One leader just bribed his way to a majority. The press stood by and did nothing, or lectured us about how this was all totally normal and acceptable.
The other leader dared question the economic wizardry of his Harvard and Oxford educated opponent who is running the largest deficit in history that didn't involve pandemic lockdowns. The press give him shit for it.
I believe Pierre is correct in his assessment as one can most certainly be thoroughly schooled (Carney) but remain hopelessly uneducated (also Carney’s huge deficit, continued foolish spending, increased bureaucracy, removing a pebble (excise tax on fuel) from an avalanche of price/cost of living burdens, appointing and retaining incompetent ministers, and jet-setting for agreements to talk about agreements just to name a few.
Where did you get the idea that the Carney government is increasing bureaucracy? That government is in a fight with public-sector unions about the many job cuts coming to the bureaucracy.
Worse, if you look at the math on the proposed savings vs payouts, they appear to be offering bureaucrats more than their remaining career salary to retire early. So we spend more, don't even get whatever work the bureaucrat would be doing, and the government can say they are trimming head count and annual salary spending through an accounting trick.
Cutting public service positions through attrition and not filling vacancies is something that some Conservative leaders have campaigned on in the past.
Not saying he’s wrong about everything, I’m implying he’s not as smart, knowledgeable or efficient as he, the legacy media or the elbows up crowd seem to think.
Well that's a tame criticism to make, but that's not really what Poilievre was saying. He said that Carney "has been wrong about every single economic issue of our time": https://x.com/OmarAlghabra/status/2043900149479453148
Carney has done very little if anything at all to improve the economy of the country or the lives of its citizens.
Much like a magician, he seems to think his job is to fool enough people to keep the easily fooled ones wowed so as to keep his job... that's not healthy for a country.
"The persistent out-flow of MPs from my party has absolutely nothing to do with my leadership tone and style, in any way, nor anything to do with the other party increasing its lead in the polls over mine. Nothing at all!"
Poilievre gets shit because he is exceptionally lacking in grace and humility, period. When he says that he's not just a better politician than Carney, but also someone whose YouTube education has supposedly made him a superior working professional and given him a superior general understanding of economics, then he really is just claiming to be the ultimate know-it-all twerp. He would be about as credible to give a condescending lecture to astronomers on astronomy, as he was in his comments about Carney.
Poilievre's perceived personality is entirely built by Liberal-supported media.
Can you provide examples of Poilievre being "exceptionally lacking in grace and humility" that are more egregious than "Thank you for your donation" or "often misogynistic and racist"?
What part of accusing someone's PhD education of being worth nothing did you construe as some kind of humble and constructive criticism?
The media does not control what comes out of Poilievre's own mouth in words that clearly his own and on the public record. He was already widely hated as a particularly trash politician while the Conservatives were in power.
Just some of many countless examples:
- Him accusing the hundreds of critics of his "Fair Elections" Act of being partisan-biased, projecting his own blinkered partisanship onto others.
- Him accusing Jagmeet Singh of being corrupted by pension interests to support the Trudeau Liberal government - even as Poilievre himself never gave any hint that he ever wanted the same pension system that benefits himself to ever change.
- Insinuating that Trudeau is some kind of deity who would make all societal problems go away, and insinuating that societal problems exist because Trudeau personally chooses for them to exist.
Do I need to go on with examples? Can you present any counter-examples?
The Fair Elections Act criticisms is not an example about politicians. He mocked hundreds of non-partisan academics about the Fair Elections Act, and specifically impugned the motivations of the Elections Canada Chief Electoral Officer who criticized his Bill: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/poilievres-attack-on-chief-electoral-officer-vicious-totally-inappropriate/ The funny thing is that Poilievre's obnoxiousness inflamed such opposition to his bill, that after months of spurning critics he then compromised and changed his Bill to accommodate them at the last minute. He had nothing to show for his mockery.
Politicians are still human beings who represent significant constituencies, and they don't deserve to be harassed just because Poilievre has never skipped an opportunity to rage-farm the most credulous of his supporters. Elliot McDavid harassed Chrystia Freeland while being a notable fan of Poilievre, and evidently felt implicit endorsement by Poilievre's movement to do so.
Poilievre has never outright said that Trudeau is a deity, he's just hinted it for blaming Trudeau for every societal ill. If I type in Google AI, "which societal ills has poilievre accused trudeau of", I get the response, "Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has accused Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of causing or exacerbating a wide range of societal, economic, and institutional ills in Canada. Poilievre often frames these issues around the central theme that "everything feels broken" after years of Liberal governance."
I'm guessing you don't have anything indicating actual bribery other than personal suspicions. I also suspect that being challenged on alleging something that's an actual crime under the criminal code, you're going to retreat to a justification that you actually meant personal inducements like getting a position in government or goodies for their riding. It's all kind of pathetic and indicative of a mindset that isn't going to get to the root cause of why the Conservatives keep losing and the Liberals keep winning.
Idlout is getting a university for her riding and over $100M in northern development funding all of a sudden.
Gladu has been raving about all the attention local projects have been getting due to her crossing.
Ma, at the very absolute least, got a free trip to China to meet the Chinese President.
