There is one inconvenient fact that this article omits: never has an outright majority be won through floor crossings and it would behoove us to investigate what those floor crossers were promised for them to switch, because those backroom deals stink to high heaven.
If they have nothing to hide, the liberals should welcome these investigations.
I think we should be outright worried about his implementation of globalist policies as outline in his own book: return of the carbon tax, no more pipelines, more liberticide laws, etc.
Emerson flipped for a cabinet position. I think Stronarch did too. That’s essentially a bribe to me, so why is this different? The MPs that flipped have all seemed to do so because of disagreements with current party leadership. Jeneroux was set to retire before deciding to stay on and flip instead.
Michael Ma was elected only months earlier, had no public (or apparent private) beef with party leadership, and notoriously attended both parties' Christmas party. Nothing suspicious there...
Prior governments weren't actively recruiting for a majority. This has never happened anywhere in Canada at any level before and our journalistic class is refusing to make that distinction.
If you deal with Chinese (and often Asians in general), especially first generation, its not generally their style to criticize leadership openly. The lack of public attacks on Poillievre could just be a cultural thing.
I think your second comment isn’t a great one. Ma was born in Hong Kong and moved to Canada as a 12 year old. He ran against that Liberal clown who suggested another candidate should be turned into the Chinese consolate for a reward and the immediate assumption is that Ma’s a Chinese asset?
If the Conservatives had any reason to believe this was true, they would have almost certainly made it public by now. Even if they failed in vetting him, they’ve likely looked at him pretty deeply by now looking for dirt.
Meanwhile, D’Entremont was open in his criticism of leadership, Jeneroux initially planned to retire over his issues with leadership.
In NDP world, Idlout doesn’t seem to have an issue with leadership, but does seem to be leveraging her crossing to gain more power for her riding. As someone not in her riding, I don’t love it. However, to a large extent she’s doing her job as this is likely bringing real benefits for her riding,
What about People’s Republic of China assistance with Mr Ma’s election? And PM Carney’s rapprochement with the PRC? Chinese EVs proposed for Canadian military bases. All coincidences of course. 😆😆😆
He should never have been CPC candidate in my view. Total failure of vetting. Or it's impossible to get a candidate in his riding that isn't connected to the Chinese government, which is even more concerning...
It will be the by elections that get him over the line. If Canadians are actually outraged by floor crossings, they can certainly send a message in those three by elections and keep Carney in a minority. But, as this article very fairly points out, most voters dont give a rip about floor crossings. They happen from time to time with both major parties ,and its part of the parliamentary system. what Conservatives are screwing up is looking in the mirror.. why are MPS leaving, and why are the polls not being affected by this? And, if the Libs get 2 out of 3 of those by elections (likely), is their party really complaining about the things that matter. Sour grapes (which is the over whelming calling card of online conservatives and comment accounts) doesn't win elections most of the time. I watched PP on Rogan, and he is great in that format. A really good dude. He was positive, hopeful, upbeat , and relatable. But his online supporters keep playing this violin online , being rude and doom and gloom, and its killing the partys chances.
The globalist position started with Mulroney in 1980s. I call it neoliberalism but commonly known as Reaganomics or Thatcherism or trickle down. Wealth for workers was promised but never happened as the wealthy captured 90% of productivity gain vs 50 % under Keynes.
And we just follow along with no understanding of our parliamentary system, of economics or the simple Poilievre and the Conservatives promise a lot more of same. Poilievre quoted that the federal government should only be responsible for building roads and bridges and defense.
Imagine Canada as a poor USA with no and I mean zero social benefits like Medicare, public education (privatization already underway in Alberta), no OAS, no daycare ,welfare, public or social housing. An on your own society where 50 % hardly make a living wage even with 2 workers. Uncontrolled rent, Uncontrolled REIT investment in housing, no forethought as to how housing costs in future will be affordable and a lacking of the slow insidious exponential increase of climate change which few in Alberta even believe.
At least Carney aware of these issues while Poilievre, Manning and Harper want a social conservative and fiscal conservative all at once.
Thanks David for generously broadening the conversation to irrelevant economic history. How thoughtful of you to skip right over those awkward floor-crossing details.
And thank you AM for an astonishing capacity to miss the point of the article.
The floor-crossings are not “awkward” - they’ve been going on since the Westminster System birthed party politics. Voters largely do not care about them, no matter what colours are being dropped or donned.
I am no fan of a stagnant LPC that cannot get one foot in front of the other on anything like a consistent basis, but listening to the never-ending victimhood of the CPC is just as stale.
If you want to see conspiracies everywhere, that’s your business. It informs nothing, and it ain’t new.
This opinion piece isn’t analysis , it’s pure partisan fanfiction dressed up like “sports metaphors.”
Scott bends over backwards to defend Mark Carney while pretending that anyone who questions backroom political manoeuvring is just whining. That’s basically cheerleading for the Liberal Party of Canada.
And the hypocrisy is wild. The piece lectures Pierre Poilievre about how Parliament works ,like Canadians are too dumb to notice (they are however easily manipulated and lower educated)when power is being stitched together through defections and political deals instead of voters. Apparently calling that out is “loser talk,” but defending it is somehow noble? Please !
The attempt to rewrite history is just as bad. When Stephen Harper took heat for proroguing Parliament or putting David Emerson straight into cabinet after crossing the floor, the media screamed about democratic norms for months. Now that the Liberals benefit, suddenly it’s all “perfectly legitimate” and anyone who questions it is bitter. That’s not consistency again that’s pure bias.
What this opinion piece really says is simple.
If your side gains power through political manoeuvring, it’s strategy; if the other side complains, they’re losers. That’s not a serious argument. It’s just lazy spin trying to normalize whatever helps Carney stay in power.
You sound exactly like the Conservatives he described in the article. There's a reason the Conservatives lost, and they kept him as leader anyway...proving they haven't learned from their mistakes, going back to Andrew Scheer.
I am not sure you understand how revolting your comment and Stinson's article are outside your Liberal echo chamber. No mention of Canada's prosperity, just celebrating political calculations. Pride in a Canada who celebrates the win on a technicality is for the real losers. Enjoy your gloating for another 10 years until the boomers die off. We'll see then if the stripped, foreign owned, indebted hulk of Canada is worth saving and if there is any talent left to accomplish it or if we'll remain a branch plant to the thriving world leaders.
I'm not a Liberal, nor am I living in an echo chamber. But it describes perfectly the mindset laid out in my first comment. But just to be clear, Harper sold us out with FIPA, sold the Wheat Board, and never balanced a budget while he had a majority. I'm still waiting for Conservatives, who complain incessantly that Carney has stolen Pierre's ideas, and that they hate them now, to tell us who they really are. They currently offer very little. So I'm not sure how you have the audacity to profess such arrogance when you found ways to lose three elections in a row that were handed to you on a silver platter, and kept the guy who begged for an election, and then blew a 20-point lead. I understand the frustration, but instead of complaining about why you lost, learn from it, and come out with a non-asshole for a leader, and policies that Canadians can get behind. You sound like you're blaming the Liberals for winning. There are no technicalities here. That people are abandoning Pierre shows common sense. He is, as mentioned, an asshole. He proved it when he supported the Convoy. For that reason alone, I will never vote for him.....and I didn't want to vote Liberal in 2025, but I'm glad I did. The CPC didn't give me any other choice. We'll talk again in 2033.
