Ah, so you "hate it when Carney sounds like Trudeau" do you?
Well, MC certainly has a nicer suit and he has an education and a work history (oh, don't ask the Brits about that - they seem to have "opinions" about that work history) and he worked in the private sector (Goldman Sachs 13 years, Brookfield 4 1/2 years); oh, and he is "rumored" to have conflicts arising out of Brookfield.
Strange as it seems to me, pretty well no one in the LPC claque is keen on remembering that MC was a key economic adviser to the Face Painter.
So, yeah, he kinda, possibly, maybe sounds like he should be better.
But, he is running even higher deficits than the Face Painter; he has the same cast of losers around him as did the FP; and he is - just like the FP - an acolyte in the Church or Green. I could go on but, I think that it is pretty clear that once you get past the surface cosmetics he is pretty much the same as the Face Painter. Oh, a nicer, glossier external package but pretty much the same. As near as I can tell, the principal difference between MC and the Face Painter is that MC hasn't taken up with a faded pop star. Of course, there is time, I suppose.
He went from thriving in the most morally bankrupt, sociopathic investment banking firms, to creating one housing bubble in Canada, another housing bubble in the UK, and then enthusiastically advising the most economically illiterate government in Canadian history. Also he won't tell anyone how much money he has or what his conflicts of interest are. He turned his nose up at Canada for better opportunities elsewhere, including significant connections to big money in the US.
If the Conservatives messed several things up early on in his time as leader, a big one was not being able to create a negative impression of Mark Carney with that much to work with. "Carbon Tax Carney" was pathetically too mild of an attempt at an insult. Sometimes I think a better and utterly vicious ad campaign early on could possibly have Ignatieff'd him, Trump or no Trump.
And this goes double for the NDP. If they can't convince their base that Carney is just as bad if not actually worse than Poilievre, which they would try to do if they wanted any votes, they don't deserve to exist. "Better a career politician with some right-wing populist talk, than a literal billionaire oligarch who will rob you blind!" Jesus guys this stuff writes itself.
As for understanding economics I refer you to the currently "flourishing" Canadian economy and point out that MC has been the man in charge for the last year and was a very senior adviser to the Face Painter. Further, he just brought down a budget with a massive, massive deficit but with no real need for a deficit except, you know, LPC social and similar programs. Therefore, I really question his practical grasp of economics. Oh, he has a PhD in the subject but real world application? Not so hot.
And as to "collectivist" I simply note that he is a member of the LPC so I don't need to go any further on that point.
Oh I agree with everything you say. And I missed a word with collectivist I should have added totalitarian and I was referring to French Quebeckers in general. My point is that with his training Carney does understand economics. And he is (ab)using this knowledge to enrich himself - like most third world dictators- and doesn’t give a damn about the harm he’s causing.
Ken, I was in finance in 2008. Of course Carney's not perfect however the Canadian market and economy was a standout when the usual U.S. leverage financial meltdown infected western economies so badly. He and his team deserve credit for choices that made it so... financially conservative choices btw.
That was a very long time ago. There are kids that were born in 2008 who are in university now. The world has changed and Canada dodged that bullet because we were so chronically risk adverse.
Jen: "... Look, it took us ten years to totally bork our position on the geopolitical stage ..."
I respectfully suggest that said borking occurred pretty much from the get go and simply continued for ten years. But that is quibbling.
You don't address MC's assertion that "We have to do things that we hadn't imagined possible before at a speed that we haven't moved before."
My point is that, yes, this is complicated but the LPC sold Carney as a miracle worker and he himself promised speed, as noted above.
Matt, you say that, "... We've got the economics ..." No, sir, we don't. If we cannot get our deficit under control we will hit a debt wall with our creditors. There is no believable coherent path to getting the deficit under control so, respectfully, I disagree with you in full on that point.
Hmmm .... Jennifer you say that an all out everyone for themself in terms of provinces is "corrosive" but didn't the Face Painter say that we were a post-national state and that Canada had no core identity? As near as I can tell, no LPC member - certainly not a cabinet member - has stood up and publicly against that assertion.
Matt you were distressed that Ontario "had to" work with Nova Scotia to remove barriers to sale of alcohol products. But, just who the hell put up those barriers in the first place? On another note, Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan officially launched the New West Partnership trade Agreement in 2010, which built on an agreement first signed in 2007; in 2017 Manitoba joined the agreement. My point is that province put up the stupid barriers so they have to take them down. Yes, wouldn't it be nice to have the Prime Minister involved, but, you know, all damned talk, no action.
