Put me down as not a great pod cast listener...to much blah, blah...I end up scrolling through the pod cast....probably miss some nuggets, but oh well......not great reading the Line also, usually on my phone and much scrolling....finger wears out😁.
Jen, spot on with "Social License" being a barrier or excuse to NOT build infrastructure...or any other natural resource development. How many years has the development of the Ring of Fire being jabbered about and Canada/Ontario is no where close to developing...any other country it would be been developed long ago. In my world I would like to see a Federal Leader stand up and state we are going to build XX or YY project, and it will be developed with due consideration to Canada's world leading environmental regulations and with due respect to Indigenous...including jobs for Indigenous....FULL STOP.
Carney is apparently going to spend endless time consulting Provinces, Indigenous, Special Interest Groups.........all in pursuit of the fabled Social License.......
Home run analysis by Jen about the media and status; comprehensively set out something that I couldn’t quite fully articulate.
I don’t think it was a screaming match though; the Hill Times guy was yelling and the Rebel people were quietly goading him (how do you let *Ezra Levant* come off as the more reasonable one).
Regarding PPs authenticity, when Junior was on the scene, that contrast was a massive advantage for him. I am no Conservative partisan but I was absolutely salivating at the prospect of seeing PP eviscerate Junior on the debate stage. PP’s abrasive directness when aimed at Junior was a delicious feature for A LOT of us. But when it’s directed elsewhere it’s a pretty big bug for a lot of people.
And as much as I think Carney potentially WILL be a disaster if he does not back off on his emissions caps (and other ESG) nonsense, I feel no personal animosity towards him at all. Hearing him talk, even when I am disagreeing with him, simply does not elicit any visceral reaction in me - he talks and comports himself in a manner I would expect from a PM. I suspect many feel the same relief I do in that regard and it is that (combined with the panic created by Trump’s annexation talk) which explains the dramatic shift in the polls. I would love to know where the polls would be right now had Trump never mentioned annexation/51st state. What an amazing counterfactual for the historians in 50 years.
I agree that PP won the debate on points as there was definitely no knock-out. I do think Carney’s insane security clearance question (what an incredible own goal) did result in a knock-down. Using the 10-point must system, PP won that round by at least 10-8 and maybe even 10-7. Did anybody else notice that the only reference to supply management Thursday night was Blanchet’s aside blasting the Senate? I mean, I don’t blame Paiken for not asking the question since we know the unanimous answer but that tells you a lot about the choices on offer for us here.
And let me co-sign every single word Jen said about Quebec. Outstanding.
I shouldn't pick at the media bias scab, but I call bullshit on headlines claiming anyone was "attacked" during the debate. They were asked questions, generally politely.
I am surprised nobody called out the discrepancy between translators in the French debate. Carney's somewhat halting French was translated into complete sentences while Poilievre's very good French was translated into half phrases parsed by stuttering "ums" reminiscent of early Trudeau. Was that intentional?
With regards to pipelines, one point that needs to be made which I did not know until recently. You cannot float the tankers needed to move oil and gas to the Atlantic Ocean through the Great Lakes. Apparently, the water is not deep enough at certain points. You would have to dig up the shallower points and make a canal. Not only is this technically difficult, the Americans would have to agree. This is why the pipeline needs to go through Quebec or north through Manitoba to Hudson Bay.
Yes. but at this point I think the best option would be to just skip needing Quebec and accept the additional costs and complexities of using the Bay to circumvent them. If they don't want to prosper from this because their one trick pony separatist parties have to keep stoking the divisive fears , go ahead. But the rest of the country needs to move forward.
Hope not but have the uneasy feeling that if the Boomers (and I’m one) hand this election to Carney we’ll lose the younger generation to political extremism…
This is not an unfounded fear. As a person in his early 40’s, I’ve wanted to comment on this. I’m technically one of the first millennials. My life is fortunate, but my parents are boomers, and I have the vantage point to see what it was like for them at my age. It’s not the same thing. I look at people in their 20’s and 30’s, and it looks even worse from there.
If you’re a boomer and you’re sitting on or close to the fence, my ask would be this. Please give us our guy on this one. You can always say “I told you so” later. But right now we truly need a change from the last 10 years of decline, disillusionment and disarray. The future has never looked bleaker for Canada under Trudeau and the Liberal governance from my vantage point. We need to see accountability.
It’s not just a generational thing either, there’s also a national unity piece. East, please come with the West on this one. We need it more than you do. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of policy difference between the 2 major platforms, and what exists probably leans the Conservatives way anyways. You may not like the style of Pierre, but It’s only 4 years, and if it doesn’t work out - under a guy like Carney, we’ll come your way next time.
We need the candidate and party that offers the most radical opportunity for national economic, growth and expansion. We don’t need more government tinkering and intervention. More “post-nationalism” climate alarmism, and elitist nannying. For a while we just need maximal Canadians building Canada for Canadians. For the new, young and old. For this election boomers, please humor your kids and grandkids, nieces and nephews.
They recoil at the idea of even a four-year break in this to relieve pressure and unwind some of the worst excesses.
I knew the 2025 election was never in the bag for the Conservatives. I figured some combination of a Lib/NDP merger or coalition riding arrangement, an election fought filthy dirty on wedge issues, and whatever Trump was going to do was always looming. I thought maybe they could hold together a Lib/NDP/Bloc coalition if the CPC failed to win outright.