Withholding or granting riding funding based on which party represents a riding is a scandal on its own. Ma's trip value eclipses bribery scandals that have brought down politicians in many other places and times (how many glasses of OJ is a private jet ride worth?) if you want to get technical.
We are going to soon see who gets a cabinet posting or other favours, and later who gets a very suspiciously nice job post-politics.
There are numerous rumors that others have been offered cabinet posts, and at least one was offered a judicial appointment (to step down in a now Liberal friendly riding).
The whole thing is so slimy I would put a reverse onus on everyone involved to prove that bribery and inducements were not exchanged. But it's clear they are. In my view offering literally anything to an MP to switch, even a free lunch, is unethical. And making someone a judge or cabinet minister is infinity free lunches. If I took a $50 gift card or a trip to a rock concert from a vendor I would lose my job. Why aren't our politicians held to that same standard? Oh wait, our press is pro-government propaganda and the Liberals can do no wrong.
I will preemptively cut off any reply about technical / legal definitions of bribery because it shouldn't matter. I'm sure they got their compliance department involved which is even more disgusting.
If you can't tell the difference between the occasional MP crossing the floor for personal or policy reasons, and an unprecedented concerted campaign to induce mass floor crossing through promises of various perks big and small, I don't know what to say to you.
Your country just got stolen from you and people are bleating about the opposition leader and speculating about what a mean nasty guy he must be to fail to compete with "name your price". Think about that.
I voted for the CPC candidate in my riding last election. They lost. I think if you really wanted to see change you’d want to ask the hard questions as to why so it doesn’t happen again. Instead you sound like someone whose party captured bleating about how it’s everyone else’s fault your party is losing and losing badly. Think about that.
At one point the CPC were 25 point favourites in the polls and everything was going their way. People tend to be willing to put up with more when they’re winning. Not so much when they’re losing. We’ve all heard some of the stories about certain members busting into offices. You’d have to think there’s at least some truth to those stories. And I’m sure the Liberals did offer things to entice people to switch parties but the CPC can’t control that. They can only control how they do things on their end and it sure seems like they may have taken their position/people for granted. That’s on them and that’s ultimately on Pierre.
This has been a near unprecedent number of floor crossings for Canadian politics. However, I can think of one other event that involved a greater number of floor crossers *and* proportionally greater with respect to the size of the legislature. That was when now-Premier Danielle Smith crossed the floor with 7 Wildrose Party MLAs in 2014 to join the PC government of Jim Prentice, reducing Wildrose to a 5-member rural rump.
Being book smart doesn't mean Carney is the man for the moment. What has he accomplished since becoming PM?
Lots of flights, lots of handshakes, lots of photo ops, a handful of meaningless MOU's... what exactly has changed in this country? The deficit and debt are sky high, cheques are flying out the window to this group and that group... band-aid solutions. Has anything gotten better? Have any issues been addressed and fixed? Are the lineups at food banks getting shorter? Is it easier to conduct business in Canada? Have any of the barriers to investment been cancelled? Is investment flowing back into the country? Are young graduates flocking back to Canada because of better opportunities?
There's no denying Carney is a smart man but he definitively isn't the man to help Canada and Canadians. He can't relate, can't empathize, has no insight into what it means to not being able to make ends meet. He's an arrogant, out of touch elitist who forgot his roots and seemingly believes himself smarter than all and revels in the attention and praises his elitist friends lavish on him.
If that's your cup of tea, have at'er but don't expect the country to stop circling the drain for a long, long time.
You write, "He can't relate, can't empathize, has no insight into what it means to not being able to make ends meet. He's an arrogant, out of touch elitist who forgot his roots and seemingly believes himself smarter than all and revels in the attention and praises his elitist friends lavish on him."
This is also *exactly* how Poilievre is widely perceived by his critics.
Agree to disagree. People flock to Poilievre’s rallies because they feel he listens to them, hears them, cares about their plight and he’ll genuinely respond. Again though, if all you listen to is Rosie or Scott Reid or Althia Raj or any of those pundits, you’d think Poilievre eats babies for breakfast! 🤷♂️
Poilievre has the bigger rallies and Carney has the bigger group of people turning up in support at the ballot box and in public opinion polls. So what's your point here?
I have been following Poilievre's record for over a decade and he was unlikable before I even knew who Scott Reid was. Reid and Raj are probably among the more gentle and tame Poilievre critics I have seen.
Slow dripping negative comments isn't being gentle or tame, it just re-enforces the stereotype that Poilievre isn't to be trusted. Carney has the backing of the elbows up brigade, those always show up to vote. The measure of genuine care shows up at rallies, unfortunately, younger people don't always show up at the ballot box.
Thats exactly what I thought Poilievre was saying also. Just because he has Harvard and Oxford means he was book smart not in practice. Which makes sense.
I don't know about you but 40-percent taxes, rediculous grocery bills, an astronomical deficit and plans to make it all even worse with even more fiscal lunacy certainly makes me wonder if Carney is an idiot savant or just an idiot.
Plagiarizing your masters thesis just indicates to me that Carney is lazy and makes me wonder what else he plagiarized.
If Mr. Carney is such a great economist, how is it that he completely and utterly failed to anticipate rising demand for fossil fuels?