What’s hilariousis you claim you’re “not in an echo chamber,” yet you just repeated every tired talking point word for word.Harper “sold us out,” Poilievre is “an asshole,” Conservatives “lost three elections that were handed to them,” and the convoy automatically disqualifies anyone forever. That isn’t independent thinking , that’s simply copy and paste outrage.Let’s deal with reality instead of your slogans.
Harper didn’t inherit a normal economy he inherited the 2008 global financial crash. Every major Western country ran deficits at that time. Pretending Canada could magically balance the budget in the middle of a worldwide recession is just rewriting history.Second, the idea that Conservatives were “handed three elections on a silver platter” is nonsense. The Liberals spent billions, ran constant fear campaigns about healthcare cuts and “American style politics,” and still barely held on in 2019 and 2021. That’s not dominance more lije survival.
And the convoy argument? Whether you supported it or not, millions of Canadians were frustrated with mandates, inflation, and government overreach. Dismissing all of them as extremists just proves you don’t want to understand why people voted the way they did.What really stands out in your comment isn’t facts , it’s resentment. You say Conservatives need to “learn from losing,” but the second someone actually challenges Liberal policies, you call them names and say you’ll never vote for them anyway. That’s not a principled voter. That’s someone who already made up their mind and is just trying to justify it.If the Liberals are so strong and the Conservatives are so terrible, you shouldn’t need insults to defend them. The fact that you do says everything .Yeah i know your not a liberal supporter however …..
Tell you what...explain where I'm wrong. Explain how FIPA is good for Canada. Explain how Andrew Scheer lost to Justin Trudeau after SNC. No one told me Pierre is an asshole...that is my personal opinion based on his comments, his interviews, his behaviour in the House, the way he ran his campaign and the blatant stupidity of his current beliefs. A tariff-free deal with this administration? Pierre is on crack. He blew a 20-point lead the day Trudeau's name came off the ballot, and you still can't see that he is unelectable. Expect a second lesson in 2029.
I said Harper never balanced when he had a majority....2011-2015. What you appear to be saying is the Liberals' spending money, even though the Conservatives had more to spend was unfair, and that they couldn't counter accusations that were made. Whose fault is that? What do you think politics is?
If you supported the Convoy, you are, by default, a stupid, ignorant, selfish asshole. 100% of the population was tired of COVID. 100% of the population wanted the restrictions to come off. So who makes major public health decisions? People who actually know about public health. The original complaint of the Convoy was unvaccinated truckers having to quarantine....except everyone going into the US had to be vaccinated, so the complaint was a moot point. Then, they signed on with Bauder. Then, they made life in Ottawa miserable, all because they're nothing more than a bunch of childish fools who decided they were public health experts...whose actions probably delayed restrictions that were already being reduced.
FWIW, I voted for Harper 3 times. I will not vote for Pierre. I would have voted for Erin, but the CPC told me not to. I voted for Trudeau in 2015 because Harper wanted to lose that election. Barbaric cultural practices hotline??? Andrew Scheer tried to copy Doug Ford and answer zero questions on the campaign. So I voted NDP; I did the same again in 2021. I don't have a party, and will never have a party. But I have no regret about voting for Carney because he was the only option. There are a lot of things going on right now that I am very frustrated by the pace of. But I do laugh when Conservatives complain about Carney stealing their policies. Shouldn't they be happy about that because they think it's good for the country, too? But no, they have to complain. So instead of whining like a crabby 5-year-old, pick a leader who actually has judgment: Pierre's is no better than Trudeau's, actually put out a costed platform more than 3 days before voting day, decide what you actually stand for and put it to the people.
And yes, you also sound exactly like the whining Conservative Scott was writing about.
There's a meme going around that basically says, imagine your reaction if Donald Trump was facing a Congress that was a few seats short of a Republican majority, and spent millions on certain districts to lure enough Democrat congressmen to switch parties to put him over the top. Yah. Imagine the Globe and Mail's reaction, and the knots they would twist themselves into to distinguish it from what is happening here.
Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election, including getting a mob to overrun the US Capitol during vote certification. Trying to get some MPs to cross the floor is nothing compared to the things Trump has done.
Trump wouldn't do that unless he got his cut. And if he's ever a few seats short of a majority, considering the damage he's done, he'll be impeached about 15 minutes later, and hopefully dragged into a courtroom before he's declared mentally unfit for trial. You're trying to compare apples and gorillas.
This was one of those "it will never happen" situations here as well, until recently.
I'd be very happy if all those things happened to Donald Trump, don't get me wrong, not least because he's made Canadian boomers go completely loopy. But he's exactly the kind of guy who would "convince" a few opponents that he's the right choice after all while everyone wonders how those opponents suddenly achieved really incredible and weird returns on niche crypto investments.
We will see if he really nukes Iceland mistaking it for Greenland in the next couple of years.
Otherwise I think the G. W. Bush Administration / Iraq War and the Great Financial Crisis will still probably be worse. Those weren't as insulting to Canada and violating to our warm little bubble of believed security and self-perception, I admit.
But maybe he will croak tomorrow. One can only dream.
I'll be curious how Americans react when the body bags start coming home from Iran in volume. The debt just hit $39 trillion. The next great financial crisis is right there on the horizon. He could croak tomorrow, but all that does is allow him to escape consequences again. Trump is just one head of the GOP hydra. They are clearly still all-in on white minority Christian rule as outlined in Project 2025. It won't make Americans smarter or change what they have shown themselves to be.
Ah, another long form version of "it's technically allowed so shut the hell up!" Popular with pro-Liberal apologists in the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail whenever Mark Carney absorbs another MP who mysteriously disavow every word they ever previously said, sometimes as recently as a few days previous, to join his government.
It's clear we've gone from quaint Westminster tradition to major loophole that's being abused to entrench government power. Governments, even minority ones, have power, money, and leverage that only they can wield, and can direct enough funds either legitimately or otherwise, to "convince" really any number of MP's to go their way.
Sure there have been floor crossings before. Most of these are meaningless historical footnotes. It is this "luring" that is largely unprecedented, both because we've seldom had a government this close to a majority, and because arguably previous governments have been more constrained by personal shame and a press more willing to call out slimy bullshit rather than excuse it. Given enough funds "directed to their riding" and a willingness to borrow and spend endlessly, I posit that any government could cover really any gap in support at this point now that we've opened Pandora's Box.
I'm sick of the particularly Canadian "it's always been this way so it can never change" bullshit. This only gets applied to conventions that support government, everything else is up for grabs. Other countries change how government does things when it's clear there is room for abuse. At the very least these defectors should be forced to sit as independents for the remainder of their terms.
And no I don't want Conservatives to form a majority this way either. Unlike Liberals they would be held to account by our journalistic friends for this slimy tactic and pay the price when up for re-election.
Floor crossing may be common but I would argue that it is not principled. When the member ran, the ticket he ran on represents the expectations of the people who voted for him. Flipping may indicate that when he got into the seat things were not as they seemed but more likely means that there was more personal opportunity on the other side. The blandish statements by those who switched seems to prove this.
Regardless of which way the flip occurred, we are entitled to be critical.