But I never thought the electorate would willingly vote the Liberals back in with a majority as appears the most likely result. Especially after they fought such a shit campaign with zero new ideas. It's like the boomers got a wireless software update and everything before January got reset.
I wouldn’t give up hope. Respectfully to the pollsters (who I think are acting in good faith), I don’t think they have this one right. My experience at the advance polls gave me a ton of optimism. I live in an NDP held riding. Seeing an outsized number of dudes wearing beards and balls caps between the ages of 20-45 show up to an advance poll on a Saturday morning seemed highly unusual. Turnout is everything. Just one riding, but this is not the norm - and I guarantee not one of said “dudes” is answering a call, text or online survey from a pollster…
It's possible. If younger Canadians turn out more than usual, I imagine that could mess with likely voter models in a way that would hurt the Liberals. And Trump outperforming his polls 3 straight times (despite pollsters trying to adjust to the previous misses) does lend some credence to the theory that there may be some part of the electorate that is basically 'unreachable' - possible we see something similar here.
It's been stated elsewhere that without some form of hope - a pressure relief valve - things could get ugly among the cohort who was counting on change. People work hard, people in their 20s through 40s, and they want to have something to show for their efforts. A home. A family. Something. There's no turning back the clock to 1986 or 1996, but surely there must be something better to look forward to than continued demonization and spending that never reaches the ground.
I make an above-median income, but I'm still a renter living like a college student. That shows no signs of changing. Eventually the RCMP will show up at the door to seize some of the things I *do* own to comply with the latest cynical gun grab. What a future.
My friends' parents and all of their Boomer friends seem to live in another reality. It's Liberal all the way, the grown-up kids long ago left the country with their families for higher salaries overseas, and most of the day is taken up with vacation planning and the latest anti-Poilievre outrage ginned up on Facebook or the CBC.
I also have the sinking feeling that some bad shit is going to go down if the Liberals win a majority.
I've held that the Freedom Convoy was primarily a reaction to the 2021 election where Canadians rewarded Trudeau's vicious and unfair campaign tactics with a new mandate he did not deserve. These tactics included cynical election timing, wedge politics on gun control, and dehumanization of the 'vaccine hesitant'.
If they get yet another mandate, let's get real, it will be 100% due to similar cynicism regarding election timing and running a fearmongering fantasy campaign against Trump and a massively exaggerated crisis. A considerable number of Canadians won't really accept the election results under these circumstances and then what happens? People will figure this out more generally in a few months especially after the "crisis" gets resolved remarkably easily and polling will return to December 2024 levels, but with 3.5 years of simmering anger left to go!
Firearm confiscation will be its own problem and all it would take is about one incident of non-compliance turning violent for this to result in more casualties than all those guns would ever have caused had there been no new laws since 2015. I doubt our perpetual one-party government will take any good lessons from that though.
I am at the cusp of Boomer-Gen X. Officially a boomer but Gen X in most life experiences. But my husband is definitely boomer. We absolutely won't be voting Liberal. We lost respect for Carney when he was gov of the BoC and lowered interest rates unnecessarily. We knew it would lead to inflated prices and an indebted nation. Surely Mr I'm an Economist did too. Anyway, I do know a lot of boomers in my neighbourhood who are voting Conservative. We aren't all out to destroy the country.
I can understand boomers preferring or leaning towards Mark Carney somewhat more than Pierre Poilievre. I can't understand the overwhelming cult-like adoration they seem to have for him though, or how it reached so many of them.
Kind of like what they had for Justin Trudeau now that I think of it, before he sat each Canadian down over a 10 year period and personally convinced them he was a shit leader and terrible at everything he touches. Is it going to be another 10 years before they figure out the same about Carney? What zeitgeist-channelling new leader will the LPC fool them with then?
Edit: at the same time I'm still bewildered how any older person living in any major city doesn't see ending mass immigration and reducing crime as their biggest issues. Go outside and look around. Way more people than we can handle and signs of creeping anarchy. Holy crap.
Not to paint everyone with too broad a brush, but my theory is the Carney adoration is largely an element of what's been a particularly bad response to Trump. Trump isn't popular with any age group in Canada, but I feel like a lot of boomers are reacting especially poorly/emotionally to his threats, appearing almost hurt and responding with highly visible but largely symbolic actions (made worse by a lot of doom-scrolling and consumption of American media). Carney was almost made in a lab to appeal to that emotional-response.
On the other hand, I feel like younger Canadians have responded more clear-eyed and pragmatically. My theory is that younger Canadians are just more cynical and able to see the world for what it is, not what it was or what we want it to be. And so the "Technocratic daddy" idea just doesn't appeal to this generation the same way as it does to their parents.
No criticism to what you wrote, which I agree with, but I'm sick of feeling sorry for Canadian boomers. They got to feel anxious and frightened and attacked by something a politician was threatening, for the first time in their lives.
Like I did every time a multi-billion-dollar spending announcement was made during Covid, every time a press release went out that immigration was going up, every time the news reported a heinous crime committed by some dirtbag out on bail, and every time a "technical briefing" was scheduled concerning firearms where they were going to announce that another several thousand dollars of my property had been made illegal for no reason. Somehow these Carney voters were cool with all that.
I hate the Liberals more than any Canadian boomer hates Donald Trump, and the absolute worst case version of his tariffs would have to materialize to match the damage that government has done to our society and economy.