If Mr. Carney is such a skilled prognosticator, how is it that he failed with GFANZ, and economic warfare of banks and companies that continued to facilitate the safe, successful, and sustainable exploitation of oil and gas?
Mr. Stinson should take a moment to review Michelle Rempel-Garner’s Substack offering posted this morning.
Shh, we're not allowed to question him on economic issues. The press says so. And the man himself will roll his eyes at you dismissively and give no response, which will be reported as a massive gotcha.
Because we all know that no highly-qualified expert has ever before been wrong or full of shit about anything to do with their area of expertise, or has been biased by the prospect of enormous personal gain.
I knew Canadians were credential obsessed, but this is next level.
Carney's economic chops are fair game. Poilievre's attack on them was idiotic. It might impress lowbrow, low information fanboys, but just sounds stupid to everybody else. Read Michelle Rempel Garner's newsletter this morning to see how you make a more effective and cutting critique. If all you've got is an animus towards Carney and expertise in general, brace yourself for an extended period of electoral failure.
For me it's just fresh meat he throws to the element of the CPC that loves to hear and see stupid publicity stunts and grade school insults. About 18% I think. For me, I think most non-partisan human beings would agree this dumb video further confirmation that a change is badly needed in the CPC. One that aligns with most most non-partisan human beings who just want them to do their @$%$ jobs.
If PP is going back to @#$hole mode then he has learned nothing. And maybe that's the point. If your party is going down in flames, why not burn the whole thing down. The outcome of this approach is absolutely certain unless PP suddenly becomes super non-stick coated lovable leader-man.
He spent two decades being an attack dog. That #$% is baked into the guy now.
As mentioned here before: people will only vote for those they like and trust. Emphasis on LIKE. He is unlikeable. He could not close the deal when he had a chance. He is the wrong guy to lead the party.
In sales (which politics happens to be) would you buy something from a person you do not like and do not trust?
This is just how PP is. It's hard charged partisanship all day, all night, you betcha!
Time for new blood.
From outside the party.
Peter MacKay is not new blood - he is yesterday's man.
I don't think Poilievre and his populist/very online faction of the party are going to give up power willingly. However, they might need a serious electoral beatdown before it becomes obvious that their approach is a dead end. The Conservatives lost in 2025, but had a strong share of the popular vote. Poilievre and the populists will point to that and blame Boomers and the NDP vote defecting to the Liberals for their failure to win. However, it seems more likely that they hit a high water mark because dissatisfaction with the Liberals was so great after the Trudeau years that people were willing to set aside their concerns about Poilievre.
That was me in 2025: no confidence that Carney was going to be able to accomplish much as a political neophyte leading the same tired, incompetent Liberal government. On the other hand, Poilievre's campaign wasn't offering much other than attitude and dumbed-down sloganeering. Still, I had higher hopes for a residual Conservative brain trust from the Harper era than anything on evidence in the Trudeau Liberals.
Why do they have to give up control? Who wants control? Where were those people during his review? I think it's pretty much only Liberals who desperately want him gone.
Nope they sure won't give up power. I fully expect the CPC will split back to pre-David Orchard. Its a party that clearly values ideological purity rather than what voters need. It has become the NDP of the left.
It's hard to have core policy goals when you are up against a party that's only goal is winning, but Conservatives have rightly concluded that winning by being the Liberal Party is a hollow and pointless victory.
This is also why many CPC voter would rather stay home than vote for someone like Doug Ford if they were party leader.
Party members don't love Poilievre for his charming smile and personality. They love him because they are convinced he will make actual change, even when it is painful and unpopular, if we were PM. This is also why countless millions of dollars are constantly spent by powerful entrenched interests to make you viscerally hate him.
Poilievre was more graceful and acted more like a normal human being in his recent interviews with Peter Mansbridge, Paul Wells, and Joe Rogan. There has been no uptick in the polls for him as a result, but that is probably indicative of the shift in tone not being persistent enough to be noticed by the general population. Mocking Carney's education would seem to confirm suspicions that his recent changes in behaviour were forced and never actually going to last.
As a Albertan who supports parties on the right side of center I encourage the CPC to ask this question -do you truly believe PP will win over the majority of Ontario & Quebec and lead the Party to a win in the next election?
If I hope so is your answer then let me ask you this - are you willing to wait three more years in opposition just to have Ontario & Quebec say again we just don't like PP, so maybe next time.
This article is a great example of picking selective events and quotes and framing a predetermined narrative around it - with no room made for contradictory events or quotes. Classic mainstream journalism - now here at The Line.
The Line is an outlet focused on opinion journalism as opposed to investigative or reporting work. All opinion journalism has at least some editorial bias to it.
The only mystery in all of this is the CPC blindness to the reality that Pierre is an asshole that Canadians will not elect. They will deflect to any and every conspiracy theory imaginable to avoid staring reality in the face. They're on track to lose a 5th straight election; one because Harper didn't want to win, one because they sewered their own candidate and three because their leader is an out-of-touch, detestable clown. But they, somehow, want to blame the Liberals for winning.
