This was a very one-sided presentation by Mr. Wright and he got many of the facts wrong as noted by Mark Jacka. I had the feeling that Matt was not entirely comfortable with the conversation. On most issues I agree with Matt and would say that so far, I am also unimpressed by Mr Carney and would like to see some real action in the next three months. With regards to the Canadian situation, which was before the election stated as dire and in need of a strong hand, it is an outrage that Parliament is on an extended vacation where any control mechanisms are shut down and our elected MPs are scattered across the country, doing what exactly? I don’t believe any of the regular folks, whose livelihood is threatened in terms of work and housing, would have sympathy or understanding for the behaviour of our government. But hey, we got free passes to parks and museums, so what I am complaining about???
I listened to this episode while on a lovely, relaxing motorcycle ride out here in the hills and countryside of Northumberland County (east of Toronto). I agree with Matt that PM Carney hasn't accomplished a whole heck of a lot in his first 3 months and I don't given him credit for either the capital gains or consumer carbon tax cancellation because the conservatives were committed to that already. Mr. Carney only adopted those to counter the conservative position. His abrupt cancellation of the digital sales tax, without even the slightest attempt to either defend it or deride it made him look hasty and weak in my mind. At the very least he could have articulated the reasoning behind its initial implementation and why it was now such a bad idea. Simply saying "Because Trump!", isn't good enough and only implying it is even worse.
While listening to John it was apparent that he INTENSLY dislikes Polievere (the politician) and has invested so much hope and belief in Carney that he seems to be casting a completely uncritical eye on his performance.
The fact that the country is facing such a critical time regarding Trumps tariffs and now the decree regarding Palestinian statehood without parliament sitting is disrespectful to the populace and our concept of democracy, but is in character with the Liberal view that they know better and there is no reason to muddy the waters with opinions or facts that would challenge their perspective.
The damage done to this country on a number of fronts over the reign of Justin Trudeau will take many years to correct, but it's not gonna happen, or even start while parliamentarians snooze on the porch at their cottages.
With great respect to Mr. Wright, did he bother to do his own homework before prognosticating about the Tories?
“Not many people showed up to his stampede bbq”
It was sold out big guy. Wright got the tenor of the speech right but it was still a sold out event. Even got some standing Os.
“The Ontario wing of the party does not want Pierre”
Based on what? PP did very well in Ontario. Even better than Mr. Ford. That’s a hard circle to square without any evidence whatsoever to suggest that CPC members don’t like the leader. It might be true in reality, but you can’t argue to me that PP isn’t going to win in Ontario just by asserting that it is so.
“You need to be a moderate to win in Ontario and win nationally … you need to win seats in Quebec”
‘Some’ conservatives have, but no, you do not, for several reasons.
The conservatives tried that with Mr. O’Toole, he lost. Did very badly even, compared to PP.
Harper won a majority with 10 seats in QC. Don’t tell me the Tories ‘need to win Quebec.’
Pierre started his tenure tied with the Liberals, then increased gradually, then increased suddenly, then largely held that voter pool until election day. Then, as Matt pointed out, the Tory vote is *still* right around 40%. It is just not credible to say that PP needs to ‘moderate’ in order to win, considering he didn’t moderate at all and almost certainly would have crushed Trudeau. He failed to adapt to Carney - that is NOT the same as ‘wasn’t moderates enough.’
Further, ‘moderate’ is such a nebulous nothing term that people who don’t like conservatives love to throw around to justify their dislike, without providing any context whatsoever for what they mean by moderate, or any evidence whatsoever to suggest that a more ‘moderate’ Pierre would have won. Again, based on what? What does moderate even mean? Not Trump? Trump isn’t even a dogmatic conservative.
‘Moderate’ is a thing that folks from the 80s like to throw around when they don’t know the answer. ‘Need to tack to the centre’ - maybe sometimes, but certainly not every time or even most of the time.
The fact that Pierre lost is not evidence that a ‘moderate’ would have won. It is evidence that Pierre didn’t.
It is unenjoyable to listen to silly assertions not based in fact but presented as if they are.
