You could search the entire world, and I'm not sure you'd find another governing party that actually does not want citizens to travel to other parts of their own country. It's bizarre. With its rhetoric and carbon tax, the federal Liberals actively disincentivize domestic travel. Which means hotels and restaurants, tourist locations, national parks, etc - relics of a bygone era. Who needs 'em? No one should leave the city they're renting in. Except for the Air Canada Lounge class, jetting off to foreign countries twice a year, as cultured, elite people do.
If the crisis is truly as bad as they say, I expect to see our leader riding a bike from Rideau Cottage to Harrington Lake this summer, rather than taking to the skies for a weekend of surfing in Tofino, or a week-long stay at a lavish private luxury resort in Jamaica, Costa Rica, etc. After all, people hate hypocrites. Keep this up, and they just might start suffering in the polls!
While the Liberal Ministers are conducting business travel on the public dime, their personal travel on their own personal time would actually mean that they are in absolute terms paying more carbon taxes than most Canadians. The carbon tax-and-rebate scheme penalizes Trudeau's own outside-of-work-hours lifestyle.
Poilievre likewise would be paying more carbon taxes in absolute terms than most Canadians, given his own high-travel high-emissions lifestyle. That fact helps to make sense of his firm opposition to the scheme.
I'm not concerned that leaders might also be dinged by the carbon tax. They can well afford it. It's the messaging that galls. The people barely able to afford a modest vacation are being told they're destroying the planet with their insensitive actions, while those pushing the tax live their lives as normal while eating an extra cost that's trivial to them. It's like the preacher railing against sin and impure thoughts while he's banging the babysitter.
As shown in the below link, Canadians who have a choice are expressing their opinion in the ultimate way-by leaving the sinking ship. I wonder what the numbers will be for 2023 and 2024. And these figures don’t include undocumented individuals AFAIK.
The US oath of citizenship includes the phrase “I renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince …” While it normally takes at least 5 years of residency to become a US citizen, I think we all know who the “foreign prince” is in Canada’s case.
What, a mere eight comments so far? Could it possibly be that usually loquacious subscribers don't particularly like having their contributions dismissed as fuel for a "dumpster fire?" Especially by decorum role models who permit themselves "fucking" this and "fucking" that, and dismiss others as "crazy" people prone to saying "stupid shit," and "carefully phrased bullshit," and so on? Contributors' confusion and hesitancy, I think, need to be forgiven; where exactly should they be looking for clues to proper expression etiquette?
My nose isn't out of joint, though, so I'll venture a comment. Whatever one thinks of Trump, on grounds of historical significance alone Canadian newspapers are certainly right to see the first-ever felony conviction of a former U.S. president as a big deal, and front page news. And while it may well be true that the MAGA crowd will simply continue to vote their tribal DNA, on what grounds can we plausibly ascribe to Democrats more evidence-friendly motivations? The consensus in the Democrat tribe is that Trump's legal woes, and of course this conviction, are attributable to his unique evil, while in the MAGA tribe they're attributable to Democrats' fear and foam-at-the-mouth hatred of Trump. Same set of facts, different interpretations...
...but should we really be content with an analysis that stops here? Where does it leave people like me? I've always voted N.D.P., but this hasn't prevented me from noticing that Democrats devote far more energy to bringing Trump and Republicans to 'justice' than they do to making sure Biden and fellow Democrats are similarly kept in line. Is Trump really the story here, or are a politicized deep state and criminal justice system, and an ideologically captured media the issues? Don't you think this second possibility should at least be considered, notwithstanding the fact that it naturally appeals to the MAGA tribe? Why should you care about that? Why would you favour, or reflexively dismiss, either of America's two main tribalisms, if you aren't going to treat the other with the identical blend of tolerance and skepticism?
It isn't that difficult to escape The New York Times and Washington Post on one side, and FOX News on the other, if you want to take a nonpartisan approach to analysis... and doing so reveals undeniable evidence of a double standard in the relentless pursuit of Trump. I'm more concerned about 'normalization' of this blatant one-sidedness than of Trump's rough edges, and not because I'm a Trump fan. Time will push Trump off the stage soon enough, but politicized institutions that pretend they're neutral are ultimately a threat to everyone, including partisans who turn a blind eye to it because they find themselves in the driver's seat right now. I have no reason for supposing that Republicans would behave better, but at the moment it's Democrats whose blows on behalf of democracy are damaging it.
Thank you, Jen. That's nice to hear. The truth is I'm in no position to generalize about the comments, since I only read a smattering of them. My impression is that that subset of the total is okay, even interesting, but if you're diligently ploughing through them all you may well have grounds for complaint I know nothing about.
"Democrats devote far more energy to bringing Trump and Republicans to 'justice' than they do to making sure Biden and fellow Democrats are similarly kept in line."
Surely the Democrats have more evidence-friendly motivations. All the evidence was quite literally in favour of a Trump conviction on felony charges, and all 12 jurors agreed.
The jurors' agreement doesn't settle the matter, though, because we don't know if it's evidence of Trump's guilt or of the fact that they're all New York Democrats who hate Trump. The judge and prosecutor are also both Democrats, and the judge denied Trump's request for a change of venue.
