The Liberals have heartily embraced Carney as their change agent, but have no explanation for why they tolerated, or championed, what apparently needed changing.
As an analogy, I'm reminded of a neighbor I had, who would buy old clapped out vehicles for a pittance. He would clean the interior, foam wash the engine, and do a quick polish and wax, turn the odometer back 100k km, and quadruple his money on it.
It looked cleaner and more reputable, but the brakes and shocks were still shot, the tires were worn out, it still burned oil, it shifted badly, and steered to the left. But it looked better.
That's the same change Carney offers. He's starting at the same place, with the same or worse ideas, the same failed cast of characters, but This Time Will Be Different.
Canadians should beware of purchasing a low mileage 1989 Nissan Potemkin with the odometer rewound.
I too generally agree with Gurney’s analysis. It’s a pretty darn good one.
I do take exception, with his take on Carney’s arrogance.
To wit: « I don't accuse the man of arrogance or vainglory, to be clear. »
I think there is nothing more arrogant than a would-be politician who’s been timing his run to maximise his chances of winning, playing in the shadows of the previous government, until such time that he felt it right to come under the spotlight.
There is nothing more arrogant than touting your CV (impressive on paper to be sure, if nothing else) as a qualification to run a country.
There is nothing more arrogant than a caretaker PM not answering important questions about himself and his policies, deflecting, lying and avoiding embarrassing himself at all costs.
He’s making the mistake that many successful people before him have made: thinking that mastery in one domain, automatically means mastery in another.
If that’s not the epitome of arrogance I don’t know what is.
Yeah, I too think he's super-arrogant. In general, arrogance doesn't bother me, but I think a good way to temper Carney's arrogance is to have him lose the election and be leader of the opposition.
If he does lose, I’m willing to bet that he’ll quit because he wont have the patience to put in the time, learn the ropes. He probably thinks this is beneath him
You mean the guy who Lucy-and-the-Footballed Trudeau into weeping retirement? "Who? Me? I never. You can't prove that I promised that I would be your Minister of Finance once you'd fired Freeland."
I can't wait for Trudeau's memoirs. I hope the crayons are included.
I agree that this has been a strange election. Today, polling numbers put Carney and Poilievre in a dead heat for owning the “affordability” issue. Good grief, what are people smoking? Is this the outcome of legalization of pot? Where does the LPC suddenly get the cred for saving people from their financial hardship after putting them in the vulnerable position in the first place?
The cynicism driving the Trudeau resignation, proroguing of Parliament and faux Liberal leadership contest is equally matched by a short election campaign and a rookie Liberal leader who spent a big chunk of his time “looking” Prime Ministerial. Everyone forgets that this is a first time election campaign for Poilievre at the Conservative controls too and he has stuck to his own agenda and will have to wear the Trump factor that was beyond his control.
I agree with how Poilievre ran his campaign and that the Trump factor was beyond his control. But I also believe that the Trump factor is beyond any political leader's control. How will Carney's arrogance jive with Trump's arrogance? I can't see it happening. From what I'm reading, Carney's plan might involve no grand results with Trump as it seems he wants to negotiate trade deals with China. How does China feel about the planned carbon tax on imports for countries that don't have said tax? The next few months should be very interesting.
As Carney has been the Liberal party's economic advisor for the past five years, I see it more like Trudeau has been the face of Carney's policies, and when it looked like JT was about to drive the party into the ground, it was time to drop the actor and let the director take the stage.
Great analogy. However it looks more like the understudy taking over rather than the star. The rest of the cast is unchanged. The director is in Beijing.
Despite the solid polling numbers that predict some sort of Liberal victory tomorrow night, I sincerely hope that a hard to identify group of voters exercises their franchise and vote for real change and not a recycled version offered by the Liberal Party. A cluster of voters that defies the opinion polls and keeps the pollsters and pundits on their toes until the final ballots in BC are counted.
In the event of a Liberal majority government, I will avoid polluting this comment board with bad language but it would bring to mind words penned by J Fogerty:
I am most definitely NOT predicting anything here. However. I was at a family gathering yesterday. I have two nephews, 20 and 23 years old. I see them 6 -to-8 times a year. Prior to yesterday I had NEVER heard a word about politics from either of them. Yesterday, they could not shut up about their contempt for all things Liberal. They assured me that both of them and their friends will be voting and voting Conservative. Now, I am a degenerate gambler and more than familiar with the notion of small sample sizes. But if you are looking for some hope to hang onto, maybe that's it. Or, maybe, it's just 15 youngans in the east GTA. After all, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But not all the time. Fingers crossed.
Poilievre made a conscious effort to stick with affordability issues despite all the armchair wags, including Liberals who wanted Poilievre to pivot toward playing on the Liberal campaign turf.