I shed no tears for how insulated that generation has been, that they go completely irrationally mental when America's dumbest president fantasizes openly about annexing us, something so fucking ridiculous that it's not even worth thinking about.
Jen - 1) not Hemingway, Dr. Suess. 2) If a party isn’t running candidates across the country it has no business in the debate. 3) Love the podcasts, the longer the better. Is my Friday night sad - cooking, drinking beer, listening to you guys? My favourite night of the week. Didn’t mind your rant.
> If a party isn’t running candidates across the country it has no business in the debate
We need debates that ONLY include the TWO people who might be Prime Minister. Yes, that means debates that don't have the NDP.
First, that's because two sided debates are simply better. You get to the meat of the issues. The four way ridiculousness is a good part of why these debates are jokes. And yes, as a second tier debate we should have a few LPC vs. NDP debates with the Conservatives not invited. (And NDP vs. CPC.)
But just as importantly... the primary function of the debates is for Canadians to look at the people who they're effectively picking to be Prime Minister. Jagmeet Singh's chances of being Prime Minister are effectively zero. Everyone knows this. So we need to be blunt and admit that Jagmeet being there is a distraction from the main question... who would be the best Prime Minister... Mark Carney? Or Pierre Poilievre?
I am one of the debate watchers who was leaning to one party before the debate and was unequivocally convinced afterwards to vote for another party. I think the debate revealed a lot about the quality of the leaders. It became very clear to me who the strongest leader was and how I was going to vote differently as a result.
Your comment would have more value if you were to say where you switched and why. Otherwise its just "look at me " fluff. I am aware i am being abrasively sarcastic here :)
On the podcast format discussion. I will listen to short form podcasts, but I become a fan of long form podcasts. Longer form political podcasts are largely missing from the Canadian political podcast genre - except for “The Line.” I look forward to it every week.
Jen, I didn’t love your rant on the pod last week - but I always love your rants when you put them in writing. Your “The bags do not contain plastic (you fucking muppets)” column was my all time favorite. I forwarded it to everyone I knew that likes this type of stuff.
On advance polls. I attempted to vote in a central Edmonton riding today at 5pm. The lineup was 1hr long. A neighbor who works every election told me it was lined up outside around the block when the polls opened at 9am, and in all his years he’s never seen this at an advance poll. Lots of young people were there. Families with voting age children walking together to vote on a beautiful spring evening. This election has been blah, but this scene got me pretty fired up.
Carney does seem like the most right leaning Liberal in a generation. To second a comment by fellow poster @Gordo above, I don’t hate the guy either. I’d love to see him prove his centrist/right leaning, pragmatic bonafides correct as leader of the official opposition. I’d consider him in future, but for me the Liberals deserve to be held accountable for their record, incompetence and cowardice first. Trust needs to be rebuilt.
Lastly. Seeing as the Liberals have stolen all the best ideas from the Conservative platform (and I agree Jen - bravo to this), what are the chances we could see some sort of national unity government between the CPC and Liberals in the event of a minority government? It seems ridiculous to potentially pander to the NDP or the Bloc when essentially the 2 main parties are seeming to agree more than they disagree suddenly?
i suspect the 4 year implementation of his central and right leaning platform ideas will be significantly adjusted or just not implemented with any commitment or gusto. It is really shocking me that so many Canadians think the same apparatus that JT built will magically be different because a slightly more central and less egotistical fellow is their leader. He will be facing MASSIVE resistance points within the government organization if he actually tries to make serious changes.
Excellent podcast, as always. I want to just say, though, that I can’t agree that the media is close to power but doesn’t weld power. The media has a lot of power and can make or break people or parties or platforms in very short order. In my view, one reason the so-called Legacy media are so unhappy is perhaps because other journalists are calling them out on their sometimes biased reporting.
This is one reason why I appreciate the Line so much. You two are straightforward and give relatively balanced commentary on many issues. Keep it up……don’t quit!!!
And Jen, your rant gave me a lot to think about. Thank you.
The terms "first draft of history", "fourth estate" and "fifth estate" don't exactly jive with "just citizens trying to tell other citizens what's going on".
Jen and Matt - Happy Easter to both of you and to the listeners/readers!
I don't see how the issue of the election is the USA - consider how China is influencing Canada - tariffs on canola is really hurting the west but crickets from the current federal government. The influence of China on the LPC is now obvious for all to see - Chiang and his replacement are just the most recent examples. China is the real threat here folks but ... In the end the economy, cost of living and taxes are really what will make the decision for most of we lowly voters out here in the real world.
The Debate Commission really showed their colours with all the screw ups this time but the topper has to be the interview with Cochran and the rep said "there is only so much we can to to control free speech". If that doesn't reflect a bias I don't know what does. Rebel News, think what you like of Ezra, has a right to be in the debates and they had some decent questions - see the questions of gender and protection of females in spaces (washrooms, sports, jails etc.) which I want to hear an answer to. The MSM can chase Poilievre shouting questions at him about gender affirming surgery and chemicals but do not ask Carney the same.
In my cynical mind i see the whole reaction to the bun fight in the media tent as a way to prevent Carney from having to face the media's questions as he was not stellar in the English debate. The head of the Debate Commission told Cochran that there would be changes for the English scrum but they would be revealed at the last minute - the fix was in folks.
The legacy media, caffeinated and hungry or not, are doing a lot to boost Carney and to push the 'the US is the issue for our economy' while ignoring the last ten years of federal mismanagement of our economy and tax dollars. Carney's plan to have two sets of books to 'balance the budget' is just smoke and mirrors yet no one is calling him on it.