Just because one can do something doesn't mean one should. Parliamentarians are labeled "honourable" in the vain hope that they will behave honourably. Crossing the floor is a offence against voters, it is a show of contempt for the wishes of the voter. It is sleazy behaviour and it makes a mockery of the democratic process.
Scott Stinson is trying to put lipstick on a pig in the hope that it will not appear to be a pig.
Let's be very frank here. This is not the Liberal Party of yesterday .. that being 15+ years ago. That party was center- left. The current incarnation is FAR left, it eclipses the NDP. Pretending otherwise is completely naive. This party has a WEF / Davos agenda, led by a leader who continues to say he is NOT Canadian but European. His goals are easily found within his book Values and pretending that they are not is foolish.
Floor crossings are fine but looking at the latest tells a different story. Ma potentially has ties to the CPC (you know the country Carney said was the greatest security threat to Canada). Jeneroux's crossing should have forced a byelection immediately. Whether you like it or not, constituents do NOT vote for the candidate, they vote for the candidate that promises to represent them according to their values. Heck the guy is not even in Edmonton and gas no presence so how is he representing thos constituents? And the last, dumping millions into her riding and (potentially) interfering in a criminal case? That is something to watch out for
Bottom line, this is not the same old thing as the creator wants you to believe. So, he is definitely wrong about "this always happens, sore losers". You want to represent Canada, all well and good, the current government is NOT doing this. 100,000 lost jobs in 2 months? Keeping natural resources in the ground? Not getting a trade deal with our largest trading partner, which equates to billions of dollars and thousands of jobs? Good for Canada, no, not even close.
A bizarre alliance between the idle poor looking for handouts, bad faith migrants looking to benefit from our society without paying in, useful idiots brainwashed by propaganda about abortion, guns, "American style" healthcare and other shibboleths, out of touch boomers sitting on millions in assets with a high school education and a lifetime peak income of like $70K, and the unfathomably wealthy who benefit from government corruption and insider trading but also think they are morally superior because they can force others to lessen their standard of living to the supposed benefit of abstract causes. (Edit: oh, I almost forgot drug addicts, criminals, and myriad mid-level grifters). Really a foul smelling stew of the most harmful people for society.
Those who are hurt most are those trying to better themselves and get ahead. The working middle class and those trying desperately to compete with entrenched wealth. Those who want something better and are running on a treadmill of ever increasing speed.
I am getting tired of being told that floor crossing in the Westminster system is "legitimate" as though Line readers are a bunch of unsophisticated rubes who need to be repeatedly hit over the head with the point that under Westminster rules floor crossing is permissible. It is doubly annoying because this "point" elides the vastly more relevant point that the Westminster system as designed did not, as far as I know, contemplate that all MPs would be trained seals voting in lock step with their party on every vote of any consequence. THIS is why people are outraged by floor crossing - regardless of the theory, the reality is that the vast majority of voters cast a ballot for the party and not the individual. Put simply, the rules were designed for a system that no longer exists even though the system still retains the same name. To not confront that point is as disingenuous as the fanatics on both sides of the abortion debate who intentionally ignore the strongest points being made by their opponents.
The most legitimate points made in this piece are that the Conservatives who supported Emerson's defection have no legs to stand on and the Conservatives (not the public non-Conservative partisans) need to stop whining and deal with it. But those points do not in any way address the objections of those of us who were as outraged by the Emerson BS as we are by the current BS.
The system continues to exist as it did. We just use it differently. Personally I would prefer more independence for MPs and less party discipline, precisely because enshrining parties too heavily gives them far too much control over far too many things. Which is already a problem.
I think the Emerson BS was worse because it was closer to an election - the closer to the election, the less reasonable floor-crossing is. It is fair for an MP to change their mind or decide another party is a better fit or will represent their constituents better after months or years. Emerson made that decision in days. You literally could describe what he did as the worst example ever.
So look I say this as someone who should have been a winnable convert to the CPC in 2025 (early 40s dad who hated the Trudeau era of identity politics). I didn’t so much vote for the LPC in 2025 as I voted against the CPC — specifically Poilievre’s support for the Ottawa trucker occupation, and his refusal to, frankly, be angry enough at US threats to our sovereignty and to show some backbone even at economic cost to us.
That said: Carney has been in for a year now and nothing has moved on permitting. And Poilievre is sounding a lot more reasonable. The trucker convoy memory is receding into the past, PP on Rogan refused to say anything against Canada on foreign soil, etc.
I think the issue now is that it’s hard for the CPC to differentiate themselves. On all the cultural stuff — support for the military, backing off on youth gender transitions, backing off on attacking oil and gas as a moral issue — Carney is already squarely in 90s Liberal / Progressive Conservative territory.
How best for CPC to differentiate themselves? The main one for me is on resource project permitting. It’s Carney’s main weakness. Nothing is yet moving in Canada! But: I think PP’s people know well that it’s a high-voltage wire because of the First Nations issue. That’s why they aren’t saying any specifics and why Canadians are letting Carney get away with basically zero progress on permitting.
Your statement shows the power of the MSM propaganda. Truckers were not close to the crazy or real threatening the Palestinians have been for years. Trump chirped us, calling us the 51st state after Trudeau called us that and we lost the mental game. It was a chirp, not a real threat and everyone knows it. Pollieve for anyone able to listen has been consistent on Trump and policy since before election. Carney flipped and has basically done what Pierre said he would. Carney just travels alot more.
Look, I’m sure we’ll never agree on this stuff. I have my opinion on the threat of the trucker occupation relative to the palestinian stuff, you have yours.
Likewise on the U.S. threat to Canada. It may start as a way to taunt Trudeau but if there’s no pushback, maybe it becomes more. We needed to respond strongly and Carney did (especially with the Davos speech that really got under Trump’s skin) and PP didn’t. I am sure we won’t ever agree on this either.
But don’t insult me by saying I am somehow just parroting what the “MSM” says. I think for myself, I’m sure you do too.
Odd. I would be far more concerned about the threat to civil rights from a Prime Minister who supported the illegal invocation of the Emergencies Act than one who opposed it.
For me, Carney is riding high in the polls because he doesn't have a likeability problem. Carney is likeable if not boring as hell and likeable. Also, the CPC has a leadership challenge happening in real time, I think, with Jamil Jivani.
PP has been on Ottawa for two decades and during that time he was an attack dog. People remember that kind of thing. You do not get a second change to make a good first impression. What PP is doing now he should have been doing from the get go.
It's nice to see the human side. It's nice to see that dog in the alley wagging its tail. That dog might just attack you and PP might go into his attack dog mode.
Are you asking him to pay nice? We have a government acting in a fascist near communist way. Carney is not anything Canadian, he continues to say he is European, continues to push WEF / Davos agenda, continues to get close to the country he said is Canada's greatest security threat. Finally he went out of his way to ensure Canada would not get a trade deal with US, costing billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.
Finally, Carney saying Canada would not get involved in Iran and yet he signed onto keeping the Strait of Hormuz open .. that is getting involved in foreign soil.
As to the Freedom Convoy, fading? Carney is appealing to the Supreme Court about his government over reach! Try reading bills C 2, 8, 9 .. these impact Canadians directly.