Your nephews and many like them all across Canada are paying attention and the Conservatives haven’t abandoned them. Whether this block of voters can offset the comfortable boomers remains to be seen.
Regarding people wanting Pierre to pivot to an anti Trump campaign, something popped up in my mind. He wouldn't have been able to play at being Prime Minister and the change of tact would have undone him possibly. Of course we won't ever know that answer but it appears staying on his chosen direction has kept him in the game and with any luck, win it.
I I see Carney as the accountant who took over the company. No vision, no salesmanship, no marketing, no entrepreneurial spirit, just an accountant making sure the Board meetings were on time with an appropriate agenda, the financial statements were published in the appropriate time frame and Human Resources were complying with appropriate DEI standards.
I drafted this before the interview (debates). Someone may have done a much more ham handed version:
As you will know from your business experience, a Chief Executive rarely successfully turns around a company without also having significant changes in senior leadership. Why do you believe you can accomplish this feat as PM?
I think your article misses the point this time, many voters are not embracing Carney as their change agent, they are embracing him because he isn’t Pierre Poilievre. Perhaps the Conservatives should have been more patient with Erin O’Toole, more time and experience may well have made him quite competitive in this election.
Please define “moderate”? If you mean very red, sure. Do you remember Erin campaigning for the leadership of the party as a “true blue Conservative”? A true blue Conservative wouldn’t have flip-flopped on the issues on which he campaigned. Pierre Poilievre is not exactly an “extreme” Conservative. He’s pretty much right in the middle. Andrew Scheer became leader courtesy of the Dairy cartel and some alleged false pretenses - those being things that absolutely blanche in comparison to the crap and corruption the Liberals have pulled in the past 10 years. Andrew was always a weak prospect. And then there’s Doug Ford seemingly angling for the leadership. No one needs Doug Ford to be a federal leader. And Tim Houston is being pretty cagey right now, as well. I like Pierre Poilievre and I want to keep him as CPC Leader win or lose.
I'm inclined to agree. For me the matter has always been Poilievre does not possess anything other than anger, smarminess, open contempt for the media and adolescent communications strategies. (Carney does too when caught in a lie, etc.) It is always a vote for the leader in this country because as everyone knows, elections are a terrible time to debate policy. There are hard to like people everywhere, for me, Poilievre tops the list. Politics does not have to be dickhead-run and dickhead-led in this country, eh?
But why did a sizable chunk of voters embrace Carney after having shunned Trudeau, knowing that Poilievre was the alternative? That must be due to vibes more than actual changes in policy or substantive changes in governance ideology.
I under-estimated Carney when I suggested in a piece for The Line last summer that a change in leader would not likely be sufficient to save the Liberal Party from its doom. But I do feel vindicated in my earlier implications that dissatisfaction with Trudeau was more about vibes than specific policies, as it is vibes that now account for the Carney electoral juggernaut.
Poilievre chose not to educate voters but instead to play off of vibes himself with his rage-farming against the prior Liberal leader. It's fitting that a leader who sought to let the leopards out of the cage ended up with them eating his own face - though Carney will have his own turn as well suffering from the face-eating.
It is a shame that no one has questioned Carney how he was meaningfully helping the Liberal Party in the years since the 2021 convention where he promised to help the party "in whatever way I can", before spending years quietly sitting on his hands while the LPC had a meltdown. That's certainly a choice!
I think you’re half right Stefan. I think it was the vibes AND the policy with Trudeau, but Trump made it 100% about the vibes. Without the Trump factor I think your earlier prediction holds true.
I think you are basically correct vis-a-vis the Liberal level of fecklessness. The Gold Standard for properly operating a Westminster parliamentary system is Westminster. It is part of the global entertainment system watching British parties deep six a PM. Canada's Liberal Gov't has the same system and could have easily done the same thing but didn't. Analysis on this is spot on.
And, the other bit about Carney is going to be very interesting. Fundamentally the guy is a gamble that his resume and general seriousness will help in deal with America. (So is electing PP.) If the Liberals pull off the win for the ages - by no means assured with conclusion available tomorrow night - Carney can only deliver if he guts the PMO, revises its mandate, reverts to the old model of the PCO which was gutted by Trudeau Snr back in the day, and creates a new Cabinet without any of the current crew, and keeps the number small (20). He'll need to roll out serious policies designed to tackle tough, unpleasant, unpopular, painful subjects. Can he do this? Don't know. Not particularly confident. Can PP? Don't know. Also not particularly confident.
After listening to the podcast on a pleasant walk round and about the neighbourhood, I can note that I also agree that Trump is going to continue to put the boots to us with a view to having Canada beg for territorial status and agreement to extinguish, without any concessions, our independence. We'll be like Guam. Art of the Deal. So, which ever of the two contenders for government prevails will have a generational challenge to surmount and I can assure you sorting out the plastic straw crisis and yet another middle class tax cut won't cut it.