Perhaps consider the possibility that if he is out of the country that MIGHT make it somewhat more difficult for his LPC cult to further the destruction of the country. Just think about that possibility.
Canadians as a whole display a shocking lack of business experience from the ground up. We are not a nation of entrepreneurship. It shows in that so many Canadians think Carney is a businessman. He isn't. He's a manager and a technocrat. This appeals to a critical mass of Canadians but managing an economy isn't the same as creating wealth.
No issues with managers but Carney never actually had to make a payroll before he paid himself and it shows.
The lack of urgency after 1+ year in charge of a country with a PMO with near dictatorial powers shows he doesn't understand.
Carney and Trudeau are but the manifestation of a population that is dangerously parochial in a era where this lack of sophistication could get us wiped out. Carney appeals to many because her represents what many think the ideal Canadian is. That unfortunately isn't what we need, which is pure economic growth and productivity.
Their post-nationalism has turned a united country into a bunch of factions. Half the country is willing to sacrifice the jobs of auto, steel and aluminum workers on the alter of Elbows Up.
As long as Elbows Up folks don't have to be personally accountable for their actions and beliefs why would they care? It's like the FN and anti pipeline politics. Why should they accept a pipeline when there are zero negatives to rejecting a pipeline from their perspective?
We have a critical mass of Canadians who have reached Canadian Valhalla and isolated themselves from the greater world economy
Long-time listener here, and I really value the depth of analysis you both usually bring.
I have to admit I got a little excited when I saw the title of the episode. I was hoping for a deeper discussion about Mark Carney, rather than more time on Alberta or running down Pierre.
What surprised me was how briefly you touched on Carney himself. I’d genuinely be interested in hearing your assessment of his first year. From where I sit, there hasn’t been much in the way of concrete action yet, and I keep waiting to see something that clearly connects to what Canadians are actually feeling and struggling with right now.
You both tend to approach issues with thoughtful skepticism, which is why I listen. Some people are excellent communicators, but governing is about translating words into results, and I’m still waiting to see that transition.
For context, I’d probably describe myself as a Red Tory, and I’ve been trying to warm up to him. I’d just really like to hear a more critical look at whether the promises are translating into real outcomes.
One other thing I’m curious about: Brookfield seems to appear around many of the international meetings and initiatives he’s involved in. Is that simply coincidence, or is there a broader relationship there that deserves a bit more scrutiny?
Curious to hear your take on both of those points in a future episode.
I found Jen's analysis of Poillievre to be incoherent and self-contradictory. It's clear why he may struggle to reach certain independent voters when their grasp of him reflects similar reasoning. At least she's trying...I guess.
This was one of her more generous and coherent takes on him as of late. Check out the last few weeks if you want to see the comparison. She decided he's permanently unelectable after the last election, is angry at him in an unfocused way for sticking around, and her views of him are filtered through that.
Not as bad-faith as other media which see him as the end to their subsidies and therefore possibly their careers so try to present him as badly as possible, but a similar emotional reaction that many have to sitting in the anti-Conservative Canadian media stew where the issues aren't the issues and blue man always bad.
Jen, you say lobbyists are convincing the government to fund government-friendly businesses with the taxes from working Canadians, and yet it is not a Laurentide elite conspiracy to rip off working Canadians. It is.
I listened to a large tranche of the episode while driving.
I had several thoughts I have been pondering since.
Less than a year ago, an election was fought over the supposed existential threat (take a drink!!) of the USA wanting to annex Canada. I say supposed, because-less than a year out- there has been not a shred of evidence that this was a threat, let alone an actual goal.
One guy that didn't bite was Pierre Poilievre. He was castigated and harangued for not "pivoting" to the Team Canada, Elbows Up, full-lemming approach to the US. He continued to profess that the greatest threat to Canada was our own apathy, lethargy, and embrace of bureaucratic inertia and regulatory paralysis. He continues to preach that message. He does so because he has been thoroughly vindicated. He has been right all along.
Much has been written & discussed regarding Mark J. Carney's intelligence, and his resume.
There are a great many distinguished businessmen, bankers, investment managers, and CEOs in our Country. We also seem to have an abundance of PhDs. There are a lot of smart, successful folks in our Country; Prime Minister Carney is in no way unique in this regard.
Why the free ride?
It is the Pierre Elliot Trudeau effect. In the 60s, 70s, & 80s, PET was hailed as an intellectual, a distinguished man of letters, and of possessing an intelligence of which Canadians could be proud. Our own Renaissance Man, swashbuckling his way across the international scene.
