It is no great achievement for Carney to remind the most leftist elements of his caucus that he is in charge.
No credible CEO would act any other way.
But who really cares?
The real question remains how punitive will Carney be towards Alberta in respect of his extremist climate demands - decarbonization via CCS and open ended carbon pricing, divorced from any regard for fundamental competitiveness.
Time is running out.
A breakdown with Alberta on climate would only add to separatist momentum and justifiably.
And Carney is no better on trade negotiations with the US. Concessions to Trump are inescapable or losing any vestige of the USMCA becomes ever more likely.
Carney is at heart an over-credentialed leftist, who can't really accept that Canada's long standing dysfunctions can only be changed without real change to reliance markets, merit, and more integration with the US , not less.
What is the credible evidence that the climate policies of this government would make the oil sands non-competitive, let alone the Canadian economy at large?
What is the credible evidence that the climate policies of this government will benefit Canada in any way? The null hypothesis should be "prove any regulation will be useful".
I do not know that the Carney climate policies are the best choices, but bad or not the best policies does not equal a provocation to separatism.
The correct climate policies would improve Canada's reputation among its peers, thereby improving the willingness of other countries to support or otherwise engage with Canada in international affairs and trade.
"No matter how terrible the climate policies we implement are, it will make other countries think we are cool and they will want to trade with us." Man, that's a blast from the past. Do the "we need more immigrants to build housing" trope next.
That's not what I am saying, at all. A policy that improved Canada's reputation at minimal economic cost would be a good policy. I did not say that any climate policy of any economic cost would be good.
Literally no one of relevance is arguing for policies that would deliberately harm the economy, this government included.
Europe continues to buy lng in large quantities funding the Russian war machine that bombs Ukrainians and drives their own military spending.
The existence of the entire sanctions evading / black fleet regime supplying Iranian and Russian crude to India and China?
Our own refineries process Saudi crude despite their penchant for chopping up journalists.
Welcome to the hierarchy of needs. Your contention that we need a *carbon tax* to be able to sit on a moral plane that allows market access: it has zero evidence, and plenty to the contrary.
Is it really that hard to understand why it would piss a hard working rig hand off? Has anyone in Eastern Canada ever said ‘no’ to all Saudi oil on moral grounds? Or unapologetically endorsed made in Canada oil, the way they would a made in Canada automobile?
Or have you spend the last 10 years doing nearly the opposite, defacto nationalizing the throttle on the industry that pays a big chunk of the bills. (I don’t see a rejection of that, based on moral calculus. Please do feel free to say ‘no’ to the proceeds).
Carbon capture is a dubious technology. To what extent is the Carney government insisting on private companies paying for it, as opposed to public spending on the technology?
The latter would be bad policy but would not specifically affect "competitiveness".
If Canadians were truly inspired by the Prime Minister punching down on his caucus, why not elect Prime Minister Poilievre, and be done with the bunch of them?
Canadians don’t want change; Canadians want harmony, comfort, and a lack of disruption, even if it means accepting reduced living standards, economic stagnation, and stultifying bureaucratic inertia .
It is nice to see that Jen has removed her head from the “National A-Hole”, but she can do so much better than this offering.
I don’t know where you live, but I know that a big portion of former ndp voters couldn’t bring themselves to elect pollievre. They believed he was Trump-lite.
That being said I think many people voted for carney because they were afraid to vote conservative. And the liberals picked up a ton of ndp votes after there was no longer a difference between ndp and liberal policies.
I think the bigger truth is nobody cares if Carney tells. But I am happy to know that there is a leader with actual expectations in the prime minister office. Pretty sure I’ve heard rumors about Polievre yelling at times too. (Maybe I’d tell too if I was responsible for herding cats who wanted to look nice but not do anything substantial?)
How about if the Conservatives pick a leader who projects serious competence instead of a populist bomb thrower, and we'll talk? I voted Conservative in the last election because even though I lacked confidence in Poilievre's leadership and was concerned with a lack of detailed, serious policies in their platform, I thought that would be a better shot at reform and change than political neophyte Mark Carney saddled with Justin Trudeau's caucus. Since the election, Poilievre has sulked, refused to engage with why he lost the election, and still doesn't seem to be capable of coming up with a strategy to grapple with Carney. Meanwhile, Carney has done better than I'd expected.
My expectations were pretty much rock-bottom by the end of Trudeau's time in office, and I've seen the Liberals try to parachute in an outsider as leader to save them before. So yeah - doesn't take much. On the other hand, I'm also pretty sure I'm not looking at things through a partisan lens at this point: the past decade in federal politics has alienated me from all of them.
I've had a lot of opportunities to pull up stakes and move elsewhere. Was seriously considering a couple of offers to relocate to the US with H1Bs in 2023. The fact is that I'm a Canadian with fairly deep roots here (including loyalists who were driven out of upstate NY after the revolution by revolutionary pogroms.) This is my country, I want to see it do well, and I feel I can do more by staying a Canadian.
George, I do not hold any brief for PP. Oh, I voted for him but, really, as you note, he should have done better after the election.
What I am interested in is that you felt that the Conservative platform lacked detail. So, what detail did you see in the LPC platform. It is my recollection that there was a bunch of fluff and orange man bad and our guy is the only guy who can negotiate with orange man. Just what detail did you see in that platform?
I didn’t vote for the Liberal in my riding; I voted for the Conservative, which I stated in the comment I replied to. I did that in spite of their campaign platform consisting of slogans devoid of any real detail. So why are you challenging me on the Liberal platform? This isn’t some thermostatic reaction where if you criticize one side, then you must favor the other. I have a certain expectation of serious policy, and neither party rose to it.