Britain's system keeps the choice of candidates with the riding. The LPC chose to keep candidate selection with the leader. BIG lever!
Neither Carney nor Polliviere have any ability to "deal" with Trump. He is backing away from most of his disruption because the economy is shrinking and the stock markets (think 401K) are dropping. He has no peace deals in Gaza or Ukraine to show off. Without improvement by September, the Party executive will be worried about the mid terms and reigning him in. And his USSC judges don't look likely to give him the monarchy he craves.
Trump may be happy to call a lightly modified CUSMA treaty a BIG WIN in 2026. In the meantime, Canada will still have a shrinking economy, get-out-of-jail-free bail laws, no change armed forces and lotsa DEI stuff. Oh, and progress on our fanciful climate change goals.
Our kids & grandkids will still look forward to a future of higher taxes or fewer government services due to the need to pay off our deficit. They will continue to wait for health care if they can find a family doctor. And most new jobs will be with government. To avoid this future, Canada will need to find better leaders for the next election.
Why is the presumption here that Carney's Liberals are an identical group of people to Trudeau's Liberals? That's self-evidently not the case with voters — I'm fairly certain I haven't heard the likes of Charlie Angus suggesting voting Liberal before — and it's also not the case with Liberal MPs and candidates. I'm currently a Liberal supporter in New Brunswick but I was planning to write in Bloc and spoil my ballot back when Trudeau was still leader. The question is what has changed and for me the answer is ethics, a lack of delusional thinking, and a leader with genuine team building potential. All of which Carney has and which Poilievre is clearly lacking, as was Trudeau.
Okay, let's make it easy: give me a single example of Poilievre working in a non-election/non-partisan setting as an effective team member. And just to be clear, I also think Trudeau was generally terrible at this.
"... a leader with genuine team building potential."
The article makes the point that, no matter what Carney's skills turn out to be, he is going to have to build a government with the same PMO staff that has already trashed the reputations of McGuinty, Wynne and Trudeau.
Trudeau and Carney are similar in the sense of being political neophytes at the times that they became Liberal leaders. Trudeau had been a one-term MP who was one of two Liberal candidates to grow their votes in the 2011 election, but he had virtually no other political experience. Carney was just lacking in political experience altogether, albeit having obviously done some long-term planning for a leadership campaign. There is every reason to believe that Carney, just as much as Trudeau before him, will isolate himself from crucial feedback from party institutions he has neither developed experience with nor used.
(Poilievre by contrast has a high quantity of political experience, but zero diversity thereof. He has no experience as a real political outsider dissenting against leadership or as a non-elected citizen activist.)
Carney has spent much of the last several decades working with politicians. He's a bright guy, I assume he figured out the grind of at least the larger political gears.
Team building?? So you believe he has leadership capabilities, and on that I agree. But as for "building a team", a team is only as good as its weakest link, and given the slate of MP's he will be choosing from (the SAME ones as few months ago) I see more weakness than strength.
The LPC benches are warmed with a cadre of former activists, various ex government employees and long-time parliamentarians. Private sector experience or wealth creation is just not their collective thing, which IN MY OPINION means they will simply continue the policies and likely the approach of the government of the last 9 years.
They will be loathe to address bureaucratic bloat, the impenetrable bureaucratic mire that businesses and wealth creators must navigate to do nearly anything and many other practical aspects of governing because they are born of that world and believe that there can't possibly be too much regulation or bureaucracy.
You hit all of the key problems with the Liberal Party of Canada quite nicely.
I would add, though, that if the Conservatives fail to win (or, more likely, they lose "big"), then it will be the case that a lot of Conservative Party members will be doing their own imitation of the Liberal Party's "flip and burn" manoeuvre.
Which brings us to the broader problem, which is the lack of courage amongst practicing and would-be politicians in Canada. Not to mention the pathological "psuedo-Leninism" that seems to define how modern Canadian political parties operate these days.
None of it is healthy. What's more, too many partisans who participate in political parties and donate their money, as well, have helped to support this pathological form of politics.
The Conservative Party’s inclination to devour leaders with a Monday wash day regularity is a problem in itself. The lack of brand recognition makes it difficult to become established in the job and to run a national election campaign that identifies weak points and has the tactical ability to overcome them. This Conservative campaign is remarkable for its ability to retain a consistent level of popularity over a long period of time. There’s that, but for a party who champions fiscal probity, why was a platform released after advance polls opened? Duh. This is the outcome of rookies who are finding their way and being extended a second chance down the road should be a reward for someone who brings in close to 40% of votes on election day.