Yet, he showed an obsequiousness to dictators that would make even President Trump blush, uttered the phrase "We haven't been able to make it work, the free market system.", and made such imprudent policy decisions that they were unwound by Brian Mulroney.
Canadians love being caught in their own myth, so I suppose the cycle will continue for some time.
Poilievre's position has always been to fix Canada and bear with Trump. It was The Line that wanted him to pivot on Trump. And pivot is all I remember from the last 15 months. This is the first time I have heard The Line recommend he travel abroad. Maybe I missed something.
Matt's deft shanking of Cathal Kelly was awesome. I was hoping for similar treatment of two of Kelly's comrades in arms, Damien Cox and Bruce Arthur but understand why you could not resist dealing with the Ambassador.
I agree with Matt that excellent sportswriting can go toe-to-toe with the best of any journalism but there has never been very much of it and it is now almost non-existent. The percentage of wokesters among the sports media appears to be, if anything, higher than among the non sports media which doesn't help as their "politics" infiltrates their coverage far, far too much. Life was better when sports mediots were just dumb, rather rather than dumb wannabe social commentators. Can't we just enjoy sports for sports!!??
I also agree that over the years the Globe and Mail has not been the place to go for wall-to-wall sports coverage but they have had very good sports writers. I think of Lorne Rubenstein and Steven Brunt, the latter of whom had a really good and long run, and who, until he retired, I referred to as Canada's good sportswriter.
Looks like my initial comment on this post got deleted somehow, so I am posting it again. Here goes:
Just out of curiosity, I searched the Line to see how many times you've mentioned "Brookfield," Carney's huge conflict of interest that somehow manages to have a connection to many of Carney's international trips. I got five hits. Five. I don't know how you can consistently overlook such a thing.
It continues to exasperate me that this podcast is willing to take the Mark Carney government seriously and on its own terms as a good-faith departure from the Trudeau era. Especially considering how effectively and thoroughly the hosts identified the failings of the previous PM in ways few others were willing to articulate. They were one of the few credible media sources willing to say openly that the emperor was stark fucking naked.
But this current government is nothing more than a sad rebrand to buy time for the same powerful insiders to retain their parasitic positions in our society. Our media environment decided to take seriously something that had no credibility to take seriously. Anyone who thinks this government will get the country back on track will be sadly disappointed. We shouldn't need another 3, 4, 10, whatever years to find out if Carney will do what he kind of sort of says he will do. Nobody else gets this kind of latitude. He didn't deserve a chance in the first place.
You want real change, you have to change governments. Otherwise you are just making excuses for the fact that a lifetime boiling in the Canadian media environment stew makes you emotionally revolted at the idea of not voting Liberal.
And my question is - what's changed? What's actually happening faster? What's getting better?
Lots of agreementS and hand shakes and photo ops. Is the economy doing better? Are actually new projects being improved faster? Is the bureaucracy more effective? Are internal trade barriers coming down in significant ways? Are we in a better position with the USA?
How's housing going? Crime? International relations? Health care?
etc. etc. etc.
I don't care about talk and photos. What is actually HAPPENING?
Trudeau 2.0 maybe gone but the debris field is long and wide. Like Humpty Dumpty, Canada had a great fall. Here’s hoping Canada will rise from the mess of goo.
It's kind of the Line to provide a forum for nihilists, political operators, mean people, and those of us running outa listeners (or the right modality) for our rants. I hope the money's worth it and appreciate your role in the above.
Ah, so you "hate it when Carney sounds like Trudeau" do you?
Well, MC certainly has a nicer suit and he has an education and a work history (oh, don't ask the Brits about that - they seem to have "opinions" about that work history) and he worked in the private sector (Goldman Sachs 13 years, Brookfield 4 1/2 years); oh, and he is "rumored" to have conflicts arising out of Brookfield.
Strange as it seems to me, pretty well no one in the LPC claque is keen on remembering that MC was a key economic adviser to the Face Painter.
So, yeah, he kinda, possibly, maybe sounds like he should be better.
But, he is running even higher deficits than the Face Painter; he has the same cast of losers around him as did the FP; and he is - just like the FP - an acolyte in the Church or Green. I could go on but, I think that it is pretty clear that once you get past the surface cosmetics he is pretty much the same as the Face Painter. Oh, a nicer, glossier external package but pretty much the same. As near as I can tell, the principal difference between MC and the Face Painter is that MC hasn't taken up with a faded pop star. Of course, there is time, I suppose.