As an aside the line ups for voting yesterday were between 45 minutes and two hours at our poll in Regina so seems a wide spread occurrence.
My late, lamented brother-in-law (from Medicine Hat) encouraged me from an early age to read Alberta Report and listen to conservative views in order to know what the other side was thinking and to better inform my own arguments; forty-plus years on, I think I’ve been fairly diligent, hence my paid subscription and listening all the way to the end. Why you left the debate drama to the very end isn’t a mystery, but at the very least you could have conceded that it was right-wing registered third-party advocates who highjacked the proceedings, not legacy media feeling their “special” status threatened. Had the left wing pulled this stunt, would you have started the podcast with it?
Exactly this - I had zero issues w rest of pod even if my views on different - but Jens "tut tutting" of legacy media as if this was their fault and Matt's framing that this was just a personality clash was cowardly and dishonest. They both know this wouldn't have happened if Ezra et Al weren't allowed in there, that this has no nothing to do w new media or actual journalism. They would've rightly named/shamed the group if it was a left wing version that ruined the scrums. Furthermore the SCC has already said Rebel isn't a journalism org - so either the line is afraid of repercussions of calling out their side or buddies or whatever - or a bitterness bias towards legacy media is showing w the "you guys deserve this" attitude.
Sorry, but that "fight" wasn't really a fight at all - it was 100% the Hill Times guy losing his sh!t - in a very unprofessional manner, if I may say so.
...and ihe wasn't railing at anything Rebel News said or did, it was their mere PRESENCE he objected to.
I am perhaps wrong, but I think the current level of ennui with this election is not due to disengagement per se. I think it is exhaustion.
Most people I know are simply fed up of politicians of all stripes promising the moon and delivering damn all. The Trudeau spent 9+ years at that game. However, this is not new stuff as the Tories promised much and didn't get things done either during the Harper years. I speak in particular of Federal responsibilities, not endless social work. And, not entirely sure why but certainly the extent of regulatory constipation seems to beyond the help of a crate of Exlax. It will need firm leadership and, gasp, telling people "NO" and "Tough". You cannot please everyone and if everyone can apply a veto then we're done.
Relatedly, we have just finished a year with, if I recall aright, a deficit of $60 billion. We have two main parties promising tax cuts, massive increases in defence, better social programmes here and there, and lollipops and sugar plums. Frankly I am disappointed in that given the existential threat posed by our southern neighbour, I would have thought a fully serious Federal campaign instead of bog standard looney unkeepable promises. (I excuse the NDP in this charge - that's their role.)
Basically, we need a Federal government focused on Federal government responsibilities: defence, trade, foreign relations, criminal law, national regulatory umbrellas (e.g. environment, navigation, etc.), and internal governance (like disallowing every single one of the internal barriers to trade). Otherwise leave the provinces to marinate in their local levels of bile and jealousies.
That's why, in my view, we are getting dismay and shrugged shoulders from the public, complete with a lack of political signage and people showing up at events. However, I do think given all our little problems people will assess who can lead the country best given our geopolitical circumstances and will vote for that person's party. I expect a near record turnout. Not sure which way it'll go.
Reaching back to the Harper years for a bead on how things would go under Poilievre (FOUR CPC leaders later) is a tad disingenuous.
First of all, this past decade has seen many very basic things change in Canada - and around the world. At times it feels like the past decade was three decades long, and the decade Harper ruled over wasn't uneventful either.
Harper got a grand total of ONE majority, it was his last term. Things may have gone very differently if he hadn't had to deftly stick-handle his way through 6 years of minority government, with all other Parties hostile to his every intention, and ZERO "supply and confidence" agreements to prop him up
So, sorry if I am getting your point wrong, but this touched a nerve with me - the inference is that because Trudeau over-promised and under-delivered, there's no use voting for the change candidate/Party, because they will just do the same.
I have heard this argument A LOT during the 2019, 2021, and 2025 election campaigns.
If you truly believe this to be the case, why bother holding elections at all? Why not just put a king (or queen) in place and let THEM lie to us?
This goes to the heart of wheat is ailing Canada = we seem to have lost any sense that better is even possible.
No to a senate seat and no to an ambassador job for Jagmeat. He has eaten and will be eating more than enough of our tax money, and he really befouled our politics. He can go back to lawyering. Or jobbing at a carwash.
I think one of the big reasons advance voting was so crowded Friday was the fact that was Good Friday- people were off work, and looking for something to do. My wife and I were both off and we actually batted around the idea of advance voting on Friday because we had nothing else going on. Even devout Christians have a short service to attend, and then have the rest of the day to kill. I don't think this is the entire reason, but it certainly contributed.
As for the length of the pod- for me longer is better. The old "Experimental Podcast" was too short. And I didn't mind Jen's rant last week. If it's genuine emotion from a smart person on a relevant topic, then it's worth getting on the record.
Put me down as not a great pod cast listener...to much blah, blah...I end up scrolling through the pod cast....probably miss some nuggets, but oh well......not great reading the Line also, usually on my phone and much scrolling....finger wears out😁.
Jen, spot on with "Social License" being a barrier or excuse to NOT build infrastructure...or any other natural resource development. How many years has the development of the Ring of Fire being jabbered about and Canada/Ontario is no where close to developing...any other country it would be been developed long ago. In my world I would like to see a Federal Leader stand up and state we are going to build XX or YY project, and it will be developed with due consideration to Canada's world leading environmental regulations and with due respect to Indigenous...including jobs for Indigenous....FULL STOP.