You are right that tossing out the leader after every election loss is no recipe for success. That being said, is there anyone in Canadian politics who has been less amenable to learning lessons than Pierre Poilievre? He should have already learned back in 2015 what happens when you spook NDP voters into uniting behind the Liberals, and yet he didn't.
I agree no system is perfect. I was referring to the pre election candidate selection process not the party leadership process. The Prime Minister is selected or should be by the elected members. The US has a similar process to elect the majority and minority speakers of the house and senate.
But when I read about say Doug Ford selecting every individual candidate in his party, or when I see federal parties rejecting leadership candidates for vague and specious reasons, this smacks more of capricious tyranny or cult wealth and power distribution than true democracy.
You are right on with the broad problem. IMO It’s because in Canada while there is no lack of courage if you want to be a political candidate you have to suck up to the incumbent party leadership who filter for blandness and lack of grit. Open party primaries where anyone can enter with enough signatures and no one but the electorate (sometimes party members, sometimes anyone, depending on the state) can stop your candidacy is the “primary” ( sorry can’t resist 😆) reason why the US is a real democracy where power flows from the people to government and Canada isn’t.
I believe that leadership selection (and removal) should occur through meetings of a given political party's elected Members of Parliament, and not through "open primaries.
Not only does this present a bigger incentive to the leader of said party (and, in the case of the governing party, the Prime Minister), it also puts power back in the hands of elected officials. Today, the "one person, one vote" system essentially robs Cabinet and caucus of the power they need to impose greater accountability on party leaders.
As for the democratic "merits" of the US system, I see a setup that is too easily gamed by money (there are practically no limits on how much money can be contributed by rich companies and individuals). I also see a setup in which contests for political office (and judicial appointments) become personality driven, not policy driven.
That Canada's politics must change is obvious. Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to force the leaders of either the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party to accept that premise.
It’s pretty clear that if being able to stick it to your leader is a prerequisite for good governance, the Conservatives are an equally dismal offering. Does anyone actually think there’s room for dissent in Poilievre’s cabinet? He’s got my MP spinning every last one of his last ditch offerings on social media like he’s some kind of deity.
Really feeling this perspective this morning. I voted, but not the way I had expected to vote as recently as a couple of months back. Strange days when at a time of crisis none of the federal party leaders seem to get it at all.
We all agree that the Liberal Party fundamentally believes itself to be Canada's Natural Governing Party. The change they understand they needed was replacing Trudeau. Caucus could not because they feared Trudeau not signing their nomination papers. The party exec accepted all Trudeau's faults as long as he appeared to be able to win elections. But caucus & exec were stuck in an "after you Aphonse" circle.
The only "change" that both caucus & exec believe is necessary is replacing a loser with a winner. Carney seems to be that winner. The truth of that belief will be learned by the election outcome. I'm not suggesting a Polliviere victory. But a Carney minority will see him resign within 2 years. He didn't sign up to play footsie with the Bloc. He's here to rule. If he can't, he'll leave for a presidency of the IMF, World Bank or a UN job.
Sadly, the existential crisis Canada must endure is not Trump but Carney, Trudeau 2.0.
Agree totally. I'm so, so heart broken that more Canadians can't see what's right in front of their faces. Carney is not the answer, not a change agent. He's more of the same old shit that holds our Canada and its brilliant business leaders and innovators from reaching their full potential.
Good article, thanks. Today Carney's conundrum could well become Canada's conundrum. We collectively could be stuck with the same gang who couldn't shoot straight. And in another minority government. Makes you really want to get out of bed every morning. 😁
Matt is entirely correct on all counts.
As an analogy, I'm reminded of a neighbor I had, who would buy old clapped out vehicles for a pittance. He would clean the interior, foam wash the engine, and do a quick polish and wax, turn the odometer back 100k km, and quadruple his money on it.
It looked cleaner and more reputable, but the brakes and shocks were still shot, the tires were worn out, it still burned oil, it shifted badly, and steered to the left. But it looked better.
That's the same change Carney offers. He's starting at the same place, with the same or worse ideas, the same failed cast of characters, but This Time Will Be Different.
Canadians should beware of purchasing a low mileage 1989 Nissan Potemkin with the odometer rewound.
I too generally agree with Gurney’s analysis. It’s a pretty darn good one.
I do take exception, with his take on Carney’s arrogance.
To wit: « I don't accuse the man of arrogance or vainglory, to be clear. »
I think there is nothing more arrogant than a would-be politician who’s been timing his run to maximise his chances of winning, playing in the shadows of the previous government, until such time that he felt it right to come under the spotlight.
There is nothing more arrogant than touting your CV (impressive on paper to be sure, if nothing else) as a qualification to run a country.
There is nothing more arrogant than a caretaker PM not answering important questions about himself and his policies, deflecting, lying and avoiding embarrassing himself at all costs.