Carney made a joke of it because it’s completely laughable. PP is the real joke. A dumb comment from a man who is in a free fall. He will be remembered as the man who floundered the biggest lead and widest open net in recent canadian political history, little more. The sooner he quits or the CPC cans him the better for everyone.
Failure can be a good thing if you learn from it. Letting a Conservative leader have another shot at leading a party through an election is a good idea for that reason: Stephen Harper failed to defeat the Liberals in 2004, but used the lessons from that experience to win in 2006, 2008, and 2011.
There's worrying signs that Poilievre isn't going to learn and isn't going to change. His political career has been centered on the role of partisan attack dog, and he's had 20 years to show some growth on that front but hasn't. He wouldn't or couldn't alter his election strategy after Trudeau resigned and Carney changed tactics, and his reaction to his election loss was at least initially to blame it all on exogenous factors like Canadian backlash against Trump.
The sheer number of floor crossings since 2025 can't just be blamed on Liberal efforts either: there's a lot of discontent with Poilievre's leadership. People were willing to put up with a lot when they were sure that the end result would be serving in a Conservative government; take that away and it becomes far less palatable.
Things are great for the liberals because they are blessed with a fearful, uninformed, gullible electorate, an unscrupulous leader, a complicit media machine. The liberals thrive on fear and division. Trump provides them with enough ammunition for the moment and as soon as they can't blame Trump, J D Vance will likely become the new target of the dutiful legacy media.
Poilievre could walk on water, it would never be enough. The media will continue to destroy him because he represents a threat to their survival.
On the subject of the media - for me, the national media is dying because a generational shift has occurred. The loss of regional voices and the fact that everyone with an internet can 'do the news'. 43% of adults under 30 now regularly get their news from TikTok. Think about that for a second and try not to shudder. This is news in 2026.
For gen Z, TikTok has surpassed YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram as the top social news source. Technology is destroying the traditional media paradigm and of course our taxes go to their wages now.
Man, PP just can't stop shooting himself in the foot. Look, I am all for mocking useless post-secondary education - step right up all you gender-studies grads! But economics at Harvard and Oxford? What kind of attack is that? And it's not as if there are no actual grounds to attack Carney's fiscal management thus far.
This reminds me of his dumb comment a few months ago about the Nazis actually being socialists, as if the Nazis are best known for their economic policies. Despite there being no shortage of grounds on which to totally shred socialism, he reached for the Nazis.
These are total non-sequiturs from him on battlegrounds where he has tons of legitimate ammunition. When you see this it is tough to conclude that he is not more interested in personal insults than scoring legitimate points. It's a shame because he does have it in him to make persuasive, articulate arguments that stay on point.
Doug “Bozo” Ford as the leader of the Federal Conservatives? With his track record of cozying (toadying) up to whoever is leading the Canadian Liberal Party? Might as well go to a one party state like the former Soviet Union. The candidates for both Federal parties are so vetted ( think “Unsullied” as in Game of Thrones) that there is no real choice anyway.
Carney represents what a huge chunk of Canada, and especially boomer Canada sees as the ideal. Liberals win in that they know their customer better than the Conservatives.
As long as there are more takers than makers in Canada and our technocrats are protected from the consequences of their decisions this is the Canada we will continue to have.
Meanwhile the young continue to leave. One of my kids said that "Canada is for suckers" and plans on leaving. He isn't alone.
Poilievre has arrived at the DOA point of electoral politics just like his nemesis Justin Trudeau did. A large portion of swing voters can't stand him and are tuning out anything that he says. Hurling insults is one of the main beefs and so attacking an economist over his academic credentials is both silly and politically stupid.
The Conservative Party needs to plan for a replacement.
One leader just bribed his way to a majority. The press stood by and did nothing, or lectured us about how this was all totally normal and acceptable.
The other leader dared question the economic wizardry of his Harvard and Oxford educated opponent who is running the largest deficit in history that didn't involve pandemic lockdowns. The press give him shit for it.
Poilievre's mistake was questioning Carney's intelligence when he should have been questioning his benevolence.
I believe Pierre is correct in his assessment as one can most certainly be thoroughly schooled (Carney) but remain hopelessly uneducated (also Carney’s huge deficit, continued foolish spending, increased bureaucracy, removing a pebble (excise tax on fuel) from an avalanche of price/cost of living burdens, appointing and retaining incompetent ministers, and jet-setting for agreements to talk about agreements just to name a few.
Where did you get the idea that the Carney government is increasing bureaucracy? That government is in a fight with public-sector unions about the many job cuts coming to the bureaucracy.
And how many bureaucrats have been let go? None. Just like everything else Carney is supposedly doing.
The Major Projects Office is a new bureaucracy on top of the existing one.
Worse, if you look at the math on the proposed savings vs payouts, they appear to be offering bureaucrats more than their remaining career salary to retire early. So we spend more, don't even get whatever work the bureaucrat would be doing, and the government can say they are trimming head count and annual salary spending through an accounting trick.
This could still be worth while if the bureaucrat is doing work of negative value, but it's definitely not a big cost saver!
Thank you for your response. I agree completely. I refuse to dignify SK’s “stuff” with a response. I will not interact with him at all.
Cutting public service positions through attrition and not filling vacancies is something that some Conservative leaders have campaigned on in the past.