Agreement has never been the test of truth. At one time everyone agreed the world was flat, and that the sun circled it; but the near universality of the agreement did not make these things so. For three years mainstream media agreed that the COVID-19 virus couldn't possibly have originated in--and escaped from--a lab, and that mRNA technology was completely safe. Now gain of function research, followed by a lab leak, is widely acknowledged to be the most plausible origin hypothesis; and more and more people are reporting mRNA vaccine injuries.
Epistemologically, it has never been wise to give one's assent to knowledge claims too easily, and certainly not because 'everybody agrees' that a particular claim is true. How much more cautious should we be when 'everybody' is a set of twelve people? In the case of mRNA, mainstream media clearly shouldn't have been giving us assurances that nobody was in a position to know were warranted. 'If we all get together and tell the same story--about COVID-19, Trump, or anything else--we can stifle dissent' is not an ethical approach to truth testing.
There's a possibly apocryphal story about Werner Heisenberg in which one of his colleagues supposedly said, "We are all agreed that your ideas are completely crazy. Where we disagree is on whether they're crazy enough to just possibly be right."
I'm not in a position to have any opinion on that matter, so I don't. I do have an opinion about double standards, though, in the criminal justice system or elsewhere: they're unethical. Granted, Trump would never be central casting's choice to play the role of sympathetic victim; but that's irrelevant. It's illegitimate for media, prosecutors and judges to gang up on anybody for political reasons. If you think Trump is bad for America, by all means campaign against him and don't vote for him; but don't keep inventing legal pretext after legal pretext to try to keep him off ballots. That's not 'saving' democracy; it's undermining it.
The gap in voting intentions between the CPC and the Liberals has become volatile, with Abacus showing it down to 15% and Nanos at 16%. But Leger just came in at19%. The Liberals may well be panicking, but they still have some runway left. That makes the current blunders all the more surprising.
If the polls do stand up, the CPC will win, but I think that they will have only one term as a majority government. There are too many problems facing Canada, and they won't be solved in four years. So, if I were Mark Carney, I would wait until Mr. Trudeau leads the Liberals to a resounding defeat, and then make a bid for leader.
I have lived in Ottawa for some fifty years, but I haven't had any sustained contact with Parliamentarians, or those who work on the Hill (two mutually exclusive sets of people, it seems). Seeing them through the lens of your reporting is a revelation. Do we really elect such people? Why can't we do better as a nation?
I congratulate The Line and its team on not signing the Ottawa Declaration. Government subsidies, if temporary to help deal with an unforeseeable crisis, would be acceptable. Government subsidies, as part of an ongoing business model, are not. I much prefer a subscriber-pay model for its independence. That is what I am willing to pay for.
I think they will be far more resilient than a single term majority … more Chretien like with at least two majorities, then a minority before a loss.
I think the stench of this government (much like McGuinty/wynne) will last at least 8 years.
I don’t think Carney or any one from the “Laurentian elite” circles will be electable for quite some time. Whoever does lead the Liberals is a name we don’t yet know.
AND that’s only if we aren’t launched into a serious constitutional crisis in the next 5 years, which is way more likely than not.
Stephen Harper's government quite quickly moved past its peak levels of support upon obtaining a majority in 2011. Poilievre has seemingly learned nothing from the political mistakes of that government, so I would expect him to repeat the same mistakes and suffer a similar if lesser popular decline accordingly.
Canadians in my life time of voting have given govt 8-10 year cycles. I don’t see that changing. They tire themselves out, and have no fresh ideas by that point. We will see this again. 2 terms is realistic, 3 terms is a stretch.
There is no lesson, unless it’s renewal and new ideas at the 6 year mark.
You are right about the general cycle of government turnover. Nonetheless, in both Harper and Trudeau's cases their popular voting support peaked at the start of their respective majorities (albeit with a surge of 2021 Trudeau support then ironically prompting the same premature election that then killed said surge). Trudeau stayed in power after 2019 not exclusively because of the governing cycle but also because he courted support from other opposition parties, which is unlikely to be indicative of a would-be Poilievre government's stability.
It has not been since 2000 that a government with a prior majority received a successive majority.
I believe the stench of this government is going to lead to such a big Majority, that the second election will be a reduced majority. I think Poilievre will get a lot of rope, (from voters, not media) especially with a Senate that will block or delay legislation. There will be over 100 liberal senators before Trudeau is done. (Let’s not pretend they are independent.)
This will most likely lead to a constitutional crisis, which will reflect very badly on the unelected body in our system. A constitutional crisis will lead to a much diluted federation, if we even survive that, PQ separation is already being openly discussed again..
How can there be a "constitutional crisis" when the Constitution is absolutely clear that the Senate has the authority to block legislation from the House of Commons?
"There will be over 100 liberal senators before Trudeau is done. (Let’s not pretend they are independent.)"
They are ideologically progressive, but there is no evidence that the new Senators have any attachment to big-L Liberal politics.
A “false” majority government? I think you should back away from the Liberal water cooler. A majority government that also ranks highest in voter percentages is a legitimate government.
No, I'm not drinking from the Liberal water cooler, Trudeau has made clear that he is a de facto supporter of the current electoral system, ironically now to his own detriment.
"A majority government that also ranks highest in voter percentages is a legitimate government."