He’s making the mistake that many successful people before him have made: thinking that mastery in one domain, automatically means mastery in another.
If that’s not the epitome of arrogance I don’t know what is.
Yeah, I too think he's super-arrogant. In general, arrogance doesn't bother me, but I think a good way to temper Carney's arrogance is to have him lose the election and be leader of the opposition.
If he does lose, I’m willing to bet that he’ll quit because he wont have the patience to put in the time, learn the ropes. He probably thinks this is beneath him
Yup. And that’s where his arrogance becomes a problem for him. Not for us. 😂
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
You mean the guy who Lucy-and-the-Footballed Trudeau into weeping retirement? "Who? Me? I never. You can't prove that I promised that I would be your Minister of Finance once you'd fired Freeland."
I can't wait for Trudeau's memoirs. I hope the crayons are included.
Lol, it would likely be insufferable whiny tripe in the vein of the sussexes. Then he would go on Oprah and complain that people were mean to him.
Sounds a lot like Pollievre as well...
Are you suggesting that the Carney led LPC wouldn’t pass a safety?
It would, probably. In Cuba.
Being in Cuba right this moment, I can attest to the above comment.
I agree that this has been a strange election. Today, polling numbers put Carney and Poilievre in a dead heat for owning the “affordability” issue. Good grief, what are people smoking? Is this the outcome of legalization of pot? Where does the LPC suddenly get the cred for saving people from their financial hardship after putting them in the vulnerable position in the first place?
The cynicism driving the Trudeau resignation, proroguing of Parliament and faux Liberal leadership contest is equally matched by a short election campaign and a rookie Liberal leader who spent a big chunk of his time “looking” Prime Ministerial. Everyone forgets that this is a first time election campaign for Poilievre at the Conservative controls too and he has stuck to his own agenda and will have to wear the Trump factor that was beyond his control.
I agree with how Poilievre ran his campaign and that the Trump factor was beyond his control. But I also believe that the Trump factor is beyond any political leader's control. How will Carney's arrogance jive with Trump's arrogance? I can't see it happening. From what I'm reading, Carney's plan might involve no grand results with Trump as it seems he wants to negotiate trade deals with China. How does China feel about the planned carbon tax on imports for countries that don't have said tax? The next few months should be very interesting.
As Carney has been the Liberal party's economic advisor for the past five years, I see it more like Trudeau has been the face of Carney's policies, and when it looked like JT was about to drive the party into the ground, it was time to drop the actor and let the director take the stage.
Great analogy. However it looks more like the understudy taking over rather than the star. The rest of the cast is unchanged. The director is in Beijing.
Exactly. Marx Carnage really is the Manchurian Candidate.
Ouch. Such bluntness. Is refreshing.
Yes.
Despite the solid polling numbers that predict some sort of Liberal victory tomorrow night, I sincerely hope that a hard to identify group of voters exercises their franchise and vote for real change and not a recycled version offered by the Liberal Party. A cluster of voters that defies the opinion polls and keeps the pollsters and pundits on their toes until the final ballots in BC are counted.
In the event of a Liberal majority government, I will avoid polluting this comment board with bad language but it would bring to mind words penned by J Fogerty:
I see a bad moon rising,
I see trouble on the way,
I see earth quakes and lightnin’,
I see bad times today…
I am most definitely NOT predicting anything here. However. I was at a family gathering yesterday. I have two nephews, 20 and 23 years old. I see them 6 -to-8 times a year. Prior to yesterday I had NEVER heard a word about politics from either of them. Yesterday, they could not shut up about their contempt for all things Liberal. They assured me that both of them and their friends will be voting and voting Conservative. Now, I am a degenerate gambler and more than familiar with the notion of small sample sizes. But if you are looking for some hope to hang onto, maybe that's it. Or, maybe, it's just 15 youngans in the east GTA. After all, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But not all the time. Fingers crossed.
Poilievre made a conscious effort to stick with affordability issues despite all the armchair wags, including Liberals who wanted Poilievre to pivot toward playing on the Liberal campaign turf.
Your nephews and many like them all across Canada are paying attention and the Conservatives haven’t abandoned them. Whether this block of voters can offset the comfortable boomers remains to be seen.
Regarding people wanting Pierre to pivot to an anti Trump campaign, something popped up in my mind. He wouldn't have been able to play at being Prime Minister and the change of tact would have undone him possibly. Of course we won't ever know that answer but it appears staying on his chosen direction has kept him in the game and with any luck, win it.
Darcy, I would bet those nephews' opinions are a result of X and Musk more than anything else
Darcy, I would bet those nephews' opinions are a result of X and Musk more than anything else
Darcy, I would bet those nephews' opinions are a result of X and Musk more than anything else
I greatly enjoyed reading this comment.
Your nephews' views and seemingly recent engagement is likely more to do with X and Captain DOGE.