Also, love the suggestion that Carney has continued to be ‘elbows up.’ Maybe in the prone position, but G&G have rightly pointed out that Carney has largely been elbows down since E Night. Disappointed Matt let that one slip.
Would appreciate more evidence from the pollster to support his assertions. Otherwise it’s just meaningless talking head-ism that my 11 year old can (and does) do.
The visual that Rob Shaw created in my mind of Present David Eby having a furious dance off against The Ghost of David Eby's Past Beliefs was on its own worth the time to listen.
G & G, I have a query that is not about this video arising from The Line: Alberta.
I have read the issues of The Line: Alberta and have noted that when I attempted to comment, I was prompted to subscribe before I would be allowed to comment. That leads me to my question: Is a separate and paid subscription needed for The Line: Alberta in order to comment?
I note that the cost of a subscription to The Line: Alberta is $80 whereas my The Line subscription is $50 (courtesy of being an old - in more than one sense, of course) subscriber.
Great question. We need to do something like a Q&A to help clarify it.
- You don't need to be a paid subscriber to the Alberta version to receive/read.
- You do need to be paid to comment.
- A paid subscription at The Line DOES NOT transfer over to a paid subscription at The Line: Alberta. That's not possible within the Substack ecosystem, the lists are entirely separate.
- We will not paywall, ever, Alberta content, for this reason.
- Commenting will be a perk (of sorts) for those who pay, but it'll be almost the only perk.
I second your question. I assumed it was included in the full Line subscription, but it looks like its not. I appreciate them opening provincial sites, but there is no way I am doing half a dozen subscriptions or something like that. In saying that, maybe its just a setup issue in how they did it on substack and they will correct it.
Davey, it gets a bit more complicated (and expensive) than that.
Rob Breakenridge has his own Substack, to which I am a free subscriber while I determine if this particular version of his writing appeals to me. His own Substack has the same policy of no comment unless you pay.
That means that if I have comments on each of his columns I have to pay for two subscriptions. Truthfully, I am still trying figure out if I want to pay for ANY subscriptions from him. As a senior, I have to watch the amount that I spend on subs so I read the freebies and then decide; not allowing comments is one way to turn off folks. I understand the commercial imperative but I also have an imperative.
Ken - I have just encountered the same issue, of which I was unaware. For me personally it raises an interesting reaction. Bear with my long windedness:
I had stopped reading The Line during the election campaign - in fact I stopped reading EVERYTHING political during that time. I had opened YT one day and somehow my feed lined up a bunch of absolutely useless pundits (not including The Line in that) - people I would never listen to in a million years; for example Mansbridge, Coyne and Hebert slobbering over how Mark Carney would be the greatest PM in the country's history.
I was struck by how MANY useless commentators were making a living by somehow attaching themselves to politics, and suddenly I couldn't listen to anybody. Here the country is falling apart and people who are nothing but part of the demise are being featured on most media outlets??????? It was too much to bear. I knew where the election was going and I didn't need anybody telling me why or how. I redirected The Line emails to junk while I took my months long deep breath.
So here I am in August, finally starting to think about dipping into reading this media again, and discover The Line: Alberta requires an additional subscription the same way you did. I can't say that would be a hardship, but given that I've ignored this site for a few months, and that I have 5 or 6 other sites I pay for (WSJ, PM, NYT, etc), I might let this one expire.
I hope this doesn't sound like whining - it's not. I just find my willingness to "move on" interesting; it shows how hard maintaining a subscriber base can be. That being said, I have always admired Breakenridge and I have no doubt the Alberta version is going to be excellent. The recent energy corridor piece by Joel McKay is wonderful insight.
I think the greatest compliment I can give Rob Breakenridge is that I have never disagreed more with someone I have agreed with so much. You won't pigeonhole the guy.
It sounds like your take on RB is much the same as mine.
I think that it is terrifically important to be willing to read material with which we don't agree as well, of course, material with which we do agree. Diversity of thought and considering the other side and all of that.
