate may spend no more than $25,000 on their own campaign: https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&document=lea_faq&lang=e&cid=e
Obviously that permits much more political spending that the vast majority of Canadians are eligible, let alone resourceful enough, to donate to a campaign ($1,625). But Carney won't be allowed to spend even a tiny fraction of his wealth on his candidacy.
A very understated and charming satire of Mark Carney. David Frost would be proud. I watched Carney’s speech and found it very underwhelming, he is nowhere near the class of oratory and charisma that Poilievre portrays. I also heard that there was air tight security around the speech venue and seven right week reporters were blocked from coming in to cover his speech. It’s going to be an interesting leadership race.
Hard to believe that I have just read “oratory”, “charisma “ and “Poilievre “ in the same sentence. I must be hallucinating.
Don’t worry, Fred, you’ll snap back to reality by October, 2025.
Omg, that is exactly what I was thinking!
Jen Gerson is the alias for the real White Sorceress Of Destiny. I would not want to be in her crosshairs. As a frequent loudmouth, I already might be.
Softly, softly, NS