Carney is apparently going to spend endless time consulting Provinces, Indigenous, Special Interest Groups.........all in pursuit of the fabled Social License.......
Home run analysis by Jen about the media and status; comprehensively set out something that I couldn’t quite fully articulate.
I don’t think it was a screaming match though; the Hill Times guy was yelling and the Rebel people were quietly goading him (how do you let *Ezra Levant* come off as the more reasonable one).
Regarding PPs authenticity, when Junior was on the scene, that contrast was a massive advantage for him. I am no Conservative partisan but I was absolutely salivating at the prospect of seeing PP eviscerate Junior on the debate stage. PP’s abrasive directness when aimed at Junior was a delicious feature for A LOT of us. But when it’s directed elsewhere it’s a pretty big bug for a lot of people.
And as much as I think Carney potentially WILL be a disaster if he does not back off on his emissions caps (and other ESG) nonsense, I feel no personal animosity towards him at all. Hearing him talk, even when I am disagreeing with him, simply does not elicit any visceral reaction in me - he talks and comports himself in a manner I would expect from a PM. I suspect many feel the same relief I do in that regard and it is that (combined with the panic created by Trump’s annexation talk) which explains the dramatic shift in the polls. I would love to know where the polls would be right now had Trump never mentioned annexation/51st state. What an amazing counterfactual for the historians in 50 years.
I agree that PP won the debate on points as there was definitely no knock-out. I do think Carney’s insane security clearance question (what an incredible own goal) did result in a knock-down. Using the 10-point must system, PP won that round by at least 10-8 and maybe even 10-7. Did anybody else notice that the only reference to supply management Thursday night was Blanchet’s aside blasting the Senate? I mean, I don’t blame Paiken for not asking the question since we know the unanimous answer but that tells you a lot about the choices on offer for us here.
And let me co-sign every single word Jen said about Quebec. Outstanding.
I shouldn't pick at the media bias scab, but I call bullshit on headlines claiming anyone was "attacked" during the debate. They were asked questions, generally politely.
I am surprised nobody called out the discrepancy between translators in the French debate. Carney's somewhat halting French was translated into complete sentences while Poilievre's very good French was translated into half phrases parsed by stuttering "ums" reminiscent of early Trudeau. Was that intentional?
Carney's guy sounded very much like Carney speaking English. There's no way that was coincidental.
With regards to pipelines, one point that needs to be made which I did not know until recently. You cannot float the tankers needed to move oil and gas to the Atlantic Ocean through the Great Lakes. Apparently, the water is not deep enough at certain points. You would have to dig up the shallower points and make a canal. Not only is this technically difficult, the Americans would have to agree. This is why the pipeline needs to go through Quebec or north through Manitoba to Hudson Bay.
Yes. but at this point I think the best option would be to just skip needing Quebec and accept the additional costs and complexities of using the Bay to circumvent them. If they don't want to prosper from this because their one trick pony separatist parties have to keep stoking the divisive fears , go ahead. But the rest of the country needs to move forward.
Hope not but have the uneasy feeling that if the Boomers (and I’m one) hand this election to Carney we’ll lose the younger generation to political extremism…
This is not an unfounded fear. As a person in his early 40’s, I’ve wanted to comment on this. I’m technically one of the first millennials. My life is fortunate, but my parents are boomers, and I have the vantage point to see what it was like for them at my age. It’s not the same thing. I look at people in their 20’s and 30’s, and it looks even worse from there.
If you’re a boomer and you’re sitting on or close to the fence, my ask would be this. Please give us our guy on this one. You can always say “I told you so” later. But right now we truly need a change from the last 10 years of decline, disillusionment and disarray. The future has never looked bleaker for Canada under Trudeau and the Liberal governance from my vantage point. We need to see accountability.
It’s not just a generational thing either, there’s also a national unity piece. East, please come with the West on this one. We need it more than you do. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of policy difference between the 2 major platforms, and what exists probably leans the Conservatives way anyways. You may not like the style of Pierre, but It’s only 4 years, and if it doesn’t work out - under a guy like Carney, we’ll come your way next time.
We need the candidate and party that offers the most radical opportunity for national economic, growth and expansion. We don’t need more government tinkering and intervention. More “post-nationalism” climate alarmism, and elitist nannying. For a while we just need maximal Canadians building Canada for Canadians. For the new, young and old. For this election boomers, please humor your kids and grandkids, nieces and nephews.
They recoil at the idea of even a four-year break in this to relieve pressure and unwind some of the worst excesses.
I knew the 2025 election was never in the bag for the Conservatives. I figured some combination of a Lib/NDP merger or coalition riding arrangement, an election fought filthy dirty on wedge issues, and whatever Trump was going to do was always looming. I thought maybe they could hold together a Lib/NDP/Bloc coalition if the CPC failed to win outright.
But I never thought the electorate would willingly vote the Liberals back in with a majority as appears the most likely result. Especially after they fought such a shit campaign with zero new ideas. It's like the boomers got a wireless software update and everything before January got reset.