George, I simply asked what caused you to argue that the LPC platform included specificity. You asserted that the CPC platform was lacking specifics; while you did not explicitly praise the LPC platform I nevertheless inferred that you felt that the "specificity-ness" of the LPC platform was greater than the CPC platform simply because you raised your disappointment with the CPC platform.
I certainly recognize that you stated that you voted for the CPC candidate but, as I say, it was the implication of the greater detail in the LPC platform that had me wondering. Perhaps I was mistaken and you did not find the LPC platform had more specifics; if that is the case, why the criticism of PP for a lock of that very thing in the CPC platform?
George…. The only reason PP lost was Trump scared the boomers in Ontario…. Otherwise we would already be doing everything that Carney knows he needs to do… but doesn’t necessarily want to do..,.
I’m sick of people saying that he is not a competent leader… for fuck sakes …. Neither was Carney before he was elected… untill your in the saddle it’s all speculation!!!
MC's background, his CV, his only focus in every job has been outcomes. Not so with many of the team he gets... so friction. Does he know that he's the input that produced the Lib win outcome? You bet.
We know too, and he knows we know, so he will use whatever works to get the outcomes we want. It's up to him not to go too far.
"Punch down" is whine-speak in the top room for "you made me feel bad in front of the others when I fucked up and that was mean." He's going to insist everyone around the table is a resilient adult who can take their lumps and improve, even when they're not. Someone should publish the names.
"Punch down is whine speak." Exactly correct. You are a duly elected member of parliament. Not an intern. This is not an ordinary job. If he's "punching down" you are admitting you have failed to step up. JG
Talk about terrific strategy, communications, and karma!!
So, that’s how you win an election in this Country: you scare the sheep into thinking the big, bad wolf is right over the hill, and exploit their temerity and fear.
Perfect.
Don’t talk about the issues. Don’t talk about the serious problems not being confronted.
Don’t talk about the crisis after crisis caused by ineptitude, apathy, incompetence, and unaccountability.
Hey, you guys fell for Sunny Ways; why not Elbows Up?
If by sunny ways you mean JT? I didn't vote for him.
Among all the reasons MC was, and is, a better choice than PP... PP has 0 experience other than politics. Literally nothing. This alone, when none of us want politicking to get in the way of getting things done, means he should have resigned, and still should. He's going to be very stale by the time we're looking for an alternative.
Big bad wolf is a self-inflicted blow to your credibility. We can all see what a racist narcissist with ADHD, unlimited weapons of mass destruction and the chequebook can do to a country. The daily news confirms the cautionary tale we live near.
The "you guys", "sheep", etc... is consistent, is loser talk, and more proof you should probably move regardless of your age. (Maybe you don't like the prospect of eating cat food because you had an unexpected heart attack?)
Thank you for your concern. Thank you also for the free advice.
There are many reasons I have chosen to stay, none of which are your business.
Yet, your pithy, well-intentioned advice seems not to have influenced the tens or hundreds of thousands of folks who have chosen to leave in the last few years.
I will stay and debate anonymous little trolls, get sheared a thousand more times by a rapacious Government that seems to have even seasoned journalists in its thrall.
Loser talk and the other taunts are lazy projections you think you have carved to a fine point, but merely display your inability to form a cogent thought, or a written, internally consistent argument.
Conservative leaders will come, and Conservative leaders will go, but Canadians will continue to huddle near the warm glow of the American fire, secretly wishing they could get just a little closer, and all the while sporting their condescending, ridiculous, and unearned sense of moral and ethical superiority.
Blaming the voters when your tribe loses is absolutely loser talk, and "warm glow" is your fantasy. The US is the best marketing machine on the planet, with little to back it up. I know the country well.
People still scoff at Pierre for failing to be cynical enough to make an election about an imaginary issue - US annexation and even the vastly overstated tariffs - that might as well have been actors playing out a fantasy on stage.
I guess nothing fails like failure and that's on him for not "reading the moment" and embracing the stupid, but this one is also on Canadians for being the most gullible group of people on the face of the earth.
$300/tonne carbon pricing , which approaches the cost of making Pathway CCS "economic" is a cost no country Canada competes with for the production of heavy oil imposes on itself.
Moreover, reducing carbon emissions in Canada has little to no present value to the Canadian economy.
More oil production unburdened with extreme climate costs has enormous economic rents for Canada.
Carney knows all of this even if he cannot yet overtly concede it.
Even Tony Blair now concedes the lunacy of net zero.
Had Liberal MPs voted at their first caucus meeting to implement the Reform Act provisions, I suspect Carney would be a touch more diplomatic in his interactions. Instead they voted to be sheep and now complain about being sheared.
I would agree that based on what we know about Carney as a person, he is more likely to be a demanding leader than an unprofessional or emotional one. But we ultimately barely know anything about what really happened and lack enough information to properly judge.
Carney has often throughout his life been the actual smartest person in the room. A strong leader will need to self-restrain from the urge to be over-confident accordingly; we will see how Carney does on that front.
And he still got it wrong as much as he got it right. I remember those years and all the desperate yet unanswered calls by many to raise interest rates while the cost of housing doubled.
Edit: I understand he conducted himself similarly in the UK. Why the fuck is this guy's record considered so unassailable again?
Is anyone who can be named and who is not a partisan big-C Conservative critical of Carney's record as a central banker? Maybe the criticisms of his banker record gets no traction because the criticisms seemingly all come from people who have a vested interest in rewriting the past to suit their own political futures.
If Carney's banking decisions were actually criticized by economists or other non-partisan policy experts though, please do enlighten me.
You must consider yourself to be an economist to make those statements. I am not. But I do know that the role of Central Banker is trivial. You have a staff of thousands to help you decide between +25, 0 and -25 every month and a half.