David, whenever people in the comments section start throwing around phrases like: "We have a government acting in a fascist near communist way", it's time to step away from the computer. That's not Canada and you know it. Is there government overreach? Of course there is but that isn't fascism. Nobody is being marched off to the Canadian gulag on Baffin Island. If anything we have gutless government at all levels who are doing diddly squat about the poison of antisemitism across the country and nobody enforcing the law. Sort of makes laws kind of moot, I guess.
All quite correct if not very palatable to Conservatives. What's harder to accept is the support that Carney has despite having simply carried on with the Trudeau agenda. Investment has dried up, productivity continues to fall, the military is still as lame as ever, regulations continue to strangle infrastructure and resource development all while deficits continue to pile up. We have bad government and the Conservatives seem powerless to oppose it.
Canadian voting habits are a perfect illustration of Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
So, your advice is to stay schtum and oh well it’s all legitimate and Harper did it …Oh boy. Excuse me while I scurry around looking for my Conservative membership card. I’m preparing to vote Blue more than ever.
I think he’s just saying its not a functional way to drive support. Some people might care about this, but they’re most likely voting Conservative or NDP already. I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who could vote either way deciding to switch their vote based solely on this and airtime and campaign dollars being finite things, there is an opportunity cost to spending a lot of effort on this issue.
Put another way, the opposition should roll over and just passively accept that the government bought a majority government in a totally unique and unprecedented way.
A government with a major history of democratic backsliding and underhanded tactics like paying off the media with hundreds of millions in subsidies, and literally everything they did between Trudeau announcing resignation and Mark Carney being (re?) elected in April 2025.
"Oh well, it's all technically allowed so can't complain about it. Shrug shoulders. The media aren't objecting so why should anyone?"
And the fucked up part is that the article is correct that Conservatives are in a way benefiting from these defections. These lessen the chance of an immediate election in which they would be wiped out because the world has gone insane, up is down, and the real issues the country faces are drowned out by noise, neck-deep propaganda, and emotional nonsense. It still doesn't make majority-by-floor-crossing any more ethically legitimate.
Yes, yes, Trump is Literally Hitler and the number one issue is who can best muster a towering moralistic rage about his latest bullshit eruption, while absolutely impotent to stop it and doing nothing meaningful to fix the problems we can handle at home (and certainly none that would cost any votes). Elbows up!
That's a very apt description. He's using the identical playbook, as well. What is a true pity is that you're addressing reality as if it's sarcasm. Pivoting your economy away from a no longer reliable number 1 trading partner doesn't happen with a magic wand. And no, a pipeline to Prince Rupert doesn't solve all of Canada's problems. FWIW, I'm frustrated by the pace too, and wish democracy could go faster.
You seem to be missing the point. I’m fine with Poillievre (or anyone) objecting to this or proposing a solution to this. My issue is making this the focus and campaigning on this. The Democrats lost against Trump because they couldn’t understand how the people weren’t as outraged as they were about how Trump ignored norms and they wasted way too much time and energy calling out things no one cares about making it really easy to paint them as out of touch. The battle over the Supreme Court is a great example of this. McConnell essentially stole two seats on the court based on norms, but focusing on that was a huge mistake for the Dems. People want solutions, not bitching about the rules.
Poillievre is a political lifer, and while I wouldn’t call him out of touch, it will be very easy for him to get sucked into this because he lives this world and a lot of his main supporters are outraged over this.
What I’m saying is that the people deciding whether to vote Conservative or Liberal in the next election aren’t going to care about this. If you have to choose between spending advertising money or air time on the economy or this, the answer should be an easy one.
I'm not sure Conservatives are making as huge a deal of this as the author of this article is saying. But fair enough I guess, for now at least this is inside baseball, though on the other hand it hasn't technically happened yet.
Getting a majority this way could still bite the Liberals in the ass if they become unpopular or the general economy tanks. One poll found that over 50% considered it "underhanded" to do this.
Also the Democrats didn't lose because they focused on technical unfairness, or it wasn't a big reason. They lost because they hid Joe Biden's apparent cognitive decline and didn't leave enough time to replace his charisma-free diversity hire VP with a more viable candidate and/or someone who was able to get out from under a very lacklustre and unpopular legacy (deserved or not). It was an absurd own-goal and now we have to all live with the disastrous results.
Show me one single example of these so-called "Tory complaints about the fact that the coming by-elections could secure a Carney majority".
There is a very good chance this genre of "It's the Westminster system stupid" punditry is going to age like milk. If Carney secures a majority he will need to prorogue Parliament to reset the make up of Parliamentary committees. Shortly after that several Liberal MPs will resign, like Nate and Blair, and Carney will technically be in a minority, except he won't prorogue to re-rebalance the House. If we end up with a fake majority Parliament, while Liberals hold a minority of seats, some pundits are going to have to explain how they enabled this democratic disaster.
Well. This article brings us to the edge of the corrupt cesspool where we can stand and look at the corrupt suppurating cesspool that is the "Liberal" Party of Canada. Now led by an extremely overhyped lifelong thief of credit that belongs to other people, a serial liar who at Goldman Sachs, an institution of dubious quality and purpose, learned how to be a white collar corrupt grifter and get away with it.
The stench of a dystopian "Liberal" wokey hard-left dictatorship is getting stronger and stronger. May the brave author be stuck at the edge of that corrupt suppurating cesspool for a very long time breathing the fumes for a learning experience.
Don't need to win the election as long as you pick a party leader with a personal fortune and enough chutzpah and jurisdictional flexibility to bribe public officials with trips, positions, and private compensation packages.
Bribery of members of the legislature is a serious crime and a problem when its happening openly in democracy.
Ignoring it is loser talk, Conservatives are exactly right to focus on the Tamany Hall-level of corruption within the Liberal party, especially Carney's liberals. Gomery is what brought down the Liberal party the last time, who knows how many manila envelopes of cash are going around this time?
The very fact that writers are trying to tell the conservatives not to push on the corruption angle is evidence that there's blood in the water.
Why vote when Carney will just use his foreign fortune to bribe members of the legislature to do what he wants?
Canada's federal deficit-to-GDP ratios and net debt levels are amongst the lowest in the G7 - much lower than the US. Overall government gross debt (including provincial/municipal and household) is much higher. Foreign Direct Investment actually increased in 2025. Foreign agreements with respect to energy, trade, and defense have been signed with India, Japan, Mexico, Indonesia, China, UAE, Qatar, ASEAN - to name only some. Progress is being made with respect to the military, defunding of which began long before Trudeau. The PM and premiers meet now - another big change from the Trudeau years. It is not hard to understand the polls; most Canadians recognize the change and do not find the Conservative message that nothing works to be either truthful or compelling.
Look how glossy and colour sensitive is this lipstick, how masterfully applied. Stand back and admire how attractive it is, how appealing to the beauticians among us who can appreciate the skill and speed of implementation and the display of the process. Look at the majority of us who see all this and can now say with higher confidence of just how much better this pig looks.
There is one inconvenient fact that this article omits: never has an outright majority be won through floor crossings and it would behoove us to investigate what those floor crossers were promised for them to switch, because those backroom deals stink to high heaven.
If they have nothing to hide, the liberals should welcome these investigations.
I think we should be outright worried about his implementation of globalist policies as outline in his own book: return of the carbon tax, no more pipelines, more liberticide laws, etc.