He has built 12 brand new federal agencies in just a year.
There is no way to describe that OTHER than saying he grew the bureaucracy.
Correct! Thank you!
Poilievre's mistake was questioning anything about Carney... If you question the boss, the media pit bull will come barking.
Accusing Carney of being "wrong about everything in economics" is hardly in the tone of humble questioning...
Not saying he’s wrong about everything, I’m implying he’s not as smart, knowledgeable or efficient as he, the legacy media or the elbows up crowd seem to think.
Well that's a tame criticism to make, but that's not really what Poilievre was saying. He said that Carney "has been wrong about every single economic issue of our time": https://x.com/OmarAlghabra/status/2043900149479453148
Carney has done very little if anything at all to improve the economy of the country or the lives of its citizens.
Much like a magician, he seems to think his job is to fool enough people to keep the easily fooled ones wowed so as to keep his job... that's not healthy for a country.
The examples Poilievre cited are airtight - go ahead and dispute one of them.
For example: Carney was on record as predicting that COVID spending would lead to DEInflation.
Was he correct?
"The persistent out-flow of MPs from my party has absolutely nothing to do with my leadership tone and style, in any way, nor anything to do with the other party increasing its lead in the polls over mine. Nothing at all!"
Poilievre gets shit because he is exceptionally lacking in grace and humility, period. When he says that he's not just a better politician than Carney, but also someone whose YouTube education has supposedly made him a superior working professional and given him a superior general understanding of economics, then he really is just claiming to be the ultimate know-it-all twerp. He would be about as credible to give a condescending lecture to astronomers on astronomy, as he was in his comments about Carney.
Yes I already know you hate Pierre Poilievre.
Poilievre's perceived personality is entirely built by Liberal-supported media.
Can you provide examples of Poilievre being "exceptionally lacking in grace and humility" that are more egregious than "Thank you for your donation" or "often misogynistic and racist"?
What part of accusing someone's PhD education of being worth nothing did you construe as some kind of humble and constructive criticism?
The media does not control what comes out of Poilievre's own mouth in words that clearly his own and on the public record. He was already widely hated as a particularly trash politician while the Conservatives were in power.
Just some of many countless examples:
- Him accusing the hundreds of critics of his "Fair Elections" Act of being partisan-biased, projecting his own blinkered partisanship onto others.
- Him accusing Jagmeet Singh of being corrupted by pension interests to support the Trudeau Liberal government - even as Poilievre himself never gave any hint that he ever wanted the same pension system that benefits himself to ever change.
- Insinuating that Trudeau is some kind of deity who would make all societal problems go away, and insinuating that societal problems exist because Trudeau personally chooses for them to exist.
Do I need to go on with examples? Can you present any counter-examples?
Your examples are of Poilievre criticizing politicians, and mostly of partisanship. Tough to avoid as leader of the Opposition.
My examples were of Trudeau insulting groups of Canadians.
Has Poilievre had an "I can outlast her" faux pas?
So yes, give me some examples. Can you get the Trudeau is a deity quote?
The Fair Elections Act criticisms is not an example about politicians. He mocked hundreds of non-partisan academics about the Fair Elections Act, and specifically impugned the motivations of the Elections Canada Chief Electoral Officer who criticized his Bill: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/poilievres-attack-on-chief-electoral-officer-vicious-totally-inappropriate/ The funny thing is that Poilievre's obnoxiousness inflamed such opposition to his bill, that after months of spurning critics he then compromised and changed his Bill to accommodate them at the last minute. He had nothing to show for his mockery.
Politicians are still human beings who represent significant constituencies, and they don't deserve to be harassed just because Poilievre has never skipped an opportunity to rage-farm the most credulous of his supporters. Elliot McDavid harassed Chrystia Freeland while being a notable fan of Poilievre, and evidently felt implicit endorsement by Poilievre's movement to do so.
Poilievre has never outright said that Trudeau is a deity, he's just hinted it for blaming Trudeau for every societal ill. If I type in Google AI, "which societal ills has poilievre accused trudeau of", I get the response, "Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has accused Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of causing or exacerbating a wide range of societal, economic, and institutional ills in Canada. Poilievre often frames these issues around the central theme that "everything feels broken" after years of Liberal governance."
I can’t find anything on Fair Elections Act since 2014, and I can only find him resisting amendments.
I'm guessing you don't have anything indicating actual bribery other than personal suspicions. I also suspect that being challenged on alleging something that's an actual crime under the criminal code, you're going to retreat to a justification that you actually meant personal inducements like getting a position in government or goodies for their riding. It's all kind of pathetic and indicative of a mindset that isn't going to get to the root cause of why the Conservatives keep losing and the Liberals keep winning.
Idlout is getting a university for her riding and over $100M in northern development funding all of a sudden.
Gladu has been raving about all the attention local projects have been getting due to her crossing.
Ma, at the very absolute least, got a free trip to China to meet the Chinese President.
Withholding or granting riding funding based on which party represents a riding is a scandal on its own. Ma's trip value eclipses bribery scandals that have brought down politicians in many other places and times (how many glasses of OJ is a private jet ride worth?) if you want to get technical.
