The Liberals rarely live up to expectations but are rarely punished for it. Like a bad boyfriend who tells you what you want to hear and not what you should hear.
The Liberals are emblematic of Canadians are our positives and negatives.
Carney’s blind spot is the slow moving constitutional crisis brewing in western Canada (including the increasing conflict between economics and indigenous people in BC).
He has the economic chops. No doubt. But he hasn’t lived in Canada forever. His boomer appeal using Mike Myers shows that his understanding of Canada is from the 90s.
I appreciate the comments and I’ll add to my point.
I looked up the federal liberal cabinet during the Quebec separation referendum in 95. It had many heavy hitters, some who had a strong reputations in Quebec. Carney does not have a deep bench for constitutional issues. He certainly does not have voices that carry persuasive weight in Alberta. Gonna send Melanie Joli? Champagne? Guilbeaut? How about Corey Hogan (who?) Eleanor O-something? (Again… who?) Send Matt Jeneroux out on the summer BBQ circuit to defend the wisdom of his life choices? (Please do, I’d like to chat with him.)
Carney can’t be everywhere at once and do a good job.
Picture an October where there’s no movement on a pipeline in the face of a global oil shock (rubbing salt in the Trudeau “no business case” wound), BC land rights have become even more gridlocked (eliminating Kenney-style pleas that Alberta can solve this all by negotiating harder), CUSMA has been ripped apart (probably defending dairy), and Mexico and the US have made a bilateral deal (but don’t worry, we can do 75% of our trade with China).
Now add a cherry on top of that toxic sundae - in an attempt to win the midterms, Trump posts on truth social - a sweetheart deal to bring the third largest global oil reserves into the American family. Statehood or protectorate - who cares? He offers pipelines. He offers USD. He offers mobility rights. And we sleepwalk into a Wexit that most don’t really want.
As one of the interviewees said, liberal weakness is arrogance. I don’t see Carney or anyone in the Feds taking this seriously. For Canada’s sake, they need to.
He was gone 7 years. That's not all that long. He's been back for more than half a decade at this point. This isn't Ignatieff who took off for decades and parachuted right into politics.
sorry Wes. Edmonton → Cambridge (Harvard) → London → Tokyo → Oxford → London → New York → Toronto → Ottawa → London → Ottawa. 19yrs in Canada, 24 out of Canada
Liberals have their heads buried in the public troughs,like hungry pigs. Economy is getting worse by the day,and they add more rules. My generation,the boomers are not all doing well. Millennials are angry at us,the government and especially the results of the last election
I saw a bit of the old Liberal arrogance seeping through during the discussion on defense procurement: what do those military guys know? They just want the shiniest new toys! *We* know better, and we’re not going to just fall for their claims to need an F-35 when something else will do just fine! And those tanks? Ridiculous! Drones are what you need! I saw a TED Talk about Ukraine last week, and that’s where it’s at!!
Shades of the 1957 white paper on defense saying manned aircraft were obsolete became missiles would soon be able to do everything, and the attitude that led to Canadian troops paying for metal C-7 magazines out of pocket because the cheap plastic ones provided by government kept breaking and jamming.
Look - the military *should* be challenged on their plans; more properly subjected to critical review. However, they *are* the professionals, not Liberal consultants with an interest in military history. Why F-35s? Maybe not because of NORAD today, but definitely because of the NATO mission. And when the government will only buy 65-80 of them, it has to be able to do all of the missions. And drones are interesting, definitely part of the future of warfare, but professional military observers and analysts will tell you Ukraine is a special case, not the portent of all things to come.
I'd just note that General Guillot's comments about not needing the F-35 for NORAD missions were part of a longer statement saying that what they really want are more F-15EXs.
This is important for two reasons. First, it said in a statement to the Senate Armed Services committee. There has been a bit of a tug of war in the US over the F-15EX, with the Air Force pushing for less (at least in their budget requests), and Congress and others pushing for more. One major mission for the F-15EX has been replacing F-15Cs at the end of their services lives on.... NORAD missions. This statement is almost certainly intended to influence that debate in the US, where these funding priorities are actively being debated right now, and not directed at Canada's procurement decisions at all.
The F-15EX orders keep going up, sometimes because the Air Force asks, sometimes because Congress insists. It's a good aircraft, and arguably Canada should buy it. But if we're trying to get away from dependence on the US for defense, it's no better than the F-35. And the thing is, there really is no aircraft in the world in the same class as the EX, so if those capabilities are what we want, it's that or nothing.
Second, Canada is not considering F-15EXs! Canada is considering the Gripen, which if anything goes in the opposite direction from the F-15EX. The EX has more than double the payload, longer range, more powerful radar and a second seat for a weapons systems operator. It is actually a better aircraft for the NORAD missions. The Gripen brings none of those advantages over the F-35.
Finally, I'd just note that General Guillot was suspiciously silent about whether he could do without the stealth F-22s NORAD operates out of Elmendorf. If he really doesn't need these capabilities, surely he can do without those too?
The Liberals rarely live up to expectations but are rarely punished for it. Like a bad boyfriend who tells you what you want to hear and not what you should hear.