This was a very one-sided presentation by Mr. Wright and he got many of the facts wrong as noted by Mark Jacka. I had the feeling that Matt was not entirely comfortable with the conversation. On most issues I agree with Matt and would say that so far, I am also unimpressed by Mr Carney and would like to see some real action in the next three months. With regards to the Canadian situation, which was before the election stated as dire and in need of a strong hand, it is an outrage that Parliament is on an extended vacation where any control mechanisms are shut down and our elected MPs are scattered across the country, doing what exactly? I don’t believe any of the regular folks, whose livelihood is threatened in terms of work and housing, would have sympathy or understanding for the behaviour of our government. But hey, we got free passes to parks and museums, so what I am complaining about???
I listened to this episode while on a lovely, relaxing motorcycle ride out here in the hills and countryside of Northumberland County (east of Toronto). I agree with Matt that PM Carney hasn't accomplished a whole heck of a lot in his first 3 months and I don't given him credit for either the capital gains or consumer carbon tax cancellation because the conservatives were committed to that already. Mr. Carney only adopted those to counter the conservative position. His abrupt cancellation of the digital sales tax, without even the slightest attempt to either defend it or deride it made him look hasty and weak in my mind. At the very least he could have articulated the reasoning behind its initial implementation and why it was now such a bad idea. Simply saying "Because Trump!", isn't good enough and only implying it is even worse.
While listening to John it was apparent that he INTENSLY dislikes Polievere (the politician) and has invested so much hope and belief in Carney that he seems to be casting a completely uncritical eye on his performance.
The fact that the country is facing such a critical time regarding Trumps tariffs and now the decree regarding Palestinian statehood without parliament sitting is disrespectful to the populace and our concept of democracy, but is in character with the Liberal view that they know better and there is no reason to muddy the waters with opinions or facts that would challenge their perspective.
The damage done to this country on a number of fronts over the reign of Justin Trudeau will take many years to correct, but it's not gonna happen, or even start while parliamentarians snooze on the porch at their cottages.
With great respect to Mr. Wright, did he bother to do his own homework before prognosticating about the Tories?
“Not many people showed up to his stampede bbq”
It was sold out big guy. Wright got the tenor of the speech right but it was still a sold out event. Even got some standing Os.
“The Ontario wing of the party does not want Pierre”
Based on what? PP did very well in Ontario. Even better than Mr. Ford. That’s a hard circle to square without any evidence whatsoever to suggest that CPC members don’t like the leader. It might be true in reality, but you can’t argue to me that PP isn’t going to win in Ontario just by asserting that it is so.
“You need to be a moderate to win in Ontario and win nationally … you need to win seats in Quebec”
‘Some’ conservatives have, but no, you do not, for several reasons.
The conservatives tried that with Mr. O’Toole, he lost. Did very badly even, compared to PP.
Harper won a majority with 10 seats in QC. Don’t tell me the Tories ‘need to win Quebec.’
Pierre started his tenure tied with the Liberals, then increased gradually, then increased suddenly, then largely held that voter pool until election day. Then, as Matt pointed out, the Tory vote is *still* right around 40%. It is just not credible to say that PP needs to ‘moderate’ in order to win, considering he didn’t moderate at all and almost certainly would have crushed Trudeau. He failed to adapt to Carney - that is NOT the same as ‘wasn’t moderates enough.’
Further, ‘moderate’ is such a nebulous nothing term that people who don’t like conservatives love to throw around to justify their dislike, without providing any context whatsoever for what they mean by moderate, or any evidence whatsoever to suggest that a more ‘moderate’ Pierre would have won. Again, based on what? What does moderate even mean? Not Trump? Trump isn’t even a dogmatic conservative.
‘Moderate’ is a thing that folks from the 80s like to throw around when they don’t know the answer. ‘Need to tack to the centre’ - maybe sometimes, but certainly not every time or even most of the time.
The fact that Pierre lost is not evidence that a ‘moderate’ would have won. It is evidence that Pierre didn’t.
It is unenjoyable to listen to silly assertions not based in fact but presented as if they are.