I wouldn’t give up hope. Respectfully to the pollsters (who I think are acting in good faith), I don’t think they have this one right. My experience at the advance polls gave me a ton of optimism. I live in an NDP held riding. Seeing an outsized number of dudes wearing beards and balls caps between the ages of 20-45 show up to an advance poll on a Saturday morning seemed highly unusual. Turnout is everything. Just one riding, but this is not the norm - and I guarantee not one of said “dudes” is answering a call, text or online survey from a pollster…
Also. This…
https://x.com/marcnixon24/status/1913586296406327691?s=48
It's possible. If younger Canadians turn out more than usual, I imagine that could mess with likely voter models in a way that would hurt the Liberals. And Trump outperforming his polls 3 straight times (despite pollsters trying to adjust to the previous misses) does lend some credence to the theory that there may be some part of the electorate that is basically 'unreachable' - possible we see something similar here.
It's been stated elsewhere that without some form of hope - a pressure relief valve - things could get ugly among the cohort who was counting on change. People work hard, people in their 20s through 40s, and they want to have something to show for their efforts. A home. A family. Something. There's no turning back the clock to 1986 or 1996, but surely there must be something better to look forward to than continued demonization and spending that never reaches the ground.
I make an above-median income, but I'm still a renter living like a college student. That shows no signs of changing. Eventually the RCMP will show up at the door to seize some of the things I *do* own to comply with the latest cynical gun grab. What a future.
My friends' parents and all of their Boomer friends seem to live in another reality. It's Liberal all the way, the grown-up kids long ago left the country with their families for higher salaries overseas, and most of the day is taken up with vacation planning and the latest anti-Poilievre outrage ginned up on Facebook or the CBC.
Two solitudes.
I also have the sinking feeling that some bad shit is going to go down if the Liberals win a majority.
I've held that the Freedom Convoy was primarily a reaction to the 2021 election where Canadians rewarded Trudeau's vicious and unfair campaign tactics with a new mandate he did not deserve. These tactics included cynical election timing, wedge politics on gun control, and dehumanization of the 'vaccine hesitant'.
If they get yet another mandate, let's get real, it will be 100% due to similar cynicism regarding election timing and running a fearmongering fantasy campaign against Trump and a massively exaggerated crisis. A considerable number of Canadians won't really accept the election results under these circumstances and then what happens? People will figure this out more generally in a few months especially after the "crisis" gets resolved remarkably easily and polling will return to December 2024 levels, but with 3.5 years of simmering anger left to go!
Firearm confiscation will be its own problem and all it would take is about one incident of non-compliance turning violent for this to result in more casualties than all those guns would ever have caused had there been no new laws since 2015. I doubt our perpetual one-party government will take any good lessons from that though.
I am at the cusp of Boomer-Gen X. Officially a boomer but Gen X in most life experiences. But my husband is definitely boomer. We absolutely won't be voting Liberal. We lost respect for Carney when he was gov of the BoC and lowered interest rates unnecessarily. We knew it would lead to inflated prices and an indebted nation. Surely Mr I'm an Economist did too. Anyway, I do know a lot of boomers in my neighbourhood who are voting Conservative. We aren't all out to destroy the country.
Well said and I totally agree!
I can understand boomers preferring or leaning towards Mark Carney somewhat more than Pierre Poilievre. I can't understand the overwhelming cult-like adoration they seem to have for him though, or how it reached so many of them.
Kind of like what they had for Justin Trudeau now that I think of it, before he sat each Canadian down over a 10 year period and personally convinced them he was a shit leader and terrible at everything he touches. Is it going to be another 10 years before they figure out the same about Carney? What zeitgeist-channelling new leader will the LPC fool them with then?
Edit: at the same time I'm still bewildered how any older person living in any major city doesn't see ending mass immigration and reducing crime as their biggest issues. Go outside and look around. Way more people than we can handle and signs of creeping anarchy. Holy crap.
Not to paint everyone with too broad a brush, but my theory is the Carney adoration is largely an element of what's been a particularly bad response to Trump. Trump isn't popular with any age group in Canada, but I feel like a lot of boomers are reacting especially poorly/emotionally to his threats, appearing almost hurt and responding with highly visible but largely symbolic actions (made worse by a lot of doom-scrolling and consumption of American media). Carney was almost made in a lab to appeal to that emotional-response.
On the other hand, I feel like younger Canadians have responded more clear-eyed and pragmatically. My theory is that younger Canadians are just more cynical and able to see the world for what it is, not what it was or what we want it to be. And so the "Technocratic daddy" idea just doesn't appeal to this generation the same way as it does to their parents.
No criticism to what you wrote, which I agree with, but I'm sick of feeling sorry for Canadian boomers. They got to feel anxious and frightened and attacked by something a politician was threatening, for the first time in their lives.
Like I did every time a multi-billion-dollar spending announcement was made during Covid, every time a press release went out that immigration was going up, every time the news reported a heinous crime committed by some dirtbag out on bail, and every time a "technical briefing" was scheduled concerning firearms where they were going to announce that another several thousand dollars of my property had been made illegal for no reason. Somehow these Carney voters were cool with all that.
I hate the Liberals more than any Canadian boomer hates Donald Trump, and the absolute worst case version of his tariffs would have to materialize to match the damage that government has done to our society and economy.
I shed no tears for how insulated that generation has been, that they go completely irrationally mental when America's dumbest president fantasizes openly about annexing us, something so fucking ridiculous that it's not even worth thinking about.
Female boomer here: God help us if the Liberals win the election.