The Liberals are emblematic of Canadians are our positives and negatives.
Carney’s blind spot is the slow moving constitutional crisis brewing in western Canada (including the increasing conflict between economics and indigenous people in BC).
He has the economic chops. No doubt. But he hasn’t lived in Canada forever. His boomer appeal using Mike Myers shows that his understanding of Canada is from the 90s.
I appreciate the comments and I’ll add to my point.
I looked up the federal liberal cabinet during the Quebec separation referendum in 95. It had many heavy hitters, some who had a strong reputations in Quebec. Carney does not have a deep bench for constitutional issues. He certainly does not have voices that carry persuasive weight in Alberta. Gonna send Melanie Joli? Champagne? Guilbeaut? How about Corey Hogan (who?) Eleanor O-something? (Again… who?) Send Matt Jeneroux out on the summer BBQ circuit to defend the wisdom of his life choices? (Please do, I’d like to chat with him.)
Carney can’t be everywhere at once and do a good job.
Picture an October where there’s no movement on a pipeline in the face of a global oil shock (rubbing salt in the Trudeau “no business case” wound), BC land rights have become even more gridlocked (eliminating Kenney-style pleas that Alberta can solve this all by negotiating harder), CUSMA has been ripped apart (probably defending dairy), and Mexico and the US have made a bilateral deal (but don’t worry, we can do 75% of our trade with China).
Now add a cherry on top of that toxic sundae - in an attempt to win the midterms, Trump posts on truth social - a sweetheart deal to bring the third largest global oil reserves into the American family. Statehood or protectorate - who cares? He offers pipelines. He offers USD. He offers mobility rights. And we sleepwalk into a Wexit that most don’t really want.
As one of the interviewees said, liberal weakness is arrogance. I don’t see Carney or anyone in the Feds taking this seriously. For Canada’s sake, they need to.
He was gone 7 years. That's not all that long. He's been back for more than half a decade at this point. This isn't Ignatieff who took off for decades and parachuted right into politics.
sorry Wes. Edmonton → Cambridge (Harvard) → London → Tokyo → Oxford → London → New York → Toronto → Ottawa → London → Ottawa. 19yrs in Canada, 24 out of Canada
Oh boy, Jamie Carroll is on The Line again. I think I'll skip this one so I don't have to take an extra shower today.
Did he make sure to say the f-word the required number of times whilst blaming Trump for all of Canada's problems?
Liberals have their heads buried in the public troughs,like hungry pigs. Economy is getting worse by the day,and they add more rules. My generation,the boomers are not all doing well. Millennials are angry at us,the government and especially the results of the last election
I saw a bit of the old Liberal arrogance seeping through during the discussion on defense procurement: what do those military guys know? They just want the shiniest new toys! *We* know better, and we’re not going to just fall for their claims to need an F-35 when something else will do just fine! And those tanks? Ridiculous! Drones are what you need! I saw a TED Talk about Ukraine last week, and that’s where it’s at!!
Shades of the 1957 white paper on defense saying manned aircraft were obsolete became missiles would soon be able to do everything, and the attitude that led to Canadian troops paying for metal C-7 magazines out of pocket because the cheap plastic ones provided by government kept breaking and jamming.
Look - the military *should* be challenged on their plans; more properly subjected to critical review. However, they *are* the professionals, not Liberal consultants with an interest in military history. Why F-35s? Maybe not because of NORAD today, but definitely because of the NATO mission. And when the government will only buy 65-80 of them, it has to be able to do all of the missions. And drones are interesting, definitely part of the future of warfare, but professional military observers and analysts will tell you Ukraine is a special case, not the portent of all things to come.
I'd just note that General Guillot's comments about not needing the F-35 for NORAD missions were part of a longer statement saying that what they really want are more F-15EXs.
This is important for two reasons. First, it said in a statement to the Senate Armed Services committee. There has been a bit of a tug of war in the US over the F-15EX, with the Air Force pushing for less (at least in their budget requests), and Congress and others pushing for more. One major mission for the F-15EX has been replacing F-15Cs at the end of their services lives on.... NORAD missions. This statement is almost certainly intended to influence that debate in the US, where these funding priorities are actively being debated right now, and not directed at Canada's procurement decisions at all.
The F-15EX orders keep going up, sometimes because the Air Force asks, sometimes because Congress insists. It's a good aircraft, and arguably Canada should buy it. But if we're trying to get away from dependence on the US for defense, it's no better than the F-35. And the thing is, there really is no aircraft in the world in the same class as the EX, so if those capabilities are what we want, it's that or nothing.
Second, Canada is not considering F-15EXs! Canada is considering the Gripen, which if anything goes in the opposite direction from the F-15EX. The EX has more than double the payload, longer range, more powerful radar and a second seat for a weapons systems operator. It is actually a better aircraft for the NORAD missions. The Gripen brings none of those advantages over the F-35.
Finally, I'd just note that General Guillot was suspiciously silent about whether he could do without the stealth F-22s NORAD operates out of Elmendorf. If he really doesn't need these capabilities, surely he can do without those too?