It is legally legitimate, but not logically legitimate. A party that gets 100% of the power to implement an agenda that is unanimously opposed by parties representing 57% of voters is simply not representing the majority will.
George, you ask, "Why can't we do better as a nation?"
Truly (at least to me) a fundamental question. If the best we can do is have these bozos (and that is actually a slur on that fine fellow, Bozo the Clown) then we must ask why that is so.
My answer is two fold. First, we all want instant answers and instant "repair/correction/improvement." And we can't get it because STUFF TAKES TIME and knowledge and consideration and, yes, luck. The demand for now, now, now results in us blaming the other fellow for his perceived (of course it is!)
malfeasance/corruption/stupidity/etc. So, the result is the circus (see reference to Bozo the clown); did you watch the video and note how (not) well behaved Parliamentarians are?
Second, given the first answer, is it any wonder that the populace at large considers most politicians to be failed third or fourth rate actors? Why, one should ask, if you wouldn't touch a politician's job with a ten foot pole, why, or why should we legitimately expect quality candidates? Notwithstanding that ick factor the fact actually is that many quality candidates present themselves for election. And they then become residents of that swamp and become precisely that which we (and formerly, they) despise.
So, clean up the people and perhaps we can get better people. Oh! Circular, you say. Yes it is. We need to make sure that people who do go into politics don't fall into the damned swamp and become part of that odious food chain. Then they can help clean up the system. A really long and difficult process but not much else will work.
Rebuilding a party after a loss is hard, grinding, lonely work. Approximately none of it is high-minded policy, or being a global mover and shaker.
Maybe Mark Carney loves hanging around church basements and old folks' homes and looking empathetic and concerned instead of explaining that potholes aren't in federal jurisdiction. But he has never displayed that in his life so far.
Maybe Mark Carney deeply enjoys indulging incumbent backbench MPs who held their ridings despite a national loss and who therefore think they know everything there is to know about politics. Maybe nothing lifts his spirits like hour after hour of raising money in increments no greater than $1725 each, and often less.
But I doubt he likes any of those things, and even if he does, there's no reason to think he's good at them. He wants to be prime minister. I think he'd despise being an opposition leader, and almost certainly do it badly.
I don't think Mark Carney is planning on doing any of that. He will leave it to his underlings. Instead, he will concentrate on the economy, which may well be in quite bad shape, even after four years of CPC rule. Housing? Productivity? Trade (under a Trump-renegotiated NAFTA/USMCA)? Never mind the issues falling under provincial jurisdiction which the federal government will nevertheless get blamed, e.g. health care.
I come from the Reform side, and I'm sceptical that the CPC will bite the bullet and undertake the big reforms that are needed.
One more factoid. Recent polls suggest that some two-thirds of Canadians are "progressive". Turning that ship around will take a lot of leadership -- a positive vision. Does Mr. Poilievre have it in him? We shall see.
The wisest career advice I ever heard was “don’t become a surgeon because you want to save lives; become a surgeon if you like putting your hands in people’s guts and tying things”. To succeed, and to be fulfilled, you have to like the actual hour to hour work.
I have absolutely no doubt that Carney wants to articulate an exciting progressive vision for the long term, and to define a tax structure that enhances productivity while improving both medium term and intergenerational equity. I gravely doubt that he wants to spend hour after hour on a phone in a windowless room asking strangers for $200. And no, it can’t all be delegated. If he wants the glory, he has to spend years doing the grind.
Agree. But does Mr. Carney really know that? After all. he has just had two stints as a central banker, where, I assure you, he never got his hands dirty. This mind-set would not be a handicap in a race for leadership of the Liberal Party in 2026, when all the attention will be focused on charisma and emoting. It will only be afterward that the sad reality will set in. Meanwhile, I suspect, disappointment and disenchantment with the CPC will begin to set in, when voters discover that there are no magic solutions, and that the country is in for a long hard slog.
Carney is a smart guy. That’s his reputation, and that was my experience dealing with him a little on a project back when he was an investment banker. He will know intellectually what is involved in being an opposition leader (probably already does, or will be told by a bunch of people as he continues to push in that direction). Whether he really internalizes it and has the self-awareness to assess how durable his motivation will be is hard to guess.
I have a slightly different theory of the Liberal view on road trips. I don't think (in their minds) they want families to stop taking road trips. I don't think they even believe road trips are bad (notwithstanding Holland's personal hang-up about 10 hours in a car without breaks). I think they are opposed to road trips *without carbon tax*.
The CPC proposal to which they are vehemently responding is a gas tax and carbon tax holiday. For Libs, that would make the planet burn because the carbon tax (supposedly) prevents the planet burning. Putative road trippers should want no part of this evil! Now of course, the way a carbon tax works is by deterring people, at the margin, from taking things like road trips. But I don't believe most Libs are thinking about that. Most of them just think (and talk) as if the carbon tax per se saves the planet, with a LeBlanc-level disinterest in the machinery of how this operates.
The carbon tax is almost like an indulgence from the medieval church; it wipes away the sin without your actually having to stop sinning. That's kind of the theory of offsets, but the carbon tax isn't funding offsets. All the same, I think most of the MPs hooting and applauding for Holland don't want Canadian families to stay home this summer. They want them to have a nice road trip to Canadian tourist destinations, but just as long as they pay their carbon tax indulgence.