Wyatt Claypool in YouTube has been putting out great analyses about this very topic. Highly recommend you check it out.
If you just poll landlines, you'll get great Liberal numbers.
I I see Carney as the accountant who took over the company. No vision, no salesmanship, no marketing, no entrepreneurial spirit, just an accountant making sure the Board meetings were on time with an appropriate agenda, the financial statements were published in the appropriate time frame and Human Resources were complying with appropriate DEI standards.
I suspect that we will learn that Carney, much like Paul Martin, has too much vision rather than not enough.
Too good to be true. I suspect Mark Carney will slide slowly into the sunset.
I drafted this before the interview (debates). Someone may have done a much more ham handed version:
As you will know from your business experience, a Chief Executive rarely successfully turns around a company without also having significant changes in senior leadership. Why do you believe you can accomplish this feat as PM?
Remember the sage wisdom from a former Prime Minister: you have to dance with those who brung ya.
But they were dancing long before him. And now he expects them to go from hip hop to waltz
It’s the Laurentian Two-Step.
You guys are great!
I think your article misses the point this time, many voters are not embracing Carney as their change agent, they are embracing him because he isn’t Pierre Poilievre. Perhaps the Conservatives should have been more patient with Erin O’Toole, more time and experience may well have made him quite competitive in this election.
Wrong. O'Toole has shown beyond any doubt that he has spine of jelly and that his principles are ballast to be easily jettisoned.
So he is a moderate conservative. What's wrong with that?
His unprincipled spinelessness is a Canadian Liberal virtue.
Please define “moderate”? If you mean very red, sure. Do you remember Erin campaigning for the leadership of the party as a “true blue Conservative”? A true blue Conservative wouldn’t have flip-flopped on the issues on which he campaigned. Pierre Poilievre is not exactly an “extreme” Conservative. He’s pretty much right in the middle. Andrew Scheer became leader courtesy of the Dairy cartel and some alleged false pretenses - those being things that absolutely blanche in comparison to the crap and corruption the Liberals have pulled in the past 10 years. Andrew was always a weak prospect. And then there’s Doug Ford seemingly angling for the leadership. No one needs Doug Ford to be a federal leader. And Tim Houston is being pretty cagey right now, as well. I like Pierre Poilievre and I want to keep him as CPC Leader win or lose.
show me any politician who possesses a spine of iron and has principles fixed in concrete in this country and I will show you a bald-headed sheep.
I'm inclined to agree. For me the matter has always been Poilievre does not possess anything other than anger, smarminess, open contempt for the media and adolescent communications strategies. (Carney does too when caught in a lie, etc.) It is always a vote for the leader in this country because as everyone knows, elections are a terrible time to debate policy. There are hard to like people everywhere, for me, Poilievre tops the list. Politics does not have to be dickhead-run and dickhead-led in this country, eh?
But why did a sizable chunk of voters embrace Carney after having shunned Trudeau, knowing that Poilievre was the alternative? That must be due to vibes more than actual changes in policy or substantive changes in governance ideology.
Carney = steady house prices & pensions. That's what boomers (I'm one) are voting for.
Carney = home equity tax 😳
Poilievre is polling at 38%. O'Toole got 34% in the election.
I under-estimated Carney when I suggested in a piece for The Line last summer that a change in leader would not likely be sufficient to save the Liberal Party from its doom. But I do feel vindicated in my earlier implications that dissatisfaction with Trudeau was more about vibes than specific policies, as it is vibes that now account for the Carney electoral juggernaut.
Poilievre chose not to educate voters but instead to play off of vibes himself with his rage-farming against the prior Liberal leader. It's fitting that a leader who sought to let the leopards out of the cage ended up with them eating his own face - though Carney will have his own turn as well suffering from the face-eating.
It is a shame that no one has questioned Carney how he was meaningfully helping the Liberal Party in the years since the 2021 convention where he promised to help the party "in whatever way I can", before spending years quietly sitting on his hands while the LPC had a meltdown. That's certainly a choice!
Carney wouldn't have taken Trudeau's place last June. There was no obvious boogyman against which to stand up.
Trump changed everything and paved Carney's way, especially after "Governor Trudeau".
I think you’re half right Stefan. I think it was the vibes AND the policy with Trudeau, but Trump made it 100% about the vibes. Without the Trump factor I think your earlier prediction holds true.
I think you are basically correct vis-a-vis the Liberal level of fecklessness. The Gold Standard for properly operating a Westminster parliamentary system is Westminster. It is part of the global entertainment system watching British parties deep six a PM. Canada's Liberal Gov't has the same system and could have easily done the same thing but didn't. Analysis on this is spot on.