Emerson flipped for a cabinet position. I think Stronarch did too. That’s essentially a bribe to me, so why is this different? The MPs that flipped have all seemed to do so because of disagreements with current party leadership. Jeneroux was set to retire before deciding to stay on and flip instead.
Michael Ma was elected only months earlier, had no public (or apparent private) beef with party leadership, and notoriously attended both parties' Christmas party. Nothing suspicious there...
Prior governments weren't actively recruiting for a majority. This has never happened anywhere in Canada at any level before and our journalistic class is refusing to make that distinction.
If you deal with Chinese (and often Asians in general), especially first generation, its not generally their style to criticize leadership openly. The lack of public attacks on Poillievre could just be a cultural thing.
I think your second comment isn’t a great one. Ma was born in Hong Kong and moved to Canada as a 12 year old. He ran against that Liberal clown who suggested another candidate should be turned into the Chinese consolate for a reward and the immediate assumption is that Ma’s a Chinese asset?
If the Conservatives had any reason to believe this was true, they would have almost certainly made it public by now. Even if they failed in vetting him, they’ve likely looked at him pretty deeply by now looking for dirt.
Meanwhile, D’Entremont was open in his criticism of leadership, Jeneroux initially planned to retire over his issues with leadership.
In NDP world, Idlout doesn’t seem to have an issue with leadership, but does seem to be leveraging her crossing to gain more power for her riding. As someone not in her riding, I don’t love it. However, to a large extent she’s doing her job as this is likely bringing real benefits for her riding,
Don`t you mean the liberal propaganda media?
Increasingly closer to a perfect circle Venn diagram
🙄
What about People’s Republic of China assistance with Mr Ma’s election? And PM Carney’s rapprochement with the PRC? Chinese EVs proposed for Canadian military bases. All coincidences of course. 😆😆😆
He should never have been CPC candidate in my view. Total failure of vetting. Or it's impossible to get a candidate in his riding that isn't connected to the Chinese government, which is even more concerning...
In both your cases, it was very evident what they got for crossing the floor.
In the current situation, much less so.
It will be the by elections that get him over the line. If Canadians are actually outraged by floor crossings, they can certainly send a message in those three by elections and keep Carney in a minority. But, as this article very fairly points out, most voters dont give a rip about floor crossings. They happen from time to time with both major parties ,and its part of the parliamentary system. what Conservatives are screwing up is looking in the mirror.. why are MPS leaving, and why are the polls not being affected by this? And, if the Libs get 2 out of 3 of those by elections (likely), is their party really complaining about the things that matter. Sour grapes (which is the over whelming calling card of online conservatives and comment accounts) doesn't win elections most of the time. I watched PP on Rogan, and he is great in that format. A really good dude. He was positive, hopeful, upbeat , and relatable. But his online supporters keep playing this violin online , being rude and doom and gloom, and its killing the partys chances.
The globalist position started with Mulroney in 1980s. I call it neoliberalism but commonly known as Reaganomics or Thatcherism or trickle down. Wealth for workers was promised but never happened as the wealthy captured 90% of productivity gain vs 50 % under Keynes.
And we just follow along with no understanding of our parliamentary system, of economics or the simple Poilievre and the Conservatives promise a lot more of same. Poilievre quoted that the federal government should only be responsible for building roads and bridges and defense.
Imagine Canada as a poor USA with no and I mean zero social benefits like Medicare, public education (privatization already underway in Alberta), no OAS, no daycare ,welfare, public or social housing. An on your own society where 50 % hardly make a living wage even with 2 workers. Uncontrolled rent, Uncontrolled REIT investment in housing, no forethought as to how housing costs in future will be affordable and a lacking of the slow insidious exponential increase of climate change which few in Alberta even believe.
At least Carney aware of these issues while Poilievre, Manning and Harper want a social conservative and fiscal conservative all at once.
Thanks David for generously broadening the conversation to irrelevant economic history. How thoughtful of you to skip right over those awkward floor-crossing details.
And thank you AM for an astonishing capacity to miss the point of the article.
The floor-crossings are not “awkward” - they’ve been going on since the Westminster System birthed party politics. Voters largely do not care about them, no matter what colours are being dropped or donned.
I am no fan of a stagnant LPC that cannot get one foot in front of the other on anything like a consistent basis, but listening to the never-ending victimhood of the CPC is just as stale.
If you want to see conspiracies everywhere, that’s your business. It informs nothing, and it ain’t new.
This opinion piece isn’t analysis , it’s pure partisan fanfiction dressed up like “sports metaphors.”
Scott bends over backwards to defend Mark Carney while pretending that anyone who questions backroom political manoeuvring is just whining. That’s basically cheerleading for the Liberal Party of Canada.
And the hypocrisy is wild. The piece lectures Pierre Poilievre about how Parliament works ,like Canadians are too dumb to notice (they are however easily manipulated and lower educated)when power is being stitched together through defections and political deals instead of voters. Apparently calling that out is “loser talk,” but defending it is somehow noble? Please !
The attempt to rewrite history is just as bad. When Stephen Harper took heat for proroguing Parliament or putting David Emerson straight into cabinet after crossing the floor, the media screamed about democratic norms for months. Now that the Liberals benefit, suddenly it’s all “perfectly legitimate” and anyone who questions it is bitter. That’s not consistency again that’s pure bias.
What this opinion piece really says is simple.
If your side gains power through political manoeuvring, it’s strategy; if the other side complains, they’re losers. That’s not a serious argument. It’s just lazy spin trying to normalize whatever helps Carney stay in power.
You sound exactly like the Conservatives he described in the article. There's a reason the Conservatives lost, and they kept him as leader anyway...proving they haven't learned from their mistakes, going back to Andrew Scheer.
I am not sure you understand how revolting your comment and Stinson's article are outside your Liberal echo chamber. No mention of Canada's prosperity, just celebrating political calculations. Pride in a Canada who celebrates the win on a technicality is for the real losers. Enjoy your gloating for another 10 years until the boomers die off. We'll see then if the stripped, foreign owned, indebted hulk of Canada is worth saving and if there is any talent left to accomplish it or if we'll remain a branch plant to the thriving world leaders.
I'm not a Liberal, nor am I living in an echo chamber. But it describes perfectly the mindset laid out in my first comment. But just to be clear, Harper sold us out with FIPA, sold the Wheat Board, and never balanced a budget while he had a majority. I'm still waiting for Conservatives, who complain incessantly that Carney has stolen Pierre's ideas, and that they hate them now, to tell us who they really are. They currently offer very little. So I'm not sure how you have the audacity to profess such arrogance when you found ways to lose three elections in a row that were handed to you on a silver platter, and kept the guy who begged for an election, and then blew a 20-point lead. I understand the frustration, but instead of complaining about why you lost, learn from it, and come out with a non-asshole for a leader, and policies that Canadians can get behind. You sound like you're blaming the Liberals for winning. There are no technicalities here. That people are abandoning Pierre shows common sense. He is, as mentioned, an asshole. He proved it when he supported the Convoy. For that reason alone, I will never vote for him.....and I didn't want to vote Liberal in 2025, but I'm glad I did. The CPC didn't give me any other choice. We'll talk again in 2033.
What’s hilariousis you claim you’re “not in an echo chamber,” yet you just repeated every tired talking point word for word.Harper “sold us out,” Poilievre is “an asshole,” Conservatives “lost three elections that were handed to them,” and the convoy automatically disqualifies anyone forever. That isn’t independent thinking , that’s simply copy and paste outrage.Let’s deal with reality instead of your slogans.