Jen - 1) not Hemingway, Dr. Suess. 2) If a party isn’t running candidates across the country it has no business in the debate. 3) Love the podcasts, the longer the better. Is my Friday night sad - cooking, drinking beer, listening to you guys? My favourite night of the week. Didn’t mind your rant.
> If a party isn’t running candidates across the country it has no business in the debate
We need debates that ONLY include the TWO people who might be Prime Minister. Yes, that means debates that don't have the NDP.
First, that's because two sided debates are simply better. You get to the meat of the issues. The four way ridiculousness is a good part of why these debates are jokes. And yes, as a second tier debate we should have a few LPC vs. NDP debates with the Conservatives not invited. (And NDP vs. CPC.)
But just as importantly... the primary function of the debates is for Canadians to look at the people who they're effectively picking to be Prime Minister. Jagmeet Singh's chances of being Prime Minister are effectively zero. Everyone knows this. So we need to be blunt and admit that Jagmeet being there is a distraction from the main question... who would be the best Prime Minister... Mark Carney? Or Pierre Poilievre?
I am one of the debate watchers who was leaning to one party before the debate and was unequivocally convinced afterwards to vote for another party. I think the debate revealed a lot about the quality of the leaders. It became very clear to me who the strongest leader was and how I was going to vote differently as a result.
If you're open to providing specifics, I'm genuinely curious who you moved from & to and why?
Your comment would have more value if you were to say where you switched and why. Otherwise its just "look at me " fluff. I am aware i am being abrasively sarcastic here :)
On the podcast format discussion. I will listen to short form podcasts, but I become a fan of long form podcasts. Longer form political podcasts are largely missing from the Canadian political podcast genre - except for “The Line.” I look forward to it every week.
Jen, I didn’t love your rant on the pod last week - but I always love your rants when you put them in writing. Your “The bags do not contain plastic (you fucking muppets)” column was my all time favorite. I forwarded it to everyone I knew that likes this type of stuff.
On advance polls. I attempted to vote in a central Edmonton riding today at 5pm. The lineup was 1hr long. A neighbor who works every election told me it was lined up outside around the block when the polls opened at 9am, and in all his years he’s never seen this at an advance poll. Lots of young people were there. Families with voting age children walking together to vote on a beautiful spring evening. This election has been blah, but this scene got me pretty fired up.
Carney does seem like the most right leaning Liberal in a generation. To second a comment by fellow poster @Gordo above, I don’t hate the guy either. I’d love to see him prove his centrist/right leaning, pragmatic bonafides correct as leader of the official opposition. I’d consider him in future, but for me the Liberals deserve to be held accountable for their record, incompetence and cowardice first. Trust needs to be rebuilt.
Lastly. Seeing as the Liberals have stolen all the best ideas from the Conservative platform (and I agree Jen - bravo to this), what are the chances we could see some sort of national unity government between the CPC and Liberals in the event of a minority government? It seems ridiculous to potentially pander to the NDP or the Bloc when essentially the 2 main parties are seeming to agree more than they disagree suddenly?
Carney does seem like the most right leaning Liberal in a generation.
Key words: "seem like".
Anyone who has read his first book disagrees.
Let's see what his second book says when it comes out next month.
i suspect the 4 year implementation of his central and right leaning platform ideas will be significantly adjusted or just not implemented with any commitment or gusto. It is really shocking me that so many Canadians think the same apparatus that JT built will magically be different because a slightly more central and less egotistical fellow is their leader. He will be facing MASSIVE resistance points within the government organization if he actually tries to make serious changes.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Excellent podcast, as always. I want to just say, though, that I can’t agree that the media is close to power but doesn’t weld power. The media has a lot of power and can make or break people or parties or platforms in very short order. In my view, one reason the so-called Legacy media are so unhappy is perhaps because other journalists are calling them out on their sometimes biased reporting.
This is one reason why I appreciate the Line so much. You two are straightforward and give relatively balanced commentary on many issues. Keep it up……don’t quit!!!
And Jen, your rant gave me a lot to think about. Thank you.
The terms "first draft of history", "fourth estate" and "fifth estate" don't exactly jive with "just citizens trying to tell other citizens what's going on".
Jen and Matt - Happy Easter to both of you and to the listeners/readers!
I don't see how the issue of the election is the USA - consider how China is influencing Canada - tariffs on canola is really hurting the west but crickets from the current federal government. The influence of China on the LPC is now obvious for all to see - Chiang and his replacement are just the most recent examples. China is the real threat here folks but ... In the end the economy, cost of living and taxes are really what will make the decision for most of we lowly voters out here in the real world.
The Debate Commission really showed their colours with all the screw ups this time but the topper has to be the interview with Cochran and the rep said "there is only so much we can to to control free speech". If that doesn't reflect a bias I don't know what does. Rebel News, think what you like of Ezra, has a right to be in the debates and they had some decent questions - see the questions of gender and protection of females in spaces (washrooms, sports, jails etc.) which I want to hear an answer to. The MSM can chase Poilievre shouting questions at him about gender affirming surgery and chemicals but do not ask Carney the same.
In my cynical mind i see the whole reaction to the bun fight in the media tent as a way to prevent Carney from having to face the media's questions as he was not stellar in the English debate. The head of the Debate Commission told Cochran that there would be changes for the English scrum but they would be revealed at the last minute - the fix was in folks.