Carney is an overblown resume masquerading as a “get shit done” guy (which he is not).
Carney is a coward who lacks any moral leadership to take principled positions & follow through. He won’t pick a lane. Loser energy.
He went from thriving in the most morally bankrupt, sociopathic investment banking firms, to creating one housing bubble in Canada, another housing bubble in the UK, and then enthusiastically advising the most economically illiterate government in Canadian history. Also he won't tell anyone how much money he has or what his conflicts of interest are. He turned his nose up at Canada for better opportunities elsewhere, including significant connections to big money in the US.
If the Conservatives messed several things up early on in his time as leader, a big one was not being able to create a negative impression of Mark Carney with that much to work with. "Carbon Tax Carney" was pathetically too mild of an attempt at an insult. Sometimes I think a better and utterly vicious ad campaign early on could possibly have Ignatieff'd him, Trump or no Trump.
And this goes double for the NDP. If they can't convince their base that Carney is just as bad if not actually worse than Poilievre, which they would try to do if they wanted any votes, they don't deserve to exist. "Better a career politician with some right-wing populist talk, than a literal billionaire oligarch who will rob you blind!" Jesus guys this stuff writes itself.
At least MC isn’t a collectivist French Quebecker and understands economics.
I grant you that he is not a Quebecer.
As for understanding economics I refer you to the currently "flourishing" Canadian economy and point out that MC has been the man in charge for the last year and was a very senior adviser to the Face Painter. Further, he just brought down a budget with a massive, massive deficit but with no real need for a deficit except, you know, LPC social and similar programs. Therefore, I really question his practical grasp of economics. Oh, he has a PhD in the subject but real world application? Not so hot.
And as to "collectivist" I simply note that he is a member of the LPC so I don't need to go any further on that point.
Oh I agree with everything you say. And I missed a word with collectivist I should have added totalitarian and I was referring to French Quebeckers in general. My point is that with his training Carney does understand economics. And he is (ab)using this knowledge to enrich himself - like most third world dictators- and doesn’t give a damn about the harm he’s causing.
Ken, I was in finance in 2008. Of course Carney's not perfect however the Canadian market and economy was a standout when the usual U.S. leverage financial meltdown infected western economies so badly. He and his team deserve credit for choices that made it so... financially conservative choices btw.
That was a very long time ago. There are kids that were born in 2008 who are in university now. The world has changed and Canada dodged that bullet because we were so chronically risk adverse.
Jen: "... Look, it took us ten years to totally bork our position on the geopolitical stage ..."
I respectfully suggest that said borking occurred pretty much from the get go and simply continued for ten years. But that is quibbling.
You don't address MC's assertion that "We have to do things that we hadn't imagined possible before at a speed that we haven't moved before."
My point is that, yes, this is complicated but the LPC sold Carney as a miracle worker and he himself promised speed, as noted above.
Matt, you say that, "... We've got the economics ..." No, sir, we don't. If we cannot get our deficit under control we will hit a debt wall with our creditors. There is no believable coherent path to getting the deficit under control so, respectfully, I disagree with you in full on that point.
Hmmm .... Jennifer you say that an all out everyone for themself in terms of provinces is "corrosive" but didn't the Face Painter say that we were a post-national state and that Canada had no core identity? As near as I can tell, no LPC member - certainly not a cabinet member - has stood up and publicly against that assertion.
Matt you were distressed that Ontario "had to" work with Nova Scotia to remove barriers to sale of alcohol products. But, just who the hell put up those barriers in the first place? On another note, Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan officially launched the New West Partnership trade Agreement in 2010, which built on an agreement first signed in 2007; in 2017 Manitoba joined the agreement. My point is that province put up the stupid barriers so they have to take them down. Yes, wouldn't it be nice to have the Prime Minister involved, but, you know, all damned talk, no action.
It would be nice if the new Prime Minister might spend some time in Canada.
Perhaps consider the possibility that if he is out of the country that MIGHT make it somewhat more difficult for his LPC cult to further the destruction of the country. Just think about that possibility.
Curious how a guy who is never here is crushing the opposition in the polls lately.
odd comments.
I'm confident Carney has a better handle on the debt, ratings, interest market than most of us, myself included.
Carney has clearly tried harder to build culture; PP has only just pivoted from too-MAGA sounding bitching.
Canadians as a whole display a shocking lack of business experience from the ground up. We are not a nation of entrepreneurship. It shows in that so many Canadians think Carney is a businessman. He isn't. He's a manager and a technocrat. This appeals to a critical mass of Canadians but managing an economy isn't the same as creating wealth.