I'm not doing research for you. I clearly remember practically tearing my hair out at the time watching house prices climbing month after month while interest rates remained at emergency lows while I wasn't in a position to enter the market. A lot of people were talking about this and it was much more controversial than we like to remember. At the time I blamed Harper and didn't really know the nuances of BoC decision-making.
Liberals seem to often make decisions from the place of election calculus. Trudeau wasn’t spilled as long as they thought they could win the next election. When it became clear how deeply disliked he was even internally, he was gone.
I think more than anything, liberals think if they’re the ones in power Canada is safer. It means their internal accountability sucks because they haven’t actually thought about what comes with being in power and they’re not willing to hold each other accountable as a group.
I’ve found the whole yelling story funny. I have a leadership position. I don’t yell. Carney could be effective without yelling, but he either doesn’t know how or chooses not to. And I don’t really care either way because the bigger point is his caucus wants to complain anonymously but not sign their name. So that puts this in the funny camp that ironically does make me think carney is miles better than Trudeau. Even though I still wouldn’t vote for him.
It was looking clear that Trudeau could not win the next election long before the caucus spilled him. The immediate spark that lit the fire for revolt was the public letter by Chrystia Freeland, which made clear that the temporary GST tax cuts occurred purely for political rather than economic or policy reasons. Basically, the Liberals showed spine only when it became clear that they were going to lose the coming election in a distinctly *un*-dignified and aimless manner.
The visual of Dr. Carney yelling at his caucus, "sheep in sheep's clothing", has considerable appeal. However, agree with you that using politeness as a form of hostility is far more effective in the long run. Needling while smiling is an art.
Canada is an unserious nation that can't get anything done. People are glad there is an adult in thje room *the majority anyway*. Much better than funky socks and forced progressivism or you're a racist under Justin Trudeau.
I think Carney's communication style is going to have to change. He uses terms like 'a new age of variable geometry', pragmatic coalescence, complementarities are positive sum, (WTF), The Performance of Sovereignty (which I thought was the title to a recently discovered Tolstoy manuscript.) I suspect he dislikes the word 'no' or any reasonably sounding synonym. I think it's evident that he doesn't like hearing criticism (constructive, suggestive or otherwise).
He can yell all he wants. Knock yourself out. Now, tell me how and when we can expect all these international deals to come true? Time line and no banker language please.
Also, Carney needs to remember this is the Liberal party. The knives came out for Chretien by the Martin people. The knives will come out for Carney sooner or later.
With Chretien, I kind of got the sense that he got tired of the protracted knife fight with his ambitious finance minister and decided to quit. That gave Martin all the rope he needed to hang himself: turns out "Mr. Dithers" didn't find the big chair to be quite as easy as he'd assumed. The Chretien-Martin duo was potent in the '90s because it combined serious fiscal and economic approaches with the political will and savvy to implement them: Martin knew what needed to get done, and Chretien could wield the power needed to get it done.
Mark Carney is a lot more capable in terms of monetary and economic policy than anybody the Liberals have had in the past decade. I realize he was nominally an advisor to the Trudeau government, but I suspect that was mostly an effort by Trudeau to contain a potential rival. Trudeau tried to channel everything through the PMO, but he wasn't merely a micromanager - he was an incompetent micromanager. Meanwhile, Trudeau ruthlessly purged just about anybody with talent or ambition from his caucus. Carney's political skills seem to be adequate to handle the sycophantic lap dogs left over by Trudeau. Roll in Conservative dysfunction that seems to mirror the right wing dysfunction of the '90s, and Carney looks to have a pretty good runway.
He did have to win the Liberal leadership against other contenders such as Chrystia Freeland, but I understand the distaste for somebody who leaps right into the top political job without spending any significant previous time in politics or in Parliament. One of the sad things about the current moment is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of talent out there: experienced ministers from the Harper era have largely left politics. The Trudeau Liberals were thin on talent at the start, and Trudeau seemed bent on purging his caucus of anybody who might pose a threat. I think we're in need of pulling in more outsiders and newcomers simply to get some capable people in the system.
For me, straight-up coronated. Media didn't even treat it like a leadership race. Trudeau's government was run from the PMO, as was Harper's, as was Martin's, as was Chretien .... all the way back to Trudeau 1.0 who invented it.
You are waiting for international trade deals that we already have.
The Harper government signed 45 or so of them from 2006-2015, all around the world.
Funny how almost NO ONE in our media has noticed that, this past year.
They were FREE TRADE DEALS, which means they are largely free of any impediments to doing business.
Mark Carney has been travelling around the world this past year (at great expense) doing deals for Brookfield, while GASLIGHTING you into thinking he is somehow going to increase trade for Canada in far-flung places.
This week, he is in France. Oh look, Brookfield just yesterday announced a $10 Billion data centre deal with France..... what a coincidence!
Look, we've had free trade with Honduras since 2014 (totally random pick).
There is NOTHING stopping a Canadian company from choosing to export their goods to Honduras rather than to America.
But... depending on the product, is your product even something they need or want in Honduras? What price would your product commend in Honduras? Would it cost three times as much to ship to Honduras rather than (eg) Toledo Ohio? etc.
Business fundamentals matter far more than whether there is an official trade deal in place, but Canadians have allowed the Liberals to whip them into a Trump-addled state in which they will seemingly believe anything, if it is done "against TRump".
No. I am shrugging and saying it is 2026 and what I am seeing is a new PM who spends little time in the country that is knee-deep in an antisemitism crisis and he makes an advisory council. The country needed to hear its Prime Minster tell the country that its citizens are safe. Well, Canada is not safe for Jews.
And the new guy forms an advisory council rather than take a stand. That tells you everything you need to know about the man.
On the subject of deals, well, signing deals is great performance art.
The time has come for the Prime Minster to begin attending to very serious domestic matters.