Harper didn’t inherit a normal economy he inherited the 2008 global financial crash. Every major Western country ran deficits at that time. Pretending Canada could magically balance the budget in the middle of a worldwide recession is just rewriting history.Second, the idea that Conservatives were “handed three elections on a silver platter” is nonsense. The Liberals spent billions, ran constant fear campaigns about healthcare cuts and “American style politics,” and still barely held on in 2019 and 2021. That’s not dominance more lije survival.
And the convoy argument? Whether you supported it or not, millions of Canadians were frustrated with mandates, inflation, and government overreach. Dismissing all of them as extremists just proves you don’t want to understand why people voted the way they did.What really stands out in your comment isn’t facts , it’s resentment. You say Conservatives need to “learn from losing,” but the second someone actually challenges Liberal policies, you call them names and say you’ll never vote for them anyway. That’s not a principled voter. That’s someone who already made up their mind and is just trying to justify it.If the Liberals are so strong and the Conservatives are so terrible, you shouldn’t need insults to defend them. The fact that you do says everything .Yeah i know your not a liberal supporter however …..
Tell you what...explain where I'm wrong. Explain how FIPA is good for Canada. Explain how Andrew Scheer lost to Justin Trudeau after SNC. No one told me Pierre is an asshole...that is my personal opinion based on his comments, his interviews, his behaviour in the House, the way he ran his campaign and the blatant stupidity of his current beliefs. A tariff-free deal with this administration? Pierre is on crack. He blew a 20-point lead the day Trudeau's name came off the ballot, and you still can't see that he is unelectable. Expect a second lesson in 2029.
I said Harper never balanced when he had a majority....2011-2015. What you appear to be saying is the Liberals' spending money, even though the Conservatives had more to spend was unfair, and that they couldn't counter accusations that were made. Whose fault is that? What do you think politics is?
If you supported the Convoy, you are, by default, a stupid, ignorant, selfish asshole. 100% of the population was tired of COVID. 100% of the population wanted the restrictions to come off. So who makes major public health decisions? People who actually know about public health. The original complaint of the Convoy was unvaccinated truckers having to quarantine....except everyone going into the US had to be vaccinated, so the complaint was a moot point. Then, they signed on with Bauder. Then, they made life in Ottawa miserable, all because they're nothing more than a bunch of childish fools who decided they were public health experts...whose actions probably delayed restrictions that were already being reduced.
FWIW, I voted for Harper 3 times. I will not vote for Pierre. I would have voted for Erin, but the CPC told me not to. I voted for Trudeau in 2015 because Harper wanted to lose that election. Barbaric cultural practices hotline??? Andrew Scheer tried to copy Doug Ford and answer zero questions on the campaign. So I voted NDP; I did the same again in 2021. I don't have a party, and will never have a party. But I have no regret about voting for Carney because he was the only option. There are a lot of things going on right now that I am very frustrated by the pace of. But I do laugh when Conservatives complain about Carney stealing their policies. Shouldn't they be happy about that because they think it's good for the country, too? But no, they have to complain. So instead of whining like a crabby 5-year-old, pick a leader who actually has judgment: Pierre's is no better than Trudeau's, actually put out a costed platform more than 3 days before voting day, decide what you actually stand for and put it to the people.
And yes, you also sound exactly like the whining Conservative Scott was writing about.
There's a meme going around that basically says, imagine your reaction if Donald Trump was facing a Congress that was a few seats short of a Republican majority, and spent millions on certain districts to lure enough Democrat congressmen to switch parties to put him over the top. Yah. Imagine the Globe and Mail's reaction, and the knots they would twist themselves into to distinguish it from what is happening here.
TDS is real. It can't be added to the DSM soon enough.
Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election, including getting a mob to overrun the US Capitol during vote certification. Trying to get some MPs to cross the floor is nothing compared to the things Trump has done.
Looks like there is red herring served for dinner.
Trump joking about annexing Canada was basically 9/11 for Canadian boomers.
Trump wouldn't do that unless he got his cut. And if he's ever a few seats short of a majority, considering the damage he's done, he'll be impeached about 15 minutes later, and hopefully dragged into a courtroom before he's declared mentally unfit for trial. You're trying to compare apples and gorillas.
This was one of those "it will never happen" situations here as well, until recently.
I'd be very happy if all those things happened to Donald Trump, don't get me wrong, not least because he's made Canadian boomers go completely loopy. But he's exactly the kind of guy who would "convince" a few opponents that he's the right choice after all while everyone wonders how those opponents suddenly achieved really incredible and weird returns on niche crypto investments.
All of which will be determined to be illegal if America becomes a democracy again. America will need 50 years to recover from this last 14 months.
We will see if he really nukes Iceland mistaking it for Greenland in the next couple of years.
Otherwise I think the G. W. Bush Administration / Iraq War and the Great Financial Crisis will still probably be worse. Those weren't as insulting to Canada and violating to our warm little bubble of believed security and self-perception, I admit.
But maybe he will croak tomorrow. One can only dream.
I'll be curious how Americans react when the body bags start coming home from Iran in volume. The debt just hit $39 trillion. The next great financial crisis is right there on the horizon. He could croak tomorrow, but all that does is allow him to escape consequences again. Trump is just one head of the GOP hydra. They are clearly still all-in on white minority Christian rule as outlined in Project 2025. It won't make Americans smarter or change what they have shown themselves to be.
Stinson just joined McDougall in the list of the line columnists to ignore.
Andy well done. 👍
Ah, another long form version of "it's technically allowed so shut the hell up!" Popular with pro-Liberal apologists in the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail whenever Mark Carney absorbs another MP who mysteriously disavow every word they ever previously said, sometimes as recently as a few days previous, to join his government.
It's clear we've gone from quaint Westminster tradition to major loophole that's being abused to entrench government power. Governments, even minority ones, have power, money, and leverage that only they can wield, and can direct enough funds either legitimately or otherwise, to "convince" really any number of MP's to go their way.
Sure there have been floor crossings before. Most of these are meaningless historical footnotes. It is this "luring" that is largely unprecedented, both because we've seldom had a government this close to a majority, and because arguably previous governments have been more constrained by personal shame and a press more willing to call out slimy bullshit rather than excuse it. Given enough funds "directed to their riding" and a willingness to borrow and spend endlessly, I posit that any government could cover really any gap in support at this point now that we've opened Pandora's Box.
I'm sick of the particularly Canadian "it's always been this way so it can never change" bullshit. This only gets applied to conventions that support government, everything else is up for grabs. Other countries change how government does things when it's clear there is room for abuse. At the very least these defectors should be forced to sit as independents for the remainder of their terms.
And no I don't want Conservatives to form a majority this way either. Unlike Liberals they would be held to account by our journalistic friends for this slimy tactic and pay the price when up for re-election.
Floor crossing may be common but I would argue that it is not principled. When the member ran, the ticket he ran on represents the expectations of the people who voted for him. Flipping may indicate that when he got into the seat things were not as they seemed but more likely means that there was more personal opportunity on the other side. The blandish statements by those who switched seems to prove this.
Regardless of which way the flip occurred, we are entitled to be critical.