And, the other bit about Carney is going to be very interesting. Fundamentally the guy is a gamble that his resume and general seriousness will help in deal with America. (So is electing PP.) If the Liberals pull off the win for the ages - by no means assured with conclusion available tomorrow night - Carney can only deliver if he guts the PMO, revises its mandate, reverts to the old model of the PCO which was gutted by Trudeau Snr back in the day, and creates a new Cabinet without any of the current crew, and keeps the number small (20). He'll need to roll out serious policies designed to tackle tough, unpleasant, unpopular, painful subjects. Can he do this? Don't know. Not particularly confident. Can PP? Don't know. Also not particularly confident.
After listening to the podcast on a pleasant walk round and about the neighbourhood, I can note that I also agree that Trump is going to continue to put the boots to us with a view to having Canada beg for territorial status and agreement to extinguish, without any concessions, our independence. We'll be like Guam. Art of the Deal. So, which ever of the two contenders for government prevails will have a generational challenge to surmount and I can assure you sorting out the plastic straw crisis and yet another middle class tax cut won't cut it.
Britain's system keeps the choice of candidates with the riding. The LPC chose to keep candidate selection with the leader. BIG lever!
Neither Carney nor Polliviere have any ability to "deal" with Trump. He is backing away from most of his disruption because the economy is shrinking and the stock markets (think 401K) are dropping. He has no peace deals in Gaza or Ukraine to show off. Without improvement by September, the Party executive will be worried about the mid terms and reigning him in. And his USSC judges don't look likely to give him the monarchy he craves.
Trump may be happy to call a lightly modified CUSMA treaty a BIG WIN in 2026. In the meantime, Canada will still have a shrinking economy, get-out-of-jail-free bail laws, no change armed forces and lotsa DEI stuff. Oh, and progress on our fanciful climate change goals.
Our kids & grandkids will still look forward to a future of higher taxes or fewer government services due to the need to pay off our deficit. They will continue to wait for health care if they can find a family doctor. And most new jobs will be with government. To avoid this future, Canada will need to find better leaders for the next election.
Why is the presumption here that Carney's Liberals are an identical group of people to Trudeau's Liberals? That's self-evidently not the case with voters — I'm fairly certain I haven't heard the likes of Charlie Angus suggesting voting Liberal before — and it's also not the case with Liberal MPs and candidates. I'm currently a Liberal supporter in New Brunswick but I was planning to write in Bloc and spoil my ballot back when Trudeau was still leader. The question is what has changed and for me the answer is ethics, a lack of delusional thinking, and a leader with genuine team building potential. All of which Carney has and which Poilievre is clearly lacking, as was Trudeau.
Some heath stores sell pills for improving perception. You would benefit.
Okay, let's make it easy: give me a single example of Poilievre working in a non-election/non-partisan setting as an effective team member. And just to be clear, I also think Trudeau was generally terrible at this.
"... a leader with genuine team building potential."
The article makes the point that, no matter what Carney's skills turn out to be, he is going to have to build a government with the same PMO staff that has already trashed the reputations of McGuinty, Wynne and Trudeau.
Isn't Katie Telford already gone?
Myabe? Butts was "gone" after SNC, though.
Trudeau and Carney are similar in the sense of being political neophytes at the times that they became Liberal leaders. Trudeau had been a one-term MP who was one of two Liberal candidates to grow their votes in the 2011 election, but he had virtually no other political experience. Carney was just lacking in political experience altogether, albeit having obviously done some long-term planning for a leadership campaign. There is every reason to believe that Carney, just as much as Trudeau before him, will isolate himself from crucial feedback from party institutions he has neither developed experience with nor used.
(Poilievre by contrast has a high quantity of political experience, but zero diversity thereof. He has no experience as a real political outsider dissenting against leadership or as a non-elected citizen activist.)
Carney has spent much of the last several decades working with politicians. He's a bright guy, I assume he figured out the grind of at least the larger political gears.
Team building?? So you believe he has leadership capabilities, and on that I agree. But as for "building a team", a team is only as good as its weakest link, and given the slate of MP's he will be choosing from (the SAME ones as few months ago) I see more weakness than strength.
The LPC benches are warmed with a cadre of former activists, various ex government employees and long-time parliamentarians. Private sector experience or wealth creation is just not their collective thing, which IN MY OPINION means they will simply continue the policies and likely the approach of the government of the last 9 years.
They will be loathe to address bureaucratic bloat, the impenetrable bureaucratic mire that businesses and wealth creators must navigate to do nearly anything and many other practical aspects of governing because they are born of that world and believe that there can't possibly be too much regulation or bureaucracy.
Thank you for this op-ed, Matt Gurney.
You hit all of the key problems with the Liberal Party of Canada quite nicely.
I would add, though, that if the Conservatives fail to win (or, more likely, they lose "big"), then it will be the case that a lot of Conservative Party members will be doing their own imitation of the Liberal Party's "flip and burn" manoeuvre.