We are going to soon see who gets a cabinet posting or other favours, and later who gets a very suspiciously nice job post-politics.
There are numerous rumors that others have been offered cabinet posts, and at least one was offered a judicial appointment (to step down in a now Liberal friendly riding).
The whole thing is so slimy I would put a reverse onus on everyone involved to prove that bribery and inducements were not exchanged. But it's clear they are. In my view offering literally anything to an MP to switch, even a free lunch, is unethical. And making someone a judge or cabinet minister is infinity free lunches. If I took a $50 gift card or a trip to a rock concert from a vendor I would lose my job. Why aren't our politicians held to that same standard? Oh wait, our press is pro-government propaganda and the Liberals can do no wrong.
I will preemptively cut off any reply about technical / legal definitions of bribery because it shouldn't matter. I'm sure they got their compliance department involved which is even more disgusting.
Every party, every time, without exception is outraged by the sheer corruption and moral bankruptcy of floor-crossers....
Meh.
And gangsters save their most horrific treatment for disloyalty.
If you can't tell the difference between the occasional MP crossing the floor for personal or policy reasons, and an unprecedented concerted campaign to induce mass floor crossing through promises of various perks big and small, I don't know what to say to you.
If you can’t tell that probably means something in the party they’re fleeing stinks too I don’t know what to say to you.
Your country just got stolen from you and people are bleating about the opposition leader and speculating about what a mean nasty guy he must be to fail to compete with "name your price". Think about that.
I voted for the CPC candidate in my riding last election. They lost. I think if you really wanted to see change you’d want to ask the hard questions as to why so it doesn’t happen again. Instead you sound like someone whose party captured bleating about how it’s everyone else’s fault your party is losing and losing badly. Think about that.
They were happy to run for that party a year ago. What changed?
At one point the CPC were 25 point favourites in the polls and everything was going their way. People tend to be willing to put up with more when they’re winning. Not so much when they’re losing. We’ve all heard some of the stories about certain members busting into offices. You’d have to think there’s at least some truth to those stories. And I’m sure the Liberals did offer things to entice people to switch parties but the CPC can’t control that. They can only control how they do things on their end and it sure seems like they may have taken their position/people for granted. That’s on them and that’s ultimately on Pierre.
I think you just need to sit with the fact that Pierre just fuckin sucks.
This has been a near unprecedent number of floor crossings for Canadian politics. However, I can think of one other event that involved a greater number of floor crossers *and* proportionally greater with respect to the size of the legislature. That was when now-Premier Danielle Smith crossed the floor with 7 Wildrose Party MLAs in 2014 to join the PC government of Jim Prentice, reducing Wildrose to a 5-member rural rump.
Do you have any evidence that bribery has occurred?
And when a leader makes a spikey comment, it helps to have a hint of substance behind it. It should reveal a legitimate issue or concern.
Criticizing Trudeau economic creds would sound good, and would have been accurate. Criticizing Carney on that sounds like flailing.
Being book smart doesn't mean Carney is the man for the moment. What has he accomplished since becoming PM?
Lots of flights, lots of handshakes, lots of photo ops, a handful of meaningless MOU's... what exactly has changed in this country? The deficit and debt are sky high, cheques are flying out the window to this group and that group... band-aid solutions. Has anything gotten better? Have any issues been addressed and fixed? Are the lineups at food banks getting shorter? Is it easier to conduct business in Canada? Have any of the barriers to investment been cancelled? Is investment flowing back into the country? Are young graduates flocking back to Canada because of better opportunities?
There's no denying Carney is a smart man but he definitively isn't the man to help Canada and Canadians. He can't relate, can't empathize, has no insight into what it means to not being able to make ends meet. He's an arrogant, out of touch elitist who forgot his roots and seemingly believes himself smarter than all and revels in the attention and praises his elitist friends lavish on him.
If that's your cup of tea, have at'er but don't expect the country to stop circling the drain for a long, long time.
You write, "He can't relate, can't empathize, has no insight into what it means to not being able to make ends meet. He's an arrogant, out of touch elitist who forgot his roots and seemingly believes himself smarter than all and revels in the attention and praises his elitist friends lavish on him."
This is also *exactly* how Poilievre is widely perceived by his critics.
Agree to disagree. People flock to Poilievre’s rallies because they feel he listens to them, hears them, cares about their plight and he’ll genuinely respond. Again though, if all you listen to is Rosie or Scott Reid or Althia Raj or any of those pundits, you’d think Poilievre eats babies for breakfast! 🤷♂️
Poilievre has the bigger rallies and Carney has the bigger group of people turning up in support at the ballot box and in public opinion polls. So what's your point here?
I have been following Poilievre's record for over a decade and he was unlikable before I even knew who Scott Reid was. Reid and Raj are probably among the more gentle and tame Poilievre critics I have seen.
Slow dripping negative comments isn't being gentle or tame, it just re-enforces the stereotype that Poilievre isn't to be trusted. Carney has the backing of the elbows up brigade, those always show up to vote. The measure of genuine care shows up at rallies, unfortunately, younger people don't always show up at the ballot box.
What is Carney doing right?
I don’t say he was doing anything right (or wrong). The critique from the Conservative leader was about his education in economics. That fails.