No issues with managers but Carney never actually had to make a payroll before he paid himself and it shows.
The lack of urgency after 1+ year in charge of a country with a PMO with near dictatorial powers shows he doesn't understand.
Carney and Trudeau are but the manifestation of a population that is dangerously parochial in a era where this lack of sophistication could get us wiped out. Carney appeals to many because her represents what many think the ideal Canadian is. That unfortunately isn't what we need, which is pure economic growth and productivity.
Their post-nationalism has turned a united country into a bunch of factions. Half the country is willing to sacrifice the jobs of auto, steel and aluminum workers on the alter of Elbows Up.
As long as Elbows Up folks don't have to be personally accountable for their actions and beliefs why would they care? It's like the FN and anti pipeline politics. Why should they accept a pipeline when there are zero negatives to rejecting a pipeline from their perspective?
We have a critical mass of Canadians who have reached Canadian Valhalla and isolated themselves from the greater world economy
Long-time listener here, and I really value the depth of analysis you both usually bring.
I have to admit I got a little excited when I saw the title of the episode. I was hoping for a deeper discussion about Mark Carney, rather than more time on Alberta or running down Pierre.
What surprised me was how briefly you touched on Carney himself. I’d genuinely be interested in hearing your assessment of his first year. From where I sit, there hasn’t been much in the way of concrete action yet, and I keep waiting to see something that clearly connects to what Canadians are actually feeling and struggling with right now.
You both tend to approach issues with thoughtful skepticism, which is why I listen. Some people are excellent communicators, but governing is about translating words into results, and I’m still waiting to see that transition.
For context, I’d probably describe myself as a Red Tory, and I’ve been trying to warm up to him. I’d just really like to hear a more critical look at whether the promises are translating into real outcomes.
One other thing I’m curious about: Brookfield seems to appear around many of the international meetings and initiatives he’s involved in. Is that simply coincidence, or is there a broader relationship there that deserves a bit more scrutiny?
Curious to hear your take on both of those points in a future episode.
I found Jen's analysis of Poillievre to be incoherent and self-contradictory. It's clear why he may struggle to reach certain independent voters when their grasp of him reflects similar reasoning. At least she's trying...I guess.
Is she, though?
This was one of her more generous and coherent takes on him as of late. Check out the last few weeks if you want to see the comparison. She decided he's permanently unelectable after the last election, is angry at him in an unfocused way for sticking around, and her views of him are filtered through that.
Not as bad-faith as other media which see him as the end to their subsidies and therefore possibly their careers so try to present him as badly as possible, but a similar emotional reaction that many have to sitting in the anti-Conservative Canadian media stew where the issues aren't the issues and blue man always bad.
Carney's comments on the war are misunderstood because they are too nuanced???
His press release said decades of negotiations with Iran have been futile (p2) and we have to stop the bombing and negotiate with Iran (p7).
They are misunderstood because he is pandering to the Muslims.
Muslims bad, right?
Yep.
thanks for clarifying.
that makes no sense to me; we disagree
Jen, you say lobbyists are convincing the government to fund government-friendly businesses with the taxes from working Canadians, and yet it is not a Laurentide elite conspiracy to rip off working Canadians. It is.
I listened to a large tranche of the episode while driving.
I had several thoughts I have been pondering since.
Less than a year ago, an election was fought over the supposed existential threat (take a drink!!) of the USA wanting to annex Canada. I say supposed, because-less than a year out- there has been not a shred of evidence that this was a threat, let alone an actual goal.
One guy that didn't bite was Pierre Poilievre. He was castigated and harangued for not "pivoting" to the Team Canada, Elbows Up, full-lemming approach to the US. He continued to profess that the greatest threat to Canada was our own apathy, lethargy, and embrace of bureaucratic inertia and regulatory paralysis. He continues to preach that message. He does so because he has been thoroughly vindicated. He has been right all along.
Much has been written & discussed regarding Mark J. Carney's intelligence, and his resume.
There are a great many distinguished businessmen, bankers, investment managers, and CEOs in our Country. We also seem to have an abundance of PhDs. There are a lot of smart, successful folks in our Country; Prime Minister Carney is in no way unique in this regard.
Why the free ride?
It is the Pierre Elliot Trudeau effect. In the 60s, 70s, & 80s, PET was hailed as an intellectual, a distinguished man of letters, and of possessing an intelligence of which Canadians could be proud. Our own Renaissance Man, swashbuckling his way across the international scene.