What a week when there's 3 "into oblivion" incidents being discussed and that doesn't even include Trudeau alienating the last handful of Millennials and Gen Z willing to vote for him by saying housing prices need to stay high to support retirees (and this is so soon after all the energy spent on the "generational fairness" budget). I was kind of looking forward to a discussion on if this was a fuck-up or a "save-the-furniture" move - but that that aside - enjoyed the podcast as usual.
Graeme, of course, housing prices need to stay up!!!! (sarcasm)
To support retirees, you say. Well, perhaps but as a retiree, if my house price declines I will be a little unhappy but only a little. More to the point, however, the banks will panic because if house prices decline the collateral for mortgages (like many retirees, I don't have a mortgage) will decline and the banks will be in trouble.
So, Trudeau wants to blame retirees? How about his masters in the banking system?
So, thought experiment: let's say you could snap your fingers and every house in the country would be worth what it "should be" (let's arbitrarily call that 0.5% over the rate of inflation compounded, for the past 30 years). Who suffers most? Certainly the retiree is going to hurt, having lost much of the paper value of the home, and may impact the quality of life they can enjoy in their retirement and their options for for care when they're no longer able to live on their own. But unless they've leveraged against the value of that home, they aren't out any money. Compare that to someone who bought their house yesterday and now owes hundreds of thousands of dollars more than what their home is actually worth. As much as the Trudeau liberals and retirees are both easy and enjoyable targets to punch, I think we should be clear eyed about who is going to be impacted most by drastic a housing market correction and catastrophic ripple on effects that will have.
As retirees with ou4 house paid off, really, it is Monopoly money to my wife and to me. We won't be selling it so we won't be "sacrificing" any cash or phantom equity. The real problem groups are a) those who have just bought a house and are mortgaged beyond their eyeballs; and b) those who can never buy a house.
Canada had it's Trump already, it's Jungian reflection of itself. That was Pierre Trudeau. His legacy still lives on obviously, and it's what has both made modern Canada and will eventually rip it apart if it comes to that.
As for people sorting and moving to live with "their people" arguably its been going on longer in Canada than the US. Where did all the pro-business, socially liberal people go? They are in downtown Calgary and the suburbs of Toronto. The pro-gun, anti-vax young families are moving like nuts to places like Red Deer, which now has an unbelievable 120,000 people. Your environmental folks with money are on Vancouver Island, etc.
happy summer, but not the lines best podcast, this one not up to usual standard of content and presentation. lost me after the 3rd liberal - the road trip (happy summer) part - making fun of empty parliament theatre - a silly humorous reply to an embellished recurrent question - where you loose me is when you miss the message - he did not say/mean no summer vacation - just commenting on what you might do with that precious time - it does not have to be a road trip - many kids do not relish road trips (and parents do not relish kids when they are not relishing). The drive burning the world? - overstated, but a valid call to be more mindful. I thought is was more humorous than the typical, and at least civil too. So pick on stuff that is worth the time, please.
I agree. I had to view it in three instalments, not because I was busy, but because I really don't want to listen to stuff about Trump. There is absolutely no shortage of news on the man, so while I appreciated a couple of the Jen's and Matt's comments re Trump, I needed just 30 seconds devoted to that aspect. The road trip message, however, deserves mocking. Much of what this government does deserves mocking.
Enjoy your Podcast and editorials. I was troubled to hear Matt promoting “Unsmoke.ca”. The Line is now accepting advertisement money from big tobacco companies? CBC this morning had a critical news story about Unsmoke and their claims about the safety of vaping and their other tobacco products. Do not be fooled. They’ve killed millions with tobacco and they’re doing the same with their smokeless products.
Have to agree with Tony. As a paying customer I resent having to listen to advertisements, and especially from an entity like UnSmoke, which from my reading, is a front for Phillip Morris. Please desist.
who else thinks Trudeau is holding on wishing (and praying, and crossing all his fingers and toes) that Trump will get in, and he'll run/win on the ensuing panic?
Anyone interested in alternative history (and not just as a plot device for a ground-breaking real-time strategy game) could do worse than taking a look at Churchill's own stab at the genre. First published in 1930, Churchill examined both how the world would change if the American Civil War went differently, but also how his own present could be seen as implausible compared to other more likely outcomes.
You could search the entire world, and I'm not sure you'd find another governing party that actually does not want citizens to travel to other parts of their own country. It's bizarre. With its rhetoric and carbon tax, the federal Liberals actively disincentivize domestic travel. Which means hotels and restaurants, tourist locations, national parks, etc - relics of a bygone era. Who needs 'em? No one should leave the city they're renting in. Except for the Air Canada Lounge class, jetting off to foreign countries twice a year, as cultured, elite people do.
If the crisis is truly as bad as they say, I expect to see our leader riding a bike from Rideau Cottage to Harrington Lake this summer, rather than taking to the skies for a weekend of surfing in Tofino, or a week-long stay at a lavish private luxury resort in Jamaica, Costa Rica, etc. After all, people hate hypocrites. Keep this up, and they just might start suffering in the polls!