Apologies.
I didn't realize Poilievre was talking about his education. Carney certainly has been trained in economics.
I had assumed Poilievre meant his abilities. Carney's don't seem to match what is on his CV. Or maybe he isn't trying to achieve a prospering economy.
Thats exactly what I thought Poilievre was saying also. Just because he has Harvard and Oxford means he was book smart not in practice. Which makes sense.
I don't know about you but 40-percent taxes, rediculous grocery bills, an astronomical deficit and plans to make it all even worse with even more fiscal lunacy certainly makes me wonder if Carney is an idiot savant or just an idiot.
Plagiarizing your masters thesis just indicates to me that Carney is lazy and makes me wonder what else he plagiarized.
If Mr. Carney is such a great economist, how is it that he completely and utterly failed to anticipate rising demand for fossil fuels?
If Mr. Carney is such a skilled prognosticator, how is it that he failed with GFANZ, and economic warfare of banks and companies that continued to facilitate the safe, successful, and sustainable exploitation of oil and gas?
Mr. Stinson should take a moment to review Michelle Rempel-Garner’s Substack offering posted this morning.
Shh, we're not allowed to question him on economic issues. The press says so. And the man himself will roll his eyes at you dismissively and give no response, which will be reported as a massive gotcha.
Because we all know that no highly-qualified expert has ever before been wrong or full of shit about anything to do with their area of expertise, or has been biased by the prospect of enormous personal gain.
I knew Canadians were credential obsessed, but this is next level.
The greatest hoax of the 20th Century is the belief of a government spending multiplier that magically enhances the spending of the government.
There is no theoretical or econometric basis for Keynesian economics.
And yet, here we are with the foremost proponent, & most committed adherent, going full speed into spending oblivion.
Carney's economic chops are fair game. Poilievre's attack on them was idiotic. It might impress lowbrow, low information fanboys, but just sounds stupid to everybody else. Read Michelle Rempel Garner's newsletter this morning to see how you make a more effective and cutting critique. If all you've got is an animus towards Carney and expertise in general, brace yourself for an extended period of electoral failure.
For me it's just fresh meat he throws to the element of the CPC that loves to hear and see stupid publicity stunts and grade school insults. About 18% I think. For me, I think most non-partisan human beings would agree this dumb video further confirmation that a change is badly needed in the CPC. One that aligns with most most non-partisan human beings who just want them to do their @$%$ jobs.
I read it, loved it, she's 100% bang on.
Such a stellar essay!!
Michelle is very smart and on top of her files.
I just read it. It was amazing, well written and factual.
If PP is going back to @#$hole mode then he has learned nothing. And maybe that's the point. If your party is going down in flames, why not burn the whole thing down. The outcome of this approach is absolutely certain unless PP suddenly becomes super non-stick coated lovable leader-man.
He spent two decades being an attack dog. That #$% is baked into the guy now.
As mentioned here before: people will only vote for those they like and trust. Emphasis on LIKE. He is unlikeable. He could not close the deal when he had a chance. He is the wrong guy to lead the party.
In sales (which politics happens to be) would you buy something from a person you do not like and do not trust?
This is just how PP is. It's hard charged partisanship all day, all night, you betcha!
Time for new blood.
From outside the party.
Peter MacKay is not new blood - he is yesterday's man.
I don't think Poilievre and his populist/very online faction of the party are going to give up power willingly. However, they might need a serious electoral beatdown before it becomes obvious that their approach is a dead end. The Conservatives lost in 2025, but had a strong share of the popular vote. Poilievre and the populists will point to that and blame Boomers and the NDP vote defecting to the Liberals for their failure to win. However, it seems more likely that they hit a high water mark because dissatisfaction with the Liberals was so great after the Trudeau years that people were willing to set aside their concerns about Poilievre.
That was me in 2025: no confidence that Carney was going to be able to accomplish much as a political neophyte leading the same tired, incompetent Liberal government. On the other hand, Poilievre's campaign wasn't offering much other than attitude and dumbed-down sloganeering. Still, I had higher hopes for a residual Conservative brain trust from the Harper era than anything on evidence in the Trudeau Liberals.
What power?
Control of the Conservative Party, obviously.
Why do they have to give up control? Who wants control? Where were those people during his review? I think it's pretty much only Liberals who desperately want him gone.
Nope they sure won't give up power. I fully expect the CPC will split back to pre-David Orchard. Its a party that clearly values ideological purity rather than what voters need. It has become the NDP of the left.
It's hard to have core policy goals when you are up against a party that's only goal is winning, but Conservatives have rightly concluded that winning by being the Liberal Party is a hollow and pointless victory.
This is also why many CPC voter would rather stay home than vote for someone like Doug Ford if they were party leader.
Party members don't love Poilievre for his charming smile and personality. They love him because they are convinced he will make actual change, even when it is painful and unpopular, if we were PM. This is also why countless millions of dollars are constantly spent by powerful entrenched interests to make you viscerally hate him.
The problem for PP is the ROC doesn't like him. Not enough to win. Time to shove off and enjoy that pension with his young family.