Yet, he showed an obsequiousness to dictators that would make even President Trump blush, uttered the phrase "We haven't been able to make it work, the free market system.", and made such imprudent policy decisions that they were unwound by Brian Mulroney.
Canadians love being caught in their own myth, so I suppose the cycle will continue for some time.
Carney won; PP lost.
Blaming the voters is loser talk and pretty soft.
Poilievre's position has always been to fix Canada and bear with Trump. It was The Line that wanted him to pivot on Trump. And pivot is all I remember from the last 15 months. This is the first time I have heard The Line recommend he travel abroad. Maybe I missed something.
Poilevre lost right?
Canada lost.
Why on earth would you want a political leader who never changed his positions? Did it work out well with Trudeau?
That reminds me. You missed a key reason why Carney changed his story on Iran. It was a poll.
For me, there is changing positions and there is flip flopping. This one flip flops like a freshly caught carp.
Carney flipped his opinion on Iran be cause polling disagreed with his first statement.
Yes, he flip flopped.
As is often the case, I think the issue is more about timing. Some people even say, "Timing is everything."
The US doesn't need an Iranian regime change. Kill the Mullahs and get out.
Israel may want to stabilize Iran and are far more capable of doing it.
Matt's deft shanking of Cathal Kelly was awesome. I was hoping for similar treatment of two of Kelly's comrades in arms, Damien Cox and Bruce Arthur but understand why you could not resist dealing with the Ambassador.
I agree with Matt that excellent sportswriting can go toe-to-toe with the best of any journalism but there has never been very much of it and it is now almost non-existent. The percentage of wokesters among the sports media appears to be, if anything, higher than among the non sports media which doesn't help as their "politics" infiltrates their coverage far, far too much. Life was better when sports mediots were just dumb, rather rather than dumb wannabe social commentators. Can't we just enjoy sports for sports!!??
I also agree that over the years the Globe and Mail has not been the place to go for wall-to-wall sports coverage but they have had very good sports writers. I think of Lorne Rubenstein and Steven Brunt, the latter of whom had a really good and long run, and who, until he retired, I referred to as Canada's good sportswriter.
Looks like my initial comment on this post got deleted somehow, so I am posting it again. Here goes:
Just out of curiosity, I searched the Line to see how many times you've mentioned "Brookfield," Carney's huge conflict of interest that somehow manages to have a connection to many of Carney's international trips. I got five hits. Five. I don't know how you can consistently overlook such a thing.
It continues to exasperate me that this podcast is willing to take the Mark Carney government seriously and on its own terms as a good-faith departure from the Trudeau era. Especially considering how effectively and thoroughly the hosts identified the failings of the previous PM in ways few others were willing to articulate. They were one of the few credible media sources willing to say openly that the emperor was stark fucking naked.
But this current government is nothing more than a sad rebrand to buy time for the same powerful insiders to retain their parasitic positions in our society. Our media environment decided to take seriously something that had no credibility to take seriously. Anyone who thinks this government will get the country back on track will be sadly disappointed. We shouldn't need another 3, 4, 10, whatever years to find out if Carney will do what he kind of sort of says he will do. Nobody else gets this kind of latitude. He didn't deserve a chance in the first place.
You want real change, you have to change governments. Otherwise you are just making excuses for the fact that a lifetime boiling in the Canadian media environment stew makes you emotionally revolted at the idea of not voting Liberal.
Fully agree.
And my question is - what's changed? What's actually happening faster? What's getting better?
Lots of agreementS and hand shakes and photo ops. Is the economy doing better? Are actually new projects being improved faster? Is the bureaucracy more effective? Are internal trade barriers coming down in significant ways? Are we in a better position with the USA?
How's housing going? Crime? International relations? Health care?
etc. etc. etc.
I don't care about talk and photos. What is actually HAPPENING?
We’re apparently catalyzing. Isn’t that enough?
Trudeau 2.0 maybe gone but the debris field is long and wide. Like Humpty Dumpty, Canada had a great fall. Here’s hoping Canada will rise from the mess of goo.
Yeah, I feel like we won’t make any effort to improve ourselves until we hit rock bottom.
sidebar
It's kind of the Line to provide a forum for nihilists, political operators, mean people, and those of us running outa listeners (or the right modality) for our rants. I hope the money's worth it and appreciate your role in the above.
It is a good place to come for an argument. Oops. Now I have to try really hard not to quote Monty Python.