While the Liberal Ministers are conducting business travel on the public dime, their personal travel on their own personal time would actually mean that they are in absolute terms paying more carbon taxes than most Canadians. The carbon tax-and-rebate scheme penalizes Trudeau's own outside-of-work-hours lifestyle.
Poilievre likewise would be paying more carbon taxes in absolute terms than most Canadians, given his own high-travel high-emissions lifestyle. That fact helps to make sense of his firm opposition to the scheme.
I'm not concerned that leaders might also be dinged by the carbon tax. They can well afford it. It's the messaging that galls. The people barely able to afford a modest vacation are being told they're destroying the planet with their insensitive actions, while those pushing the tax live their lives as normal while eating an extra cost that's trivial to them. It's like the preacher railing against sin and impure thoughts while he's banging the babysitter.
3 bozo MP eruptions in a week, and it didn't even include the stupid bracelets, that were 100% show. That’s quite the week from out government,
We have 16 more months of this 🤦🏻♀️
As shown in the below link, Canadians who have a choice are expressing their opinion in the ultimate way-by leaving the sinking ship. I wonder what the numbers will be for 2023 and 2024. And these figures don’t include undocumented individuals AFAIK.
The US oath of citizenship includes the phrase “I renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince …” While it normally takes at least 5 years of residency to become a US citizen, I think we all know who the “foreign prince” is in Canada’s case.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadians-moving-to-the-us-hits-10-year-high-1.7218479
What, a mere eight comments so far? Could it possibly be that usually loquacious subscribers don't particularly like having their contributions dismissed as fuel for a "dumpster fire?" Especially by decorum role models who permit themselves "fucking" this and "fucking" that, and dismiss others as "crazy" people prone to saying "stupid shit," and "carefully phrased bullshit," and so on? Contributors' confusion and hesitancy, I think, need to be forgiven; where exactly should they be looking for clues to proper expression etiquette?
My nose isn't out of joint, though, so I'll venture a comment. Whatever one thinks of Trump, on grounds of historical significance alone Canadian newspapers are certainly right to see the first-ever felony conviction of a former U.S. president as a big deal, and front page news. And while it may well be true that the MAGA crowd will simply continue to vote their tribal DNA, on what grounds can we plausibly ascribe to Democrats more evidence-friendly motivations? The consensus in the Democrat tribe is that Trump's legal woes, and of course this conviction, are attributable to his unique evil, while in the MAGA tribe they're attributable to Democrats' fear and foam-at-the-mouth hatred of Trump. Same set of facts, different interpretations...
...but should we really be content with an analysis that stops here? Where does it leave people like me? I've always voted N.D.P., but this hasn't prevented me from noticing that Democrats devote far more energy to bringing Trump and Republicans to 'justice' than they do to making sure Biden and fellow Democrats are similarly kept in line. Is Trump really the story here, or are a politicized deep state and criminal justice system, and an ideologically captured media the issues? Don't you think this second possibility should at least be considered, notwithstanding the fact that it naturally appeals to the MAGA tribe? Why should you care about that? Why would you favour, or reflexively dismiss, either of America's two main tribalisms, if you aren't going to treat the other with the identical blend of tolerance and skepticism?
It isn't that difficult to escape The New York Times and Washington Post on one side, and FOX News on the other, if you want to take a nonpartisan approach to analysis... and doing so reveals undeniable evidence of a double standard in the relentless pursuit of Trump. I'm more concerned about 'normalization' of this blatant one-sidedness than of Trump's rough edges, and not because I'm a Trump fan. Time will push Trump off the stage soon enough, but politicized institutions that pretend they're neutral are ultimately a threat to everyone, including partisans who turn a blind eye to it because they find themselves in the driver's seat right now. I have no reason for supposing that Republicans would behave better, but at the moment it's Democrats whose blows on behalf of democracy are damaging it.
To be fair, I think we were more anticipating the YouTube comments. Matt and I actually rather enjoy the comments section in the Substack proper. JG
Thank you, Jen. That's nice to hear. The truth is I'm in no position to generalize about the comments, since I only read a smattering of them. My impression is that that subset of the total is okay, even interesting, but if you're diligently ploughing through them all you may well have grounds for complaint I know nothing about.
On the Substack? Very few complaints at all. The calibre of comments from paid subscribers is overwhelmingly high and we genuinely appreciate them.
On the free platforms -- exceedingly hit and miss. With a smattering of crazy whenever we edge into highly contentious topics like Trump. JG
"Democrats devote far more energy to bringing Trump and Republicans to 'justice' than they do to making sure Biden and fellow Democrats are similarly kept in line."
How so?
Surely the Democrats have more evidence-friendly motivations. All the evidence was quite literally in favour of a Trump conviction on felony charges, and all 12 jurors agreed.
The jurors' agreement doesn't settle the matter, though, because we don't know if it's evidence of Trump's guilt or of the fact that they're all New York Democrats who hate Trump. The judge and prosecutor are also both Democrats, and the judge denied Trump's request for a change of venue.
Agreement has never been the test of truth. At one time everyone agreed the world was flat, and that the sun circled it; but the near universality of the agreement did not make these things so. For three years mainstream media agreed that the COVID-19 virus couldn't possibly have originated in--and escaped from--a lab, and that mRNA technology was completely safe. Now gain of function research, followed by a lab leak, is widely acknowledged to be the most plausible origin hypothesis; and more and more people are reporting mRNA vaccine injuries.