Poilievre was more graceful and acted more like a normal human being in his recent interviews with Peter Mansbridge, Paul Wells, and Joe Rogan. There has been no uptick in the polls for him as a result, but that is probably indicative of the shift in tone not being persistent enough to be noticed by the general population. Mocking Carney's education would seem to confirm suspicions that his recent changes in behaviour were forced and never actually going to last.
See article in National Post today about polls.
As a Albertan who supports parties on the right side of center I encourage the CPC to ask this question -do you truly believe PP will win over the majority of Ontario & Quebec and lead the Party to a win in the next election?
If I hope so is your answer then let me ask you this - are you willing to wait three more years in opposition just to have Ontario & Quebec say again we just don't like PP, so maybe next time.
This article is a great example of picking selective events and quotes and framing a predetermined narrative around it - with no room made for contradictory events or quotes. Classic mainstream journalism - now here at The Line.
The Line is an outlet focused on opinion journalism as opposed to investigative or reporting work. All opinion journalism has at least some editorial bias to it.
The only mystery in all of this is the CPC blindness to the reality that Pierre is an asshole that Canadians will not elect. They will deflect to any and every conspiracy theory imaginable to avoid staring reality in the face. They're on track to lose a 5th straight election; one because Harper didn't want to win, one because they sewered their own candidate and three because their leader is an out-of-touch, detestable clown. But they, somehow, want to blame the Liberals for winning.
And whose #@$% idea was it to let Andrew Scheer ever talk to the media?
Carney made a joke of it because it’s completely laughable. PP is the real joke. A dumb comment from a man who is in a free fall. He will be remembered as the man who floundered the biggest lead and widest open net in recent canadian political history, little more. The sooner he quits or the CPC cans him the better for everyone.
Failure can be a good thing if you learn from it. Letting a Conservative leader have another shot at leading a party through an election is a good idea for that reason: Stephen Harper failed to defeat the Liberals in 2004, but used the lessons from that experience to win in 2006, 2008, and 2011.
There's worrying signs that Poilievre isn't going to learn and isn't going to change. His political career has been centered on the role of partisan attack dog, and he's had 20 years to show some growth on that front but hasn't. He wouldn't or couldn't alter his election strategy after Trudeau resigned and Carney changed tactics, and his reaction to his election loss was at least initially to blame it all on exogenous factors like Canadian backlash against Trump.
The sheer number of floor crossings since 2025 can't just be blamed on Liberal efforts either: there's a lot of discontent with Poilievre's leadership. People were willing to put up with a lot when they were sure that the end result would be serving in a Conservative government; take that away and it becomes far less palatable.
Things are great for the liberals because they are blessed with a fearful, uninformed, gullible electorate, an unscrupulous leader, a complicit media machine. The liberals thrive on fear and division. Trump provides them with enough ammunition for the moment and as soon as they can't blame Trump, J D Vance will likely become the new target of the dutiful legacy media.
Poilievre could walk on water, it would never be enough. The media will continue to destroy him because he represents a threat to their survival.
On the subject of the media - for me, the national media is dying because a generational shift has occurred. The loss of regional voices and the fact that everyone with an internet can 'do the news'. 43% of adults under 30 now regularly get their news from TikTok. Think about that for a second and try not to shudder. This is news in 2026.
For gen Z, TikTok has surpassed YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram as the top social news source. Technology is destroying the traditional media paradigm and of course our taxes go to their wages now.
There is no doubt about the dumbing down of society effect.
Man, PP just can't stop shooting himself in the foot. Look, I am all for mocking useless post-secondary education - step right up all you gender-studies grads! But economics at Harvard and Oxford? What kind of attack is that? And it's not as if there are no actual grounds to attack Carney's fiscal management thus far.
This reminds me of his dumb comment a few months ago about the Nazis actually being socialists, as if the Nazis are best known for their economic policies. Despite there being no shortage of grounds on which to totally shred socialism, he reached for the Nazis.
These are total non-sequiturs from him on battlegrounds where he has tons of legitimate ammunition. When you see this it is tough to conclude that he is not more interested in personal insults than scoring legitimate points. It's a shame because he does have it in him to make persuasive, articulate arguments that stay on point.
Doug “Bozo” Ford as the leader of the Federal Conservatives? With his track record of cozying (toadying) up to whoever is leading the Canadian Liberal Party? Might as well go to a one party state like the former Soviet Union. The candidates for both Federal parties are so vetted ( think “Unsullied” as in Game of Thrones) that there is no real choice anyway.
Carney represents what a huge chunk of Canada, and especially boomer Canada sees as the ideal. Liberals win in that they know their customer better than the Conservatives.
As long as there are more takers than makers in Canada and our technocrats are protected from the consequences of their decisions this is the Canada we will continue to have.
Meanwhile the young continue to leave. One of my kids said that "Canada is for suckers" and plans on leaving. He isn't alone.
The media fawns over the PM. He has them eating out of his hand. Their obsequiousness is disheartening.
Poilievre has arrived at the DOA point of electoral politics just like his nemesis Justin Trudeau did. A large portion of swing voters can't stand him and are tuning out anything that he says. Hurling insults is one of the main beefs and so attacking an economist over his academic credentials is both silly and politically stupid.
The Conservative Party needs to plan for a replacement.