The legacy media, caffeinated and hungry or not, are doing a lot to boost Carney and to push the 'the US is the issue for our economy' while ignoring the last ten years of federal mismanagement of our economy and tax dollars. Carney's plan to have two sets of books to 'balance the budget' is just smoke and mirrors yet no one is calling him on it.
As an aside the line ups for voting yesterday were between 45 minutes and two hours at our poll in Regina so seems a wide spread occurrence.
Get out there and vote folks!
My late, lamented brother-in-law (from Medicine Hat) encouraged me from an early age to read Alberta Report and listen to conservative views in order to know what the other side was thinking and to better inform my own arguments; forty-plus years on, I think I’ve been fairly diligent, hence my paid subscription and listening all the way to the end. Why you left the debate drama to the very end isn’t a mystery, but at the very least you could have conceded that it was right-wing registered third-party advocates who highjacked the proceedings, not legacy media feeling their “special” status threatened. Had the left wing pulled this stunt, would you have started the podcast with it?
Exactly this - I had zero issues w rest of pod even if my views on different - but Jens "tut tutting" of legacy media as if this was their fault and Matt's framing that this was just a personality clash was cowardly and dishonest. They both know this wouldn't have happened if Ezra et Al weren't allowed in there, that this has no nothing to do w new media or actual journalism. They would've rightly named/shamed the group if it was a left wing version that ruined the scrums. Furthermore the SCC has already said Rebel isn't a journalism org - so either the line is afraid of repercussions of calling out their side or buddies or whatever - or a bitterness bias towards legacy media is showing w the "you guys deserve this" attitude.
Sorry, but that "fight" wasn't really a fight at all - it was 100% the Hill Times guy losing his sh!t - in a very unprofessional manner, if I may say so.
...and ihe wasn't railing at anything Rebel News said or did, it was their mere PRESENCE he objected to.
Edibles: Make politics tolerable for a bit.
If only they were allowed to advertise.
I am perhaps wrong, but I think the current level of ennui with this election is not due to disengagement per se. I think it is exhaustion.
Most people I know are simply fed up of politicians of all stripes promising the moon and delivering damn all. The Trudeau spent 9+ years at that game. However, this is not new stuff as the Tories promised much and didn't get things done either during the Harper years. I speak in particular of Federal responsibilities, not endless social work. And, not entirely sure why but certainly the extent of regulatory constipation seems to beyond the help of a crate of Exlax. It will need firm leadership and, gasp, telling people "NO" and "Tough". You cannot please everyone and if everyone can apply a veto then we're done.
Relatedly, we have just finished a year with, if I recall aright, a deficit of $60 billion. We have two main parties promising tax cuts, massive increases in defence, better social programmes here and there, and lollipops and sugar plums. Frankly I am disappointed in that given the existential threat posed by our southern neighbour, I would have thought a fully serious Federal campaign instead of bog standard looney unkeepable promises. (I excuse the NDP in this charge - that's their role.)
Basically, we need a Federal government focused on Federal government responsibilities: defence, trade, foreign relations, criminal law, national regulatory umbrellas (e.g. environment, navigation, etc.), and internal governance (like disallowing every single one of the internal barriers to trade). Otherwise leave the provinces to marinate in their local levels of bile and jealousies.
That's why, in my view, we are getting dismay and shrugged shoulders from the public, complete with a lack of political signage and people showing up at events. However, I do think given all our little problems people will assess who can lead the country best given our geopolitical circumstances and will vote for that person's party. I expect a near record turnout. Not sure which way it'll go.
Reaching back to the Harper years for a bead on how things would go under Poilievre (FOUR CPC leaders later) is a tad disingenuous.
First of all, this past decade has seen many very basic things change in Canada - and around the world. At times it feels like the past decade was three decades long, and the decade Harper ruled over wasn't uneventful either.
Harper got a grand total of ONE majority, it was his last term. Things may have gone very differently if he hadn't had to deftly stick-handle his way through 6 years of minority government, with all other Parties hostile to his every intention, and ZERO "supply and confidence" agreements to prop him up
So, sorry if I am getting your point wrong, but this touched a nerve with me - the inference is that because Trudeau over-promised and under-delivered, there's no use voting for the change candidate/Party, because they will just do the same.
I have heard this argument A LOT during the 2019, 2021, and 2025 election campaigns.
If you truly believe this to be the case, why bother holding elections at all? Why not just put a king (or queen) in place and let THEM lie to us?
This goes to the heart of wheat is ailing Canada = we seem to have lost any sense that better is even possible.
I miss the Harper years. Remember when the media devoted six months to Duffy and $16-dollar orange juice? Those were the days.
Perhaps once the NDP is wiped out on the 28th, PM Carney will appoint Jagmeet Singh to the Senate.
Ambassador to somewhere........far away......
No to a senate seat and no to an ambassador job for Jagmeat. He has eaten and will be eating more than enough of our tax money, and he really befouled our politics. He can go back to lawyering. Or jobbing at a carwash.
I think one of the big reasons advance voting was so crowded Friday was the fact that was Good Friday- people were off work, and looking for something to do. My wife and I were both off and we actually batted around the idea of advance voting on Friday because we had nothing else going on. Even devout Christians have a short service to attend, and then have the rest of the day to kill. I don't think this is the entire reason, but it certainly contributed.
As for the length of the pod- for me longer is better. The old "Experimental Podcast" was too short. And I didn't mind Jen's rant last week. If it's genuine emotion from a smart person on a relevant topic, then it's worth getting on the record.