Just because one can do something doesn't mean one should. Parliamentarians are labeled "honourable" in the vain hope that they will behave honourably. Crossing the floor is a offence against voters, it is a show of contempt for the wishes of the voter. It is sleazy behaviour and it makes a mockery of the democratic process.
Scott Stinson is trying to put lipstick on a pig in the hope that it will not appear to be a pig.
Let's be very frank here. This is not the Liberal Party of yesterday .. that being 15+ years ago. That party was center- left. The current incarnation is FAR left, it eclipses the NDP. Pretending otherwise is completely naive. This party has a WEF / Davos agenda, led by a leader who continues to say he is NOT Canadian but European. His goals are easily found within his book Values and pretending that they are not is foolish.
Floor crossings are fine but looking at the latest tells a different story. Ma potentially has ties to the CPC (you know the country Carney said was the greatest security threat to Canada). Jeneroux's crossing should have forced a byelection immediately. Whether you like it or not, constituents do NOT vote for the candidate, they vote for the candidate that promises to represent them according to their values. Heck the guy is not even in Edmonton and gas no presence so how is he representing thos constituents? And the last, dumping millions into her riding and (potentially) interfering in a criminal case? That is something to watch out for
Bottom line, this is not the same old thing as the creator wants you to believe. So, he is definitely wrong about "this always happens, sore losers". You want to represent Canada, all well and good, the current government is NOT doing this. 100,000 lost jobs in 2 months? Keeping natural resources in the ground? Not getting a trade deal with our largest trading partner, which equates to billions of dollars and thousands of jobs? Good for Canada, no, not even close.
It's a weird squishy brand of leftism, isn't it.
A bizarre alliance between the idle poor looking for handouts, bad faith migrants looking to benefit from our society without paying in, useful idiots brainwashed by propaganda about abortion, guns, "American style" healthcare and other shibboleths, out of touch boomers sitting on millions in assets with a high school education and a lifetime peak income of like $70K, and the unfathomably wealthy who benefit from government corruption and insider trading but also think they are morally superior because they can force others to lessen their standard of living to the supposed benefit of abstract causes. (Edit: oh, I almost forgot drug addicts, criminals, and myriad mid-level grifters). Really a foul smelling stew of the most harmful people for society.
Those who are hurt most are those trying to better themselves and get ahead. The working middle class and those trying desperately to compete with entrenched wealth. Those who want something better and are running on a treadmill of ever increasing speed.
I am getting tired of being told that floor crossing in the Westminster system is "legitimate" as though Line readers are a bunch of unsophisticated rubes who need to be repeatedly hit over the head with the point that under Westminster rules floor crossing is permissible. It is doubly annoying because this "point" elides the vastly more relevant point that the Westminster system as designed did not, as far as I know, contemplate that all MPs would be trained seals voting in lock step with their party on every vote of any consequence. THIS is why people are outraged by floor crossing - regardless of the theory, the reality is that the vast majority of voters cast a ballot for the party and not the individual. Put simply, the rules were designed for a system that no longer exists even though the system still retains the same name. To not confront that point is as disingenuous as the fanatics on both sides of the abortion debate who intentionally ignore the strongest points being made by their opponents.
The most legitimate points made in this piece are that the Conservatives who supported Emerson's defection have no legs to stand on and the Conservatives (not the public non-Conservative partisans) need to stop whining and deal with it. But those points do not in any way address the objections of those of us who were as outraged by the Emerson BS as we are by the current BS.
The system continues to exist as it did. We just use it differently. Personally I would prefer more independence for MPs and less party discipline, precisely because enshrining parties too heavily gives them far too much control over far too many things. Which is already a problem.
I think the Emerson BS was worse because it was closer to an election - the closer to the election, the less reasonable floor-crossing is. It is fair for an MP to change their mind or decide another party is a better fit or will represent their constituents better after months or years. Emerson made that decision in days. You literally could describe what he did as the worst example ever.
So look I say this as someone who should have been a winnable convert to the CPC in 2025 (early 40s dad who hated the Trudeau era of identity politics). I didn’t so much vote for the LPC in 2025 as I voted against the CPC — specifically Poilievre’s support for the Ottawa trucker occupation, and his refusal to, frankly, be angry enough at US threats to our sovereignty and to show some backbone even at economic cost to us.
That said: Carney has been in for a year now and nothing has moved on permitting. And Poilievre is sounding a lot more reasonable. The trucker convoy memory is receding into the past, PP on Rogan refused to say anything against Canada on foreign soil, etc.
I think the issue now is that it’s hard for the CPC to differentiate themselves. On all the cultural stuff — support for the military, backing off on youth gender transitions, backing off on attacking oil and gas as a moral issue — Carney is already squarely in 90s Liberal / Progressive Conservative territory.
How best for CPC to differentiate themselves? The main one for me is on resource project permitting. It’s Carney’s main weakness. Nothing is yet moving in Canada! But: I think PP’s people know well that it’s a high-voltage wire because of the First Nations issue. That’s why they aren’t saying any specifics and why Canadians are letting Carney get away with basically zero progress on permitting.
Your statement shows the power of the MSM propaganda. Truckers were not close to the crazy or real threatening the Palestinians have been for years. Trump chirped us, calling us the 51st state after Trudeau called us that and we lost the mental game. It was a chirp, not a real threat and everyone knows it. Pollieve for anyone able to listen has been consistent on Trump and policy since before election. Carney flipped and has basically done what Pierre said he would. Carney just travels alot more.
Look, I’m sure we’ll never agree on this stuff. I have my opinion on the threat of the trucker occupation relative to the palestinian stuff, you have yours.
Likewise on the U.S. threat to Canada. It may start as a way to taunt Trudeau but if there’s no pushback, maybe it becomes more. We needed to respond strongly and Carney did (especially with the Davos speech that really got under Trump’s skin) and PP didn’t. I am sure we won’t ever agree on this either.
But don’t insult me by saying I am somehow just parroting what the “MSM” says. I think for myself, I’m sure you do too.
Odd. I would be far more concerned about the threat to civil rights from a Prime Minister who supported the illegal invocation of the Emergencies Act than one who opposed it.
For me, Carney is riding high in the polls because he doesn't have a likeability problem. Carney is likeable if not boring as hell and likeable. Also, the CPC has a leadership challenge happening in real time, I think, with Jamil Jivani.
PP has been on Ottawa for two decades and during that time he was an attack dog. People remember that kind of thing. You do not get a second change to make a good first impression. What PP is doing now he should have been doing from the get go.
It's nice to see the human side. It's nice to see that dog in the alley wagging its tail. That dog might just attack you and PP might go into his attack dog mode.
Are you asking him to pay nice? We have a government acting in a fascist near communist way. Carney is not anything Canadian, he continues to say he is European, continues to push WEF / Davos agenda, continues to get close to the country he said is Canada's greatest security threat. Finally he went out of his way to ensure Canada would not get a trade deal with US, costing billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.
Finally, Carney saying Canada would not get involved in Iran and yet he signed onto keeping the Strait of Hormuz open .. that is getting involved in foreign soil.
As to the Freedom Convoy, fading? Carney is appealing to the Supreme Court about his government over reach! Try reading bills C 2, 8, 9 .. these impact Canadians directly.