Thinking that this Punch and Judy show amounts to real change is absurd. Endorsing the Liberals means endorsing the Liberals. But it should serve as an example for Poilievre: if he focused less on not frightening Toronto matrons, they would probably like him better.
It is just so cute that Carney when yells at his MPs or yaps out "I can outlast her" to a Grassy Narrows resident. But it is so mean when Pollievre criticizes the government.
The media narrative last year was that Carney would be better able to deal with Trump than Poilievre because he had been a central banker for Canada & the UK.
On one hand I agree and find it amusing they are complaining. On the other hand I am also in a leadership position with around 300 people, and I would never yell or take on this arrogant position for someone that is suppose to be their leader. Time will tell.
I've been in a leadership position with a few tens of thousands. At the table Carney leads, expectations should be very, very high, and a stern word can remind everyone. By all accounts they fell short... they needed to be told to dress professionally and come prepared?!? They SHOULD be scared.
This is the most important strategy team in the country for fuck's sake... lots of people aspire and very few sit there. He will act like everyone is a resilient adult who can take criticism, even when they're not, because that's what's needed to get things done, quickly. He'll assume everyone is fully read up on their files, has done what they said they'd do, will speak up when they have something to contribute, and shut up when they don't. He will point out failures in those areas in front of the team because the team pays the price (by extension, the country) and it will burn. He'll have no patience for happy talk, pony petting, nihilists.
Sometimes you need to fire someone quite publicly for the sake of the organization as a whole. Sometimes my feelings are less important than the impact of my fuckup.
The line about the socks is one of those that make me treasure my Line subscription. A perfect symbol distilled down and filtered through Jen's wonderful snarky humour.
"If you’ve spent your career in ... boutique law firms, ... then, yes, a boss who points out when you’ve said something monumentally dumb in front of other people under high pressure must, indeed, feel bracing."
Being told by a superior that you "said something monumentally dumb in front of other people under high pressure" is something that has happened to literally every lawyer.
Thank you for this. I have no real problem with Mark Carney, it's his caucus I dislike - sometimes intensely - including most of his Cabinet Ministers. They're all Justin's folks so of course they'll never speak out against anything publicly. Why would they, the house whip would take away their little perks. Fact is, Mr Carney seems to be one of a small handful of mature adults in that caucus room, which can be refreshing.
The Liberal Caucus had the opportunity way back when to show some backbone but it never did. After Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott were summarily kicked of of caucus for telling the truth, what did we hear from that esteemed caucus. Nothing. Even after the Ethics Commissioner ruled on the SNC-Lavalin affair, the caucus held their collective tongue. 'Ol Justin had taught 'em good and they still have a hard shaking off those fetters.
Carney love him or hate him is stuck with Justin's Ship of Fools. It will be interesting to see how many of Justin's MPs/ministers run in next Fed Election.
Spot on. The following passage was particularly apropos, in my view:
QUOTE
I suspect this is a man who owns only three kinds of socks; charcoal socks, blue socks, and white sports socks. If we get nothing else from this government, I will never again write about a prime minister’s socks. This is better.
END QUOTE
The “socks” reference brings to mind the reaction of former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull, whose biography reportedly included an acid reference to PM Trudeau’s penchant for striped socks.
Turnbull is also famous for having expressed his unabashed admiration for PM Carney.
I said this on the last article on this subject: what is really appalling is that it has taken a year for him to realize they are bumbling fools that need to be yelled at before anything will sink into their heads.
It is no great achievement for Carney to remind the most leftist elements of his caucus that he is in charge.
No credible CEO would act any other way.
But who really cares?
The real question remains how punitive will Carney be towards Alberta in respect of his extremist climate demands - decarbonization via CCS and open ended carbon pricing, divorced from any regard for fundamental competitiveness.
Time is running out.
A breakdown with Alberta on climate would only add to separatist momentum and justifiably.
And Carney is no better on trade negotiations with the US. Concessions to Trump are inescapable or losing any vestige of the USMCA becomes ever more likely.
Carney is at heart an over-credentialed leftist, who can't really accept that Canada's long standing dysfunctions can only be changed without real change to reliance markets, merit, and more integration with the US , not less.
But delusions die so hard for most Canadians.
What is the credible evidence that the climate policies of this government would make the oil sands non-competitive, let alone the Canadian economy at large?
What is the credible evidence that the climate policies of this government will benefit Canada in any way? The null hypothesis should be "prove any regulation will be useful".
I do not know that the Carney climate policies are the best choices, but bad or not the best policies does not equal a provocation to separatism.
The correct climate policies would improve Canada's reputation among its peers, thereby improving the willingness of other countries to support or otherwise engage with Canada in international affairs and trade.
"No matter how terrible the climate policies we implement are, it will make other countries think we are cool and they will want to trade with us." Man, that's a blast from the past. Do the "we need more immigrants to build housing" trope next.
That's really the last-bastion argument for any policy that "makes us look like nice people but is provably otherwise useless at any cost point".
That's not what I am saying, at all. A policy that improved Canada's reputation at minimal economic cost would be a good policy. I did not say that any climate policy of any economic cost would be good.
Literally no one of relevance is arguing for policies that would deliberately harm the economy, this government included.
The commercial carbon tax is still there. C-69. C-48.
Europe continues to buy lng in large quantities funding the Russian war machine that bombs Ukrainians and drives their own military spending.
The existence of the entire sanctions evading / black fleet regime supplying Iranian and Russian crude to India and China?
Our own refineries process Saudi crude despite their penchant for chopping up journalists.
Welcome to the hierarchy of needs. Your contention that we need a *carbon tax* to be able to sit on a moral plane that allows market access: it has zero evidence, and plenty to the contrary.