Epistemologically, it has never been wise to give one's assent to knowledge claims too easily, and certainly not because 'everybody agrees' that a particular claim is true. How much more cautious should we be when 'everybody' is a set of twelve people? In the case of mRNA, mainstream media clearly shouldn't have been giving us assurances that nobody was in a position to know were warranted. 'If we all get together and tell the same story--about COVID-19, Trump, or anything else--we can stifle dissent' is not an ethical approach to truth testing.
There's a possibly apocryphal story about Werner Heisenberg in which one of his colleagues supposedly said, "We are all agreed that your ideas are completely crazy. Where we disagree is on whether they're crazy enough to just possibly be right."
Honest question, do you think Trump falsified those business records? If not, I'm curious why not.
I'm not in a position to have any opinion on that matter, so I don't. I do have an opinion about double standards, though, in the criminal justice system or elsewhere: they're unethical. Granted, Trump would never be central casting's choice to play the role of sympathetic victim; but that's irrelevant. It's illegitimate for media, prosecutors and judges to gang up on anybody for political reasons. If you think Trump is bad for America, by all means campaign against him and don't vote for him; but don't keep inventing legal pretext after legal pretext to try to keep him off ballots. That's not 'saving' democracy; it's undermining it.
I don’t think the Democrats are a « tribe » at all. They don’t even have a hat.
They have MAGA hat phobia, though, which is enough to get you into the tribe.
The gap in voting intentions between the CPC and the Liberals has become volatile, with Abacus showing it down to 15% and Nanos at 16%. But Leger just came in at19%. The Liberals may well be panicking, but they still have some runway left. That makes the current blunders all the more surprising.
If the polls do stand up, the CPC will win, but I think that they will have only one term as a majority government. There are too many problems facing Canada, and they won't be solved in four years. So, if I were Mark Carney, I would wait until Mr. Trudeau leads the Liberals to a resounding defeat, and then make a bid for leader.
I have lived in Ottawa for some fifty years, but I haven't had any sustained contact with Parliamentarians, or those who work on the Hill (two mutually exclusive sets of people, it seems). Seeing them through the lens of your reporting is a revelation. Do we really elect such people? Why can't we do better as a nation?
I congratulate The Line and its team on not signing the Ottawa Declaration. Government subsidies, if temporary to help deal with an unforeseeable crisis, would be acceptable. Government subsidies, as part of an ongoing business model, are not. I much prefer a subscriber-pay model for its independence. That is what I am willing to pay for.
Have fun in Edmonton.
I think they will be far more resilient than a single term majority … more Chretien like with at least two majorities, then a minority before a loss.
I think the stench of this government (much like McGuinty/wynne) will last at least 8 years.
I don’t think Carney or any one from the “Laurentian elite” circles will be electable for quite some time. Whoever does lead the Liberals is a name we don’t yet know.
AND that’s only if we aren’t launched into a serious constitutional crisis in the next 5 years, which is way more likely than not.
Stephen Harper's government quite quickly moved past its peak levels of support upon obtaining a majority in 2011. Poilievre has seemingly learned nothing from the political mistakes of that government, so I would expect him to repeat the same mistakes and suffer a similar if lesser popular decline accordingly.
Harper already had 2 minorites before that.
Canadians in my life time of voting have given govt 8-10 year cycles. I don’t see that changing. They tire themselves out, and have no fresh ideas by that point. We will see this again. 2 terms is realistic, 3 terms is a stretch.
There is no lesson, unless it’s renewal and new ideas at the 6 year mark.
You are right about the general cycle of government turnover. Nonetheless, in both Harper and Trudeau's cases their popular voting support peaked at the start of their respective majorities (albeit with a surge of 2021 Trudeau support then ironically prompting the same premature election that then killed said surge). Trudeau stayed in power after 2019 not exclusively because of the governing cycle but also because he courted support from other opposition parties, which is unlikely to be indicative of a would-be Poilievre government's stability.
It has not been since 2000 that a government with a prior majority received a successive majority.
I believe the stench of this government is going to lead to such a big Majority, that the second election will be a reduced majority. I think Poilievre will get a lot of rope, (from voters, not media) especially with a Senate that will block or delay legislation. There will be over 100 liberal senators before Trudeau is done. (Let’s not pretend they are independent.)
This will most likely lead to a constitutional crisis, which will reflect very badly on the unelected body in our system. A constitutional crisis will lead to a much diluted federation, if we even survive that, PQ separation is already being openly discussed again..
How can there be a "constitutional crisis" when the Constitution is absolutely clear that the Senate has the authority to block legislation from the House of Commons?
"There will be over 100 liberal senators before Trudeau is done. (Let’s not pretend they are independent.)"
They are ideologically progressive, but there is no evidence that the new Senators have any attachment to big-L Liberal politics.
A “false” majority government? I think you should back away from the Liberal water cooler. A majority government that also ranks highest in voter percentages is a legitimate government.
No, I'm not drinking from the Liberal water cooler, Trudeau has made clear that he is a de facto supporter of the current electoral system, ironically now to his own detriment.
"A majority government that also ranks highest in voter percentages is a legitimate government."