David, whenever people in the comments section start throwing around phrases like: "We have a government acting in a fascist near communist way", it's time to step away from the computer. That's not Canada and you know it. Is there government overreach? Of course there is but that isn't fascism. Nobody is being marched off to the Canadian gulag on Baffin Island. If anything we have gutless government at all levels who are doing diddly squat about the poison of antisemitism across the country and nobody enforcing the law. Sort of makes laws kind of moot, I guess.
All quite correct if not very palatable to Conservatives. What's harder to accept is the support that Carney has despite having simply carried on with the Trudeau agenda. Investment has dried up, productivity continues to fall, the military is still as lame as ever, regulations continue to strangle infrastructure and resource development all while deficits continue to pile up. We have bad government and the Conservatives seem powerless to oppose it.
This is the VOTERS FAULT !!!
Canadian voting habits are a perfect illustration of Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
So, your advice is to stay schtum and oh well it’s all legitimate and Harper did it …Oh boy. Excuse me while I scurry around looking for my Conservative membership card. I’m preparing to vote Blue more than ever.
I think he’s just saying its not a functional way to drive support. Some people might care about this, but they’re most likely voting Conservative or NDP already. I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who could vote either way deciding to switch their vote based solely on this and airtime and campaign dollars being finite things, there is an opportunity cost to spending a lot of effort on this issue.
Put another way, the opposition should roll over and just passively accept that the government bought a majority government in a totally unique and unprecedented way.
A government with a major history of democratic backsliding and underhanded tactics like paying off the media with hundreds of millions in subsidies, and literally everything they did between Trudeau announcing resignation and Mark Carney being (re?) elected in April 2025.
"Oh well, it's all technically allowed so can't complain about it. Shrug shoulders. The media aren't objecting so why should anyone?"
And the fucked up part is that the article is correct that Conservatives are in a way benefiting from these defections. These lessen the chance of an immediate election in which they would be wiped out because the world has gone insane, up is down, and the real issues the country faces are drowned out by noise, neck-deep propaganda, and emotional nonsense. It still doesn't make majority-by-floor-crossing any more ethically legitimate.
It's almost like you can't see, or accept, that the world has changed completely since January 20, 2025. It has.
Yes, yes, Trump is Literally Hitler and the number one issue is who can best muster a towering moralistic rage about his latest bullshit eruption, while absolutely impotent to stop it and doing nothing meaningful to fix the problems we can handle at home (and certainly none that would cost any votes). Elbows up!
That's a very apt description. He's using the identical playbook, as well. What is a true pity is that you're addressing reality as if it's sarcasm. Pivoting your economy away from a no longer reliable number 1 trading partner doesn't happen with a magic wand. And no, a pipeline to Prince Rupert doesn't solve all of Canada's problems. FWIW, I'm frustrated by the pace too, and wish democracy could go faster.
You seem to be missing the point. I’m fine with Poillievre (or anyone) objecting to this or proposing a solution to this. My issue is making this the focus and campaigning on this. The Democrats lost against Trump because they couldn’t understand how the people weren’t as outraged as they were about how Trump ignored norms and they wasted way too much time and energy calling out things no one cares about making it really easy to paint them as out of touch. The battle over the Supreme Court is a great example of this. McConnell essentially stole two seats on the court based on norms, but focusing on that was a huge mistake for the Dems. People want solutions, not bitching about the rules.
Poillievre is a political lifer, and while I wouldn’t call him out of touch, it will be very easy for him to get sucked into this because he lives this world and a lot of his main supporters are outraged over this.
What I’m saying is that the people deciding whether to vote Conservative or Liberal in the next election aren’t going to care about this. If you have to choose between spending advertising money or air time on the economy or this, the answer should be an easy one.
I'm not sure Conservatives are making as huge a deal of this as the author of this article is saying. But fair enough I guess, for now at least this is inside baseball, though on the other hand it hasn't technically happened yet.
Getting a majority this way could still bite the Liberals in the ass if they become unpopular or the general economy tanks. One poll found that over 50% considered it "underhanded" to do this.
Also the Democrats didn't lose because they focused on technical unfairness, or it wasn't a big reason. They lost because they hid Joe Biden's apparent cognitive decline and didn't leave enough time to replace his charisma-free diversity hire VP with a more viable candidate and/or someone who was able to get out from under a very lacklustre and unpopular legacy (deserved or not). It was an absurd own-goal and now we have to all live with the disastrous results.
Weird choice of image, considering that this article was obviously written well before the Rogan podcast.
Show me one single example of these so-called "Tory complaints about the fact that the coming by-elections could secure a Carney majority".
There is a very good chance this genre of "It's the Westminster system stupid" punditry is going to age like milk. If Carney secures a majority he will need to prorogue Parliament to reset the make up of Parliamentary committees. Shortly after that several Liberal MPs will resign, like Nate and Blair, and Carney will technically be in a minority, except he won't prorogue to re-rebalance the House. If we end up with a fake majority Parliament, while Liberals hold a minority of seats, some pundits are going to have to explain how they enabled this democratic disaster.
I did not realize they needed to prorogue to re-set the committees. Thanks for this important nugget of info!
Well. This article brings us to the edge of the corrupt cesspool where we can stand and look at the corrupt suppurating cesspool that is the "Liberal" Party of Canada. Now led by an extremely overhyped lifelong thief of credit that belongs to other people, a serial liar who at Goldman Sachs, an institution of dubious quality and purpose, learned how to be a white collar corrupt grifter and get away with it.
The stench of a dystopian "Liberal" wokey hard-left dictatorship is getting stronger and stronger. May the brave author be stuck at the edge of that corrupt suppurating cesspool for a very long time breathing the fumes for a learning experience.
Not his style, but imagine the caterwauling if Poilievre lured a few Liberals across the floor.
Don't need to win the election as long as you pick a party leader with a personal fortune and enough chutzpah and jurisdictional flexibility to bribe public officials with trips, positions, and private compensation packages.
Bribery of members of the legislature is a serious crime and a problem when its happening openly in democracy.
Ignoring it is loser talk, Conservatives are exactly right to focus on the Tamany Hall-level of corruption within the Liberal party, especially Carney's liberals. Gomery is what brought down the Liberal party the last time, who knows how many manila envelopes of cash are going around this time?
The very fact that writers are trying to tell the conservatives not to push on the corruption angle is evidence that there's blood in the water.
Why vote when Carney will just use his foreign fortune to bribe members of the legislature to do what he wants?
Canada's federal deficit-to-GDP ratios and net debt levels are amongst the lowest in the G7 - much lower than the US. Overall government gross debt (including provincial/municipal and household) is much higher. Foreign Direct Investment actually increased in 2025. Foreign agreements with respect to energy, trade, and defense have been signed with India, Japan, Mexico, Indonesia, China, UAE, Qatar, ASEAN - to name only some. Progress is being made with respect to the military, defunding of which began long before Trudeau. The PM and premiers meet now - another big change from the Trudeau years. It is not hard to understand the polls; most Canadians recognize the change and do not find the Conservative message that nothing works to be either truthful or compelling.
Look how glossy and colour sensitive is this lipstick, how masterfully applied. Stand back and admire how attractive it is, how appealing to the beauticians among us who can appreciate the skill and speed of implementation and the display of the process. Look at the majority of us who see all this and can now say with higher confidence of just how much better this pig looks.
loser talk