Is it really that hard to understand why it would piss a hard working rig hand off? Has anyone in Eastern Canada ever said ‘no’ to all Saudi oil on moral grounds? Or unapologetically endorsed made in Canada oil, the way they would a made in Canada automobile?
Or have you spend the last 10 years doing nearly the opposite, defacto nationalizing the throttle on the industry that pays a big chunk of the bills. (I don’t see a rejection of that, based on moral calculus. Please do feel free to say ‘no’ to the proceeds).
Carbon capture costs money (which, as Boundary Dam has proven, is money wasted).
Do you really think companies will pay a premium for carbon neutral O&G that isn't carbon neutral?
Carbon capture is a dubious technology. To what extent is the Carney government insisting on private companies paying for it, as opposed to public spending on the technology?
The latter would be bad policy but would not specifically affect "competitiveness".
The former is also bad policy which will lower competitiveness. Squandered money hurts Canada, it doesn't matter from whom the money is extracted.
Exactly: squandered money hurts "Canada", not Alberta specifically. It's not a specific provocation to separatism as Dennis alluded in this thread.
It is funded by Canada and Alberta.
Oil is always gonna oil in a thirsty world.
That's like, *deep*, man 😂
"more integration with the US"... lol
Economic reality
Albertans have known this for the past 80 years
That is quite a rip.
If Canadians were truly inspired by the Prime Minister punching down on his caucus, why not elect Prime Minister Poilievre, and be done with the bunch of them?
Canadians don’t want change; Canadians want harmony, comfort, and a lack of disruption, even if it means accepting reduced living standards, economic stagnation, and stultifying bureaucratic inertia .
It is nice to see that Jen has removed her head from the “National A-Hole”, but she can do so much better than this offering.
I don’t know where you live, but I know that a big portion of former ndp voters couldn’t bring themselves to elect pollievre. They believed he was Trump-lite.
That being said I think many people voted for carney because they were afraid to vote conservative. And the liberals picked up a ton of ndp votes after there was no longer a difference between ndp and liberal policies.
I think the bigger truth is nobody cares if Carney tells. But I am happy to know that there is a leader with actual expectations in the prime minister office. Pretty sure I’ve heard rumors about Polievre yelling at times too. (Maybe I’d tell too if I was responsible for herding cats who wanted to look nice but not do anything substantial?)
I live in London, Ontario. My riding is London Centre, and my Liberal MP is Peter Fragiskatos.
MP Fragiskatos is the Sgt. Schultz of MPs: he knows nothing, he sees nothing, he hears nothing, and he says nothing.
He has been in office since 2015.
He has supported every initiative of the Liberal Government for eleven years.
The voters of London Centre will dutifully elect him again, should he choose to run.
If Canadians truly sought substantive change, this would be a great place
in which to start.
How about if the Conservatives pick a leader who projects serious competence instead of a populist bomb thrower, and we'll talk? I voted Conservative in the last election because even though I lacked confidence in Poilievre's leadership and was concerned with a lack of detailed, serious policies in their platform, I thought that would be a better shot at reform and change than political neophyte Mark Carney saddled with Justin Trudeau's caucus. Since the election, Poilievre has sulked, refused to engage with why he lost the election, and still doesn't seem to be capable of coming up with a strategy to grapple with Carney. Meanwhile, Carney has done better than I'd expected.
If you feel that the Prime Minister has exceeded your expectations, George, you have very low expectations.
My expectations were pretty much rock-bottom by the end of Trudeau's time in office, and I've seen the Liberals try to parachute in an outsider as leader to save them before. So yeah - doesn't take much. On the other hand, I'm also pretty sure I'm not looking at things through a partisan lens at this point: the past decade in federal politics has alienated me from all of them.
Are you like me, George, and just too old to move?
If I were 25 or 35,
I would be gone, just like tens of thousands of Canadians who have simply had enough.
I've had a lot of opportunities to pull up stakes and move elsewhere. Was seriously considering a couple of offers to relocate to the US with H1Bs in 2023. The fact is that I'm a Canadian with fairly deep roots here (including loyalists who were driven out of upstate NY after the revolution by revolutionary pogroms.) This is my country, I want to see it do well, and I feel I can do more by staying a Canadian.
Similarly, and with not disrespect, the Canada you and I loved is gone, and never shall She return.
Forgive me if I misunderstood what you were saying earlier, but did you not suggest you are disgusted with all Canadian politicians?
I am not trying to put you on the spot, George; I am genuinely interested in your reasoning.
George, I do not hold any brief for PP. Oh, I voted for him but, really, as you note, he should have done better after the election.
What I am interested in is that you felt that the Conservative platform lacked detail. So, what detail did you see in the LPC platform. It is my recollection that there was a bunch of fluff and orange man bad and our guy is the only guy who can negotiate with orange man. Just what detail did you see in that platform?
I didn’t vote for the Liberal in my riding; I voted for the Conservative, which I stated in the comment I replied to. I did that in spite of their campaign platform consisting of slogans devoid of any real detail. So why are you challenging me on the Liberal platform? This isn’t some thermostatic reaction where if you criticize one side, then you must favor the other. I have a certain expectation of serious policy, and neither party rose to it.
George, I simply asked what caused you to argue that the LPC platform included specificity. You asserted that the CPC platform was lacking specifics; while you did not explicitly praise the LPC platform I nevertheless inferred that you felt that the "specificity-ness" of the LPC platform was greater than the CPC platform simply because you raised your disappointment with the CPC platform.
I certainly recognize that you stated that you voted for the CPC candidate but, as I say, it was the implication of the greater detail in the LPC platform that had me wondering. Perhaps I was mistaken and you did not find the LPC platform had more specifics; if that is the case, why the criticism of PP for a lock of that very thing in the CPC platform?
George…. The only reason PP lost was Trump scared the boomers in Ontario…. Otherwise we would already be doing everything that Carney knows he needs to do… but doesn’t necessarily want to do..,.