It is legally legitimate, but not logically legitimate. A party that gets 100% of the power to implement an agenda that is unanimously opposed by parties representing 57% of voters is simply not representing the majority will.
George, you ask, "Why can't we do better as a nation?"
Truly (at least to me) a fundamental question. If the best we can do is have these bozos (and that is actually a slur on that fine fellow, Bozo the Clown) then we must ask why that is so.
My answer is two fold. First, we all want instant answers and instant "repair/correction/improvement." And we can't get it because STUFF TAKES TIME and knowledge and consideration and, yes, luck. The demand for now, now, now results in us blaming the other fellow for his perceived (of course it is!)
malfeasance/corruption/stupidity/etc. So, the result is the circus (see reference to Bozo the clown); did you watch the video and note how (not) well behaved Parliamentarians are?
Second, given the first answer, is it any wonder that the populace at large considers most politicians to be failed third or fourth rate actors? Why, one should ask, if you wouldn't touch a politician's job with a ten foot pole, why, or why should we legitimately expect quality candidates? Notwithstanding that ick factor the fact actually is that many quality candidates present themselves for election. And they then become residents of that swamp and become precisely that which we (and formerly, they) despise.
So, clean up the people and perhaps we can get better people. Oh! Circular, you say. Yes it is. We need to make sure that people who do go into politics don't fall into the damned swamp and become part of that odious food chain. Then they can help clean up the system. A really long and difficult process but not much else will work.
Rebuilding a party after a loss is hard, grinding, lonely work. Approximately none of it is high-minded policy, or being a global mover and shaker.
Maybe Mark Carney loves hanging around church basements and old folks' homes and looking empathetic and concerned instead of explaining that potholes aren't in federal jurisdiction. But he has never displayed that in his life so far.
Maybe Mark Carney deeply enjoys indulging incumbent backbench MPs who held their ridings despite a national loss and who therefore think they know everything there is to know about politics. Maybe nothing lifts his spirits like hour after hour of raising money in increments no greater than $1725 each, and often less.
But I doubt he likes any of those things, and even if he does, there's no reason to think he's good at them. He wants to be prime minister. I think he'd despise being an opposition leader, and almost certainly do it badly.
I don't think Mark Carney is planning on doing any of that. He will leave it to his underlings. Instead, he will concentrate on the economy, which may well be in quite bad shape, even after four years of CPC rule. Housing? Productivity? Trade (under a Trump-renegotiated NAFTA/USMCA)? Never mind the issues falling under provincial jurisdiction which the federal government will nevertheless get blamed, e.g. health care.
I come from the Reform side, and I'm sceptical that the CPC will bite the bullet and undertake the big reforms that are needed.
One more factoid. Recent polls suggest that some two-thirds of Canadians are "progressive". Turning that ship around will take a lot of leadership -- a positive vision. Does Mr. Poilievre have it in him? We shall see.
The wisest career advice I ever heard was “don’t become a surgeon because you want to save lives; become a surgeon if you like putting your hands in people’s guts and tying things”. To succeed, and to be fulfilled, you have to like the actual hour to hour work.
I have absolutely no doubt that Carney wants to articulate an exciting progressive vision for the long term, and to define a tax structure that enhances productivity while improving both medium term and intergenerational equity. I gravely doubt that he wants to spend hour after hour on a phone in a windowless room asking strangers for $200. And no, it can’t all be delegated. If he wants the glory, he has to spend years doing the grind.
"And no, it can't be delegated."
Agree. But does Mr. Carney really know that? After all. he has just had two stints as a central banker, where, I assure you, he never got his hands dirty. This mind-set would not be a handicap in a race for leadership of the Liberal Party in 2026, when all the attention will be focused on charisma and emoting. It will only be afterward that the sad reality will set in. Meanwhile, I suspect, disappointment and disenchantment with the CPC will begin to set in, when voters discover that there are no magic solutions, and that the country is in for a long hard slog.
Carney is a smart guy. That’s his reputation, and that was my experience dealing with him a little on a project back when he was an investment banker. He will know intellectually what is involved in being an opposition leader (probably already does, or will be told by a bunch of people as he continues to push in that direction). Whether he really internalizes it and has the self-awareness to assess how durable his motivation will be is hard to guess.
I have a slightly different theory of the Liberal view on road trips. I don't think (in their minds) they want families to stop taking road trips. I don't think they even believe road trips are bad (notwithstanding Holland's personal hang-up about 10 hours in a car without breaks). I think they are opposed to road trips *without carbon tax*.
The CPC proposal to which they are vehemently responding is a gas tax and carbon tax holiday. For Libs, that would make the planet burn because the carbon tax (supposedly) prevents the planet burning. Putative road trippers should want no part of this evil! Now of course, the way a carbon tax works is by deterring people, at the margin, from taking things like road trips. But I don't believe most Libs are thinking about that. Most of them just think (and talk) as if the carbon tax per se saves the planet, with a LeBlanc-level disinterest in the machinery of how this operates.
The carbon tax is almost like an indulgence from the medieval church; it wipes away the sin without your actually having to stop sinning. That's kind of the theory of offsets, but the carbon tax isn't funding offsets. All the same, I think most of the MPs hooting and applauding for Holland don't want Canadian families to stay home this summer. They want them to have a nice road trip to Canadian tourist destinations, but just as long as they pay their carbon tax indulgence.