Also, love the suggestion that Carney has continued to be ‘elbows up.’ Maybe in the prone position, but G&G have rightly pointed out that Carney has largely been elbows down since E Night. Disappointed Matt let that one slip.
Would appreciate more evidence from the pollster to support his assertions. Otherwise it’s just meaningless talking head-ism that my 11 year old can (and does) do.
The visual that Rob Shaw created in my mind of Present David Eby having a furious dance off against The Ghost of David Eby's Past Beliefs was on its own worth the time to listen.
G & G, I have a query that is not about this video arising from The Line: Alberta.
I have read the issues of The Line: Alberta and have noted that when I attempted to comment, I was prompted to subscribe before I would be allowed to comment. That leads me to my question: Is a separate and paid subscription needed for The Line: Alberta in order to comment?
I note that the cost of a subscription to The Line: Alberta is $80 whereas my The Line subscription is $50 (courtesy of being an old - in more than one sense, of course) subscriber.
Great question. We need to do something like a Q&A to help clarify it.
- You don't need to be a paid subscriber to the Alberta version to receive/read.
- You do need to be paid to comment.
- A paid subscription at The Line DOES NOT transfer over to a paid subscription at The Line: Alberta. That's not possible within the Substack ecosystem, the lists are entirely separate.
- We will not paywall, ever, Alberta content, for this reason.
- Commenting will be a perk (of sorts) for those who pay, but it'll be almost the only perk.
Thank you for your clarification.
I second your question. I assumed it was included in the full Line subscription, but it looks like its not. I appreciate them opening provincial sites, but there is no way I am doing half a dozen subscriptions or something like that. In saying that, maybe its just a setup issue in how they did it on substack and they will correct it.
Davey, it gets a bit more complicated (and expensive) than that.
Rob Breakenridge has his own Substack, to which I am a free subscriber while I determine if this particular version of his writing appeals to me. His own Substack has the same policy of no comment unless you pay.
That means that if I have comments on each of his columns I have to pay for two subscriptions. Truthfully, I am still trying figure out if I want to pay for ANY subscriptions from him. As a senior, I have to watch the amount that I spend on subs so I read the freebies and then decide; not allowing comments is one way to turn off folks. I understand the commercial imperative but I also have an imperative.
Time will tell on this issue.
Ken - I have just encountered the same issue, of which I was unaware. For me personally it raises an interesting reaction. Bear with my long windedness:
I had stopped reading The Line during the election campaign - in fact I stopped reading EVERYTHING political during that time. I had opened YT one day and somehow my feed lined up a bunch of absolutely useless pundits (not including The Line in that) - people I would never listen to in a million years; for example Mansbridge, Coyne and Hebert slobbering over how Mark Carney would be the greatest PM in the country's history.
I was struck by how MANY useless commentators were making a living by somehow attaching themselves to politics, and suddenly I couldn't listen to anybody. Here the country is falling apart and people who are nothing but part of the demise are being featured on most media outlets??????? It was too much to bear. I knew where the election was going and I didn't need anybody telling me why or how. I redirected The Line emails to junk while I took my months long deep breath.
So here I am in August, finally starting to think about dipping into reading this media again, and discover The Line: Alberta requires an additional subscription the same way you did. I can't say that would be a hardship, but given that I've ignored this site for a few months, and that I have 5 or 6 other sites I pay for (WSJ, PM, NYT, etc), I might let this one expire.
I hope this doesn't sound like whining - it's not. I just find my willingness to "move on" interesting; it shows how hard maintaining a subscriber base can be. That being said, I have always admired Breakenridge and I have no doubt the Alberta version is going to be excellent. The recent energy corridor piece by Joel McKay is wonderful insight.
I think the greatest compliment I can give Rob Breakenridge is that I have never disagreed more with someone I have agreed with so much. You won't pigeonhole the guy.
It sounds like your take on RB is much the same as mine.
I think that it is terrifically important to be willing to read material with which we don't agree as well, of course, material with which we do agree. Diversity of thought and considering the other side and all of that.