I’m sick of people saying that he is not a competent leader… for fuck sakes …. Neither was Carney before he was elected… untill your in the saddle it’s all speculation!!!
Pierre Poilievre is easily the best leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition I have seen in my lifetime.
He has been right about everything.
So, of course Canadians would reject him as leader of the Country.
It is the Canadian way!!
PP couldn't, or wouldn't, meet the moment and for all to see. The vote was the outcome of terrible strategy and comms.
Was about to say. They would have elected PP if they could have.
Like him or not, there is something richly karmic about Carney. JG
I've been waiting for this excellent piece.
MC's background, his CV, his only focus in every job has been outcomes. Not so with many of the team he gets... so friction. Does he know that he's the input that produced the Lib win outcome? You bet.
We know too, and he knows we know, so he will use whatever works to get the outcomes we want. It's up to him not to go too far.
"Punch down" is whine-speak in the top room for "you made me feel bad in front of the others when I fucked up and that was mean." He's going to insist everyone around the table is a resilient adult who can take their lumps and improve, even when they're not. Someone should publish the names.
"Punch down is whine speak." Exactly correct. You are a duly elected member of parliament. Not an intern. This is not an ordinary job. If he's "punching down" you are admitting you have failed to step up. JG
Well, friend, you have your man.
Elbows Up!!
Talk about terrific strategy, communications, and karma!!
So, that’s how you win an election in this Country: you scare the sheep into thinking the big, bad wolf is right over the hill, and exploit their temerity and fear.
Perfect.
Don’t talk about the issues. Don’t talk about the serious problems not being confronted.
Don’t talk about the crisis after crisis caused by ineptitude, apathy, incompetence, and unaccountability.
Hey, you guys fell for Sunny Ways; why not Elbows Up?
If by sunny ways you mean JT? I didn't vote for him.
Among all the reasons MC was, and is, a better choice than PP... PP has 0 experience other than politics. Literally nothing. This alone, when none of us want politicking to get in the way of getting things done, means he should have resigned, and still should. He's going to be very stale by the time we're looking for an alternative.
Big bad wolf is a self-inflicted blow to your credibility. We can all see what a racist narcissist with ADHD, unlimited weapons of mass destruction and the chequebook can do to a country. The daily news confirms the cautionary tale we live near.
The "you guys", "sheep", etc... is consistent, is loser talk, and more proof you should probably move regardless of your age. (Maybe you don't like the prospect of eating cat food because you had an unexpected heart attack?)
Thank you for your concern. Thank you also for the free advice.
There are many reasons I have chosen to stay, none of which are your business.
Yet, your pithy, well-intentioned advice seems not to have influenced the tens or hundreds of thousands of folks who have chosen to leave in the last few years.
I will stay and debate anonymous little trolls, get sheared a thousand more times by a rapacious Government that seems to have even seasoned journalists in its thrall.
Loser talk and the other taunts are lazy projections you think you have carved to a fine point, but merely display your inability to form a cogent thought, or a written, internally consistent argument.
Conservative leaders will come, and Conservative leaders will go, but Canadians will continue to huddle near the warm glow of the American fire, secretly wishing they could get just a little closer, and all the while sporting their condescending, ridiculous, and unearned sense of moral and ethical superiority.
Blaming the voters when your tribe loses is absolutely loser talk, and "warm glow" is your fantasy. The US is the best marketing machine on the planet, with little to back it up. I know the country well.
Not one commented you have presented is confirmed by any sort of evidence.
That is, of course, with all due respect to everything you claim to know well, which seems to be a rather impressive, if strangely unconfirmed, list.
People still scoff at Pierre for failing to be cynical enough to make an election about an imaginary issue - US annexation and even the vastly overstated tariffs - that might as well have been actors playing out a fantasy on stage.
I guess nothing fails like failure and that's on him for not "reading the moment" and embracing the stupid, but this one is also on Canadians for being the most gullible group of people on the face of the earth.
loser talk
That's what I call people who got caught up in a mass hallucination.
$300/tonne carbon pricing , which approaches the cost of making Pathway CCS "economic" is a cost no country Canada competes with for the production of heavy oil imposes on itself.
Moreover, reducing carbon emissions in Canada has little to no present value to the Canadian economy.
More oil production unburdened with extreme climate costs has enormous economic rents for Canada.
Carney knows all of this even if he cannot yet overtly concede it.
Even Tony Blair now concedes the lunacy of net zero.
Had Liberal MPs voted at their first caucus meeting to implement the Reform Act provisions, I suspect Carney would be a touch more diplomatic in his interactions. Instead they voted to be sheep and now complain about being sheared.
Reform Act should be not only mandatory but burned into the constitution with a branding iron.
The caucus would have been able to vote Trudeau out sooner if they had implemented the Reform Act.
I would agree that based on what we know about Carney as a person, he is more likely to be a demanding leader than an unprofessional or emotional one. But we ultimately barely know anything about what really happened and lack enough information to properly judge.
Carney has often throughout his life been the actual smartest person in the room. A strong leader will need to self-restrain from the urge to be over-confident accordingly; we will see how Carney does on that front.
For 12 years Carney had staffs of thousands helping choose between 25, 0 and -25 eight times a year. The man must be a genius.
And he still got it wrong as much as he got it right. I remember those years and all the desperate yet unanswered calls by many to raise interest rates while the cost of housing doubled.
Edit: I understand he conducted himself similarly in the UK. Why the fuck is this guy's record considered so unassailable again?
I' d forgotten about the "transient" inflation. I guess it comes from the same economics textbook as "technical" recession.
Ooops. I think the transient inflation guy was Tiff Macklem.
Who exactly made those "desperate yet unanswered calls"?