What a week when there's 3 "into oblivion" incidents being discussed and that doesn't even include Trudeau alienating the last handful of Millennials and Gen Z willing to vote for him by saying housing prices need to stay high to support retirees (and this is so soon after all the energy spent on the "generational fairness" budget). I was kind of looking forward to a discussion on if this was a fuck-up or a "save-the-furniture" move - but that that aside - enjoyed the podcast as usual.
Graeme, of course, housing prices need to stay up!!!! (sarcasm)
To support retirees, you say. Well, perhaps but as a retiree, if my house price declines I will be a little unhappy but only a little. More to the point, however, the banks will panic because if house prices decline the collateral for mortgages (like many retirees, I don't have a mortgage) will decline and the banks will be in trouble.
So, Trudeau wants to blame retirees? How about his masters in the banking system?
So, thought experiment: let's say you could snap your fingers and every house in the country would be worth what it "should be" (let's arbitrarily call that 0.5% over the rate of inflation compounded, for the past 30 years). Who suffers most? Certainly the retiree is going to hurt, having lost much of the paper value of the home, and may impact the quality of life they can enjoy in their retirement and their options for for care when they're no longer able to live on their own. But unless they've leveraged against the value of that home, they aren't out any money. Compare that to someone who bought their house yesterday and now owes hundreds of thousands of dollars more than what their home is actually worth. As much as the Trudeau liberals and retirees are both easy and enjoyable targets to punch, I think we should be clear eyed about who is going to be impacted most by drastic a housing market correction and catastrophic ripple on effects that will have.
You are correct.
As retirees with ou4 house paid off, really, it is Monopoly money to my wife and to me. We won't be selling it so we won't be "sacrificing" any cash or phantom equity. The real problem groups are a) those who have just bought a house and are mortgaged beyond their eyeballs; and b) those who can never buy a house.
Interesting ! Hopefully G&G will discuss this next week, or have something written.
Canada had it's Trump already, it's Jungian reflection of itself. That was Pierre Trudeau. His legacy still lives on obviously, and it's what has both made modern Canada and will eventually rip it apart if it comes to that.
As for people sorting and moving to live with "their people" arguably its been going on longer in Canada than the US. Where did all the pro-business, socially liberal people go? They are in downtown Calgary and the suburbs of Toronto. The pro-gun, anti-vax young families are moving like nuts to places like Red Deer, which now has an unbelievable 120,000 people. Your environmental folks with money are on Vancouver Island, etc.
happy summer, but not the lines best podcast, this one not up to usual standard of content and presentation. lost me after the 3rd liberal - the road trip (happy summer) part - making fun of empty parliament theatre - a silly humorous reply to an embellished recurrent question - where you loose me is when you miss the message - he did not say/mean no summer vacation - just commenting on what you might do with that precious time - it does not have to be a road trip - many kids do not relish road trips (and parents do not relish kids when they are not relishing). The drive burning the world? - overstated, but a valid call to be more mindful. I thought is was more humorous than the typical, and at least civil too. So pick on stuff that is worth the time, please.
I agree. I had to view it in three instalments, not because I was busy, but because I really don't want to listen to stuff about Trump. There is absolutely no shortage of news on the man, so while I appreciated a couple of the Jen's and Matt's comments re Trump, I needed just 30 seconds devoted to that aspect. The road trip message, however, deserves mocking. Much of what this government does deserves mocking.
Enjoy your Podcast and editorials. I was troubled to hear Matt promoting “Unsmoke.ca”. The Line is now accepting advertisement money from big tobacco companies? CBC this morning had a critical news story about Unsmoke and their claims about the safety of vaping and their other tobacco products. Do not be fooled. They’ve killed millions with tobacco and they’re doing the same with their smokeless products.
Have to agree with Tony. As a paying customer I resent having to listen to advertisements, and especially from an entity like UnSmoke, which from my reading, is a front for Phillip Morris. Please desist.
who else thinks Trudeau is holding on wishing (and praying, and crossing all his fingers and toes) that Trump will get in, and he'll run/win on the ensuing panic?
“This is my rifle,
This is my gun.
This is for fighting,
This is for fun.”
Don't be naughty!
Sorry, an old RCR
they're both fun
Yes, I KNOW, where it comes from!
Jen kept saying “guns” and my mind went back to infantry battle school and our WO who told us, “you call it a gun, you owe me a beer!”
Anyone interested in alternative history (and not just as a plot device for a ground-breaking real-time strategy game) could do worse than taking a look at Churchill's own stab at the genre. First published in 1930, Churchill examined both how the world would change if the American Civil War went differently, but also how his own present could be seen as implausible compared to other more likely outcomes.
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/gettysburg-lee/
That shoutout about Command and Conquer hit be in my soul. I grew up with my father teaching me to use a PC by playing Red Alert. Huge nostalgia.
New Mexico, 1946
Scientist: Did you find him?
Albert Einstein: Hitler is out of the way.
Scientist: Congratulations Professor, with Hitler removed...
Albert Einstein (interrupting): Time will tell. Sooner or later, time will tell...
(this is for you, Matt...)
Found my person!
"Hitler is...out of the way"