Which brings us to the broader problem, which is the lack of courage amongst practicing and would-be politicians in Canada. Not to mention the pathological "psuedo-Leninism" that seems to define how modern Canadian political parties operate these days.
None of it is healthy. What's more, too many partisans who participate in political parties and donate their money, as well, have helped to support this pathological form of politics.
The Conservative Party’s inclination to devour leaders with a Monday wash day regularity is a problem in itself. The lack of brand recognition makes it difficult to become established in the job and to run a national election campaign that identifies weak points and has the tactical ability to overcome them. This Conservative campaign is remarkable for its ability to retain a consistent level of popularity over a long period of time. There’s that, but for a party who champions fiscal probity, why was a platform released after advance polls opened? Duh. This is the outcome of rookies who are finding their way and being extended a second chance down the road should be a reward for someone who brings in close to 40% of votes on election day.
You are right that tossing out the leader after every election loss is no recipe for success. That being said, is there anyone in Canadian politics who has been less amenable to learning lessons than Pierre Poilievre? He should have already learned back in 2015 what happens when you spook NDP voters into uniting behind the Liberals, and yet he didn't.
The costed platform was released three days after the Liberals released theirs
…and in THIS election, I would have cautioned the CPC to wait to release their numbers until after the LPC had done so.
So that timing was chosen by Carney, not Poilievre.
I agree no system is perfect. I was referring to the pre election candidate selection process not the party leadership process. The Prime Minister is selected or should be by the elected members. The US has a similar process to elect the majority and minority speakers of the house and senate.
But when I read about say Doug Ford selecting every individual candidate in his party, or when I see federal parties rejecting leadership candidates for vague and specious reasons, this smacks more of capricious tyranny or cult wealth and power distribution than true democracy.
You are right on with the broad problem. IMO It’s because in Canada while there is no lack of courage if you want to be a political candidate you have to suck up to the incumbent party leadership who filter for blandness and lack of grit. Open party primaries where anyone can enter with enough signatures and no one but the electorate (sometimes party members, sometimes anyone, depending on the state) can stop your candidacy is the “primary” ( sorry can’t resist 😆) reason why the US is a real democracy where power flows from the people to government and Canada isn’t.
I see the root causes differently.
I believe that leadership selection (and removal) should occur through meetings of a given political party's elected Members of Parliament, and not through "open primaries.
Not only does this present a bigger incentive to the leader of said party (and, in the case of the governing party, the Prime Minister), it also puts power back in the hands of elected officials. Today, the "one person, one vote" system essentially robs Cabinet and caucus of the power they need to impose greater accountability on party leaders.
As for the democratic "merits" of the US system, I see a setup that is too easily gamed by money (there are practically no limits on how much money can be contributed by rich companies and individuals). I also see a setup in which contests for political office (and judicial appointments) become personality driven, not policy driven.
That Canada's politics must change is obvious. Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to force the leaders of either the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party to accept that premise.
It’s pretty clear that if being able to stick it to your leader is a prerequisite for good governance, the Conservatives are an equally dismal offering. Does anyone actually think there’s room for dissent in Poilievre’s cabinet? He’s got my MP spinning every last one of his last ditch offerings on social media like he’s some kind of deity.
Really feeling this perspective this morning. I voted, but not the way I had expected to vote as recently as a couple of months back. Strange days when at a time of crisis none of the federal party leaders seem to get it at all.
We all agree that the Liberal Party fundamentally believes itself to be Canada's Natural Governing Party. The change they understand they needed was replacing Trudeau. Caucus could not because they feared Trudeau not signing their nomination papers. The party exec accepted all Trudeau's faults as long as he appeared to be able to win elections. But caucus & exec were stuck in an "after you Aphonse" circle.
The only "change" that both caucus & exec believe is necessary is replacing a loser with a winner. Carney seems to be that winner. The truth of that belief will be learned by the election outcome. I'm not suggesting a Polliviere victory. But a Carney minority will see him resign within 2 years. He didn't sign up to play footsie with the Bloc. He's here to rule. If he can't, he'll leave for a presidency of the IMF, World Bank or a UN job.
Sadly, the existential crisis Canada must endure is not Trump but Carney, Trudeau 2.0.
Agree totally. I'm so, so heart broken that more Canadians can't see what's right in front of their faces. Carney is not the answer, not a change agent. He's more of the same old shit that holds our Canada and its brilliant business leaders and innovators from reaching their full potential.
In a true democracy the people get the government they deserve. It'a a choice made by voters.
Good article, thanks. Today Carney's conundrum could well become Canada's conundrum. We collectively could be stuck with the same gang who couldn't shoot straight. And in another minority government. Makes you really want to get out of bed every morning. 😁