Everyone who wasn't already in the housing market.
That's not very specific...
Is anyone who can be named and who is not a partisan big-C Conservative critical of Carney's record as a central banker? Maybe the criticisms of his banker record gets no traction because the criticisms seemingly all come from people who have a vested interest in rewriting the past to suit their own political futures.
If Carney's banking decisions were actually criticized by economists or other non-partisan policy experts though, please do enlighten me.
You must consider yourself to be an economist to make those statements. I am not. But I do know that the role of Central Banker is trivial. You have a staff of thousands to help you decide between +25, 0 and -25 every month and a half.
I'm not doing research for you. I clearly remember practically tearing my hair out at the time watching house prices climbing month after month while interest rates remained at emergency lows while I wasn't in a position to enter the market. A lot of people were talking about this and it was much more controversial than we like to remember. At the time I blamed Harper and didn't really know the nuances of BoC decision-making.
There you go asking for specifics again.
How have Canada's green policies increased its trade? Be specific.
Liberals seem to often make decisions from the place of election calculus. Trudeau wasn’t spilled as long as they thought they could win the next election. When it became clear how deeply disliked he was even internally, he was gone.
I think more than anything, liberals think if they’re the ones in power Canada is safer. It means their internal accountability sucks because they haven’t actually thought about what comes with being in power and they’re not willing to hold each other accountable as a group.
I’ve found the whole yelling story funny. I have a leadership position. I don’t yell. Carney could be effective without yelling, but he either doesn’t know how or chooses not to. And I don’t really care either way because the bigger point is his caucus wants to complain anonymously but not sign their name. So that puts this in the funny camp that ironically does make me think carney is miles better than Trudeau. Even though I still wouldn’t vote for him.
It was looking clear that Trudeau could not win the next election long before the caucus spilled him. The immediate spark that lit the fire for revolt was the public letter by Chrystia Freeland, which made clear that the temporary GST tax cuts occurred purely for political rather than economic or policy reasons. Basically, the Liberals showed spine only when it became clear that they were going to lose the coming election in a distinctly *un*-dignified and aimless manner.
The visual of Dr. Carney yelling at his caucus, "sheep in sheep's clothing", has considerable appeal. However, agree with you that using politeness as a form of hostility is far more effective in the long run. Needling while smiling is an art.
Canada is an unserious nation that can't get anything done. People are glad there is an adult in thje room *the majority anyway*. Much better than funky socks and forced progressivism or you're a racist under Justin Trudeau.
I think Carney's communication style is going to have to change. He uses terms like 'a new age of variable geometry', pragmatic coalescence, complementarities are positive sum, (WTF), The Performance of Sovereignty (which I thought was the title to a recently discovered Tolstoy manuscript.) I suspect he dislikes the word 'no' or any reasonably sounding synonym. I think it's evident that he doesn't like hearing criticism (constructive, suggestive or otherwise).
He can yell all he wants. Knock yourself out. Now, tell me how and when we can expect all these international deals to come true? Time line and no banker language please.
Also, Carney needs to remember this is the Liberal party. The knives came out for Chretien by the Martin people. The knives will come out for Carney sooner or later.
With Chretien, I kind of got the sense that he got tired of the protracted knife fight with his ambitious finance minister and decided to quit. That gave Martin all the rope he needed to hang himself: turns out "Mr. Dithers" didn't find the big chair to be quite as easy as he'd assumed. The Chretien-Martin duo was potent in the '90s because it combined serious fiscal and economic approaches with the political will and savvy to implement them: Martin knew what needed to get done, and Chretien could wield the power needed to get it done.
Mark Carney is a lot more capable in terms of monetary and economic policy than anybody the Liberals have had in the past decade. I realize he was nominally an advisor to the Trudeau government, but I suspect that was mostly an effort by Trudeau to contain a potential rival. Trudeau tried to channel everything through the PMO, but he wasn't merely a micromanager - he was an incompetent micromanager. Meanwhile, Trudeau ruthlessly purged just about anybody with talent or ambition from his caucus. Carney's political skills seem to be adequate to handle the sycophantic lap dogs left over by Trudeau. Roll in Conservative dysfunction that seems to mirror the right wing dysfunction of the '90s, and Carney looks to have a pretty good runway.
I am generally disapproving of coronated party leaders as was the case with Mr. Carney.
He did have to win the Liberal leadership against other contenders such as Chrystia Freeland, but I understand the distaste for somebody who leaps right into the top political job without spending any significant previous time in politics or in Parliament. One of the sad things about the current moment is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of talent out there: experienced ministers from the Harper era have largely left politics. The Trudeau Liberals were thin on talent at the start, and Trudeau seemed bent on purging his caucus of anybody who might pose a threat. I think we're in need of pulling in more outsiders and newcomers simply to get some capable people in the system.
For me, straight-up coronated. Media didn't even treat it like a leadership race. Trudeau's government was run from the PMO, as was Harper's, as was Martin's, as was Chretien .... all the way back to Trudeau 1.0 who invented it.
Chretien was lucky that he didn't have to deal with the United Conservative Party from 1993 to 2003.
If the current LPC plays on circumstantial "easy mode", their 90's counterpart played on "don't hurt me" with invulnerability cheats enabled.
You are waiting for international trade deals that we already have.
The Harper government signed 45 or so of them from 2006-2015, all around the world.
Funny how almost NO ONE in our media has noticed that, this past year.
They were FREE TRADE DEALS, which means they are largely free of any impediments to doing business.
Mark Carney has been travelling around the world this past year (at great expense) doing deals for Brookfield, while GASLIGHTING you into thinking he is somehow going to increase trade for Canada in far-flung places.
This week, he is in France. Oh look, Brookfield just yesterday announced a $10 Billion data centre deal with France..... what a coincidence!
Look, we've had free trade with Honduras since 2014 (totally random pick).
There is NOTHING stopping a Canadian company from choosing to export their goods to Honduras rather than to America.
But... depending on the product, is your product even something they need or want in Honduras? What price would your product commend in Honduras? Would it cost three times as much to ship to Honduras rather than (eg) Toledo Ohio? etc.
Business fundamentals matter far more than whether there is an official trade deal in place, but Canadians have allowed the Liberals to whip them into a Trump-addled state in which they will seemingly believe anything, if it is done "against TRump".
But it's 2026.
...and?
Are you saying those deals no longer exist?
You would be wrong....
No. I am shrugging and saying it is 2026 and what I am seeing is a new PM who spends little time in the country that is knee-deep in an antisemitism crisis and he makes an advisory council. The country needed to hear its Prime Minster tell the country that its citizens are safe. Well, Canada is not safe for Jews.
And the new guy forms an advisory council rather than take a stand. That tells you everything you need to know about the man.
On the subject of deals, well, signing deals is great performance art.
The time has come for the Prime Minster to begin attending to very serious domestic matters.
Chretien was PM for 20 years, lol. the knives will come out for everyone... sooner or later.
Thinking that this Punch and Judy show amounts to real change is absurd. Endorsing the Liberals means endorsing the Liberals. But it should serve as an example for Poilievre: if he focused less on not frightening Toronto matrons, they would probably like him better.
No. Poilievre yelling would get the full JWR/Payette treatment. Come to think of it, he already does.
Remember: completely different rules apply.
It is just so cute that Carney when yells at his MPs or yaps out "I can outlast her" to a Grassy Narrows resident. But it is so mean when Pollievre criticizes the government.
Not only mean, but inappropriate, un-prime-ministerial, and "desperate".
I contend that this is because Poilievre isn't frightening the matrons. He's just annoying them.
The media narrative last year was that Carney would be better able to deal with Trump than Poilievre because he had been a central banker for Canada & the UK.
On one hand I agree and find it amusing they are complaining. On the other hand I am also in a leadership position with around 300 people, and I would never yell or take on this arrogant position for someone that is suppose to be their leader. Time will tell.
I reiterate my point; an MP isn't a normal job. The power dynamics and expectations that exist in more ordinary corporate life are simply different.
I've been in a leadership position with a few tens of thousands. At the table Carney leads, expectations should be very, very high, and a stern word can remind everyone. By all accounts they fell short... they needed to be told to dress professionally and come prepared?!? They SHOULD be scared.
This is the most important strategy team in the country for fuck's sake... lots of people aspire and very few sit there. He will act like everyone is a resilient adult who can take criticism, even when they're not, because that's what's needed to get things done, quickly. He'll assume everyone is fully read up on their files, has done what they said they'd do, will speak up when they have something to contribute, and shut up when they don't. He will point out failures in those areas in front of the team because the team pays the price (by extension, the country) and it will burn. He'll have no patience for happy talk, pony petting, nihilists.
Sometimes you need to fire someone quite publicly for the sake of the organization as a whole. Sometimes my feelings are less important than the impact of my fuckup.
It's not corporate, its a team of independent contractors that have a position representing their clients whether they are with me or not.
The line about the socks is one of those that make me treasure my Line subscription. A perfect symbol distilled down and filtered through Jen's wonderful snarky humour.
My vote went to
jejune, self-destructive idealism
I’m a federalist.
It’s a pretty good descriptor of the animus that drives the separatist movement, and that they reflect back in kind.
"If you’ve spent your career in ... boutique law firms, ... then, yes, a boss who points out when you’ve said something monumentally dumb in front of other people under high pressure must, indeed, feel bracing."
Being told by a superior that you "said something monumentally dumb in front of other people under high pressure" is something that has happened to literally every lawyer.
I didn't make you look stupid, you made people look.
Thank you for this. I have no real problem with Mark Carney, it's his caucus I dislike - sometimes intensely - including most of his Cabinet Ministers. They're all Justin's folks so of course they'll never speak out against anything publicly. Why would they, the house whip would take away their little perks. Fact is, Mr Carney seems to be one of a small handful of mature adults in that caucus room, which can be refreshing.
The Liberal Caucus had the opportunity way back when to show some backbone but it never did. After Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott were summarily kicked of of caucus for telling the truth, what did we hear from that esteemed caucus. Nothing. Even after the Ethics Commissioner ruled on the SNC-Lavalin affair, the caucus held their collective tongue. 'Ol Justin had taught 'em good and they still have a hard shaking off those fetters.
Carney love him or hate him is stuck with Justin's Ship of Fools. It will be interesting to see how many of Justin's MPs/ministers run in next Fed Election.
I am curious to see who Mark Carney recruits for the upcoming by-elections. The cabinet could use more of Carney's people.
Spot on. The following passage was particularly apropos, in my view:
QUOTE
I suspect this is a man who owns only three kinds of socks; charcoal socks, blue socks, and white sports socks. If we get nothing else from this government, I will never again write about a prime minister’s socks. This is better.
END QUOTE
The “socks” reference brings to mind the reaction of former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull, whose biography reportedly included an acid reference to PM Trudeau’s penchant for striped socks.
Turnbull is also famous for having expressed his unabashed admiration for PM Carney.
I found this ... interesting.
When Poilevre was mean to his people, he was the bad man. When Carney does it, it's good for him.
I agree that they both should be making their members toe the line but this feels somewhat like "good for thee..."
I said this on the last article on this subject: what is really appalling is that it has taken a year for him to realize they are bumbling fools that need to be yelled at before anything will sink into their heads.
Jerry, I respectfully disagree insofar as I simply don't think that anything will make these dolts realize their personal futility and idiocy.