Yes, the SNC Lavalin scandal should top the list of the PM’s peccadillos. For who can forget:
• acceding to the lobbying and pressure for immunity by a perennial Quebec favourite, who doesn’t want to lose profits, in Canada, to qualified but less-tainted or politically connected competitors (ignore the “lost jobs” ploy, which was pure deflection and remember the Montreal hospital scandal which the Montreal Gazette called the biggest fraud in Canadian history),
• the surreptitious way in which the underlying legislation was lobbied-for and slyly smuggled into law, without real parliamentary scrutiny or debate,
• the involvement of senior public servants (the top guy eventually had to resign) and the PM himself, in pressuring the Attorney General, to exercise a discretion that was hers alone,
• the specter of the AG, a senior law officer of the Crown, taping her conversations in the (well-unfounded) fear that her interlocutors might later lie about what was being said,
• and the ultimate sad outcome for a couple of talented, but principled women, who were not disposed to be marionettes for the PMO - especially the AG, whose independence in the legal system has a constitutional dimension.
• All incidentally demonstrating that gender balance in the cabinet was another empty gesture – just clever stage management by the drama teacher who excels at progressive gestures and imagery (two billion trees!). In this case, gender parity for puppets.
So yes, the PM should have been penalized for this, especially given all the handwringing about Trump’s shenanigans and the oft intoned concerns about the “rule of law”.
this so-called feminist government also allowed violent & opportunist men to self declare themselves women, and get transferred to women's prisons.
(and Trudeau did that unilaterally after ONE comment at a townhall; no discussion in parliament, or an announcement to the press. just BAM- make it so)
I live to hate on that sad figure in the PMs office and I mean daily but he had lots of help with his gender agenda from the cons as well. Michelle Rempell is a darling of the dysphoria crowd and responsible for the damage that many Canadian children will suffer for generations as a result of their 'woke ideoligy' being enshrined in law. The conservatives need to smarten up fast. Millions of Canadians are pissed about how our culture has been shat upon.
Rick, it is impossible for me to look inside Trudeau to definitively pin down his gut moral agenda. Ditto for Poilievre. My chimes on those two won’t add anything useful to the melody blowing in the wind. Politics is a Machiavellian sport. Job one is to get elected, and that ultimately perverts and complicates everything. I can only put the past evidence into two columns per party and total up to see which party has the better plus-minus, per basketball stats. As the past doesn’t predict the future well enough, my best alternative is to observe the moral fiber of the party and leader choices before me, reach a conclusion, take a leap of faith and be thankful there’s always an election no more than five years away.
If the polls hold then Canadians have totalled up their columns and made their collective moral determination. Trudeau is hanging on because black swan events can decimate polls. Poilievre is charging forward for the same reason. It’s the nature of the beast of the system we have created.
I agree with most of what you have said to varying degrees. What I’m uncomfortable with is hate. I’m old so I file the word hate in the traditional sense, not in the "Zeitgeist" sense that you likely intend. Hate is too negative and too powerful a word to use cavalierly. Too many political issues don’t get solved and linger on because we have difficulty breaking the hate, revenge, hate, revenge, hate, … cycle. Let’s at least pull each other out of that ditch.
But I too am “old”, and once upon a time, politics seemed to be animated by something other than resentment; so, I lament the passing of those times – although perhaps that is just seeing things through rose-coloured glasses, clouded by the mists of time.
But I can’t help but wonder what the Liberal Party might have been like, if Bob Rae had been leader, or even if Erin O’Toole had been given another chance.
Because when cabinet government decays and the PM becomes an uncrowned King (be they tyrant or fool), their personal character and capacities matter, and not just their talent for performance, whether it is spiced by vinegar or molasses.
And poseurs of whatever stripe are SO tiresome.
But we are breaching the Line’s rules against “dialogue” between subscribers, so we had better stop.
What I cannot fathom with all the commentary against Pierre Poilievre and the CPC is the fundamental expectation that they act as the GOVERNING party instead of the OPPOSITION party.
Just because our illustrious Prime minister and his band of acolytes are incompetent doesn't behoove the opposition party to start running the government. The CPC is not on the hook to provide solutions to all problems (even though they have put forward specific bills for this purpose) - the Liberals and the NDP are. Pierre Poilievre does not need to put up his entire climate action plan for everyone's review - the Government does.
So when a commentator calls out the Conservatives for not having a plan or policy proposal, my question really is "What the fuck are you talking about?". They are the opposition party. They are doing literally what every single opposition party would do in their position - while also tabling legitimate bills that the government outright dismissed without a debate. So again, if you have a policy question, ask the damn government - not the opposition party.
I want to respond to this with all the respect a paying subscriber is owed. Because you truly are the best people in the world. And obviously possessed of excellent taste.
But you’re wrong here. You’re not wrong in the facts or even in your argument. You’re wrong because you are stretching a little saying, which is true on its own merits, beyond what is reasonable. Yeah, absolutely. The job of the opposition is to oppose. You’re right about that.
But what that cute little saying doesn’t cover is that there is a massive spectrum in HOW the opposition can oppose. And that spectrum covers everything from the thoughtful and powerful all the way over to the cheap stunts we were seeing last week.
I’m a realist. I get that different things will work better in different circumstances, and in different times and places. You want to bring a different skillset to, for example, a moderated debate panel compared to, as another example, a social media fundraising campaign.
So even while I find some of this stuff personally, who cares? I’m downtown elitist with a stick up my ass. The CPC doesn’t need me to be morally or ethically comfortable with literally every single thing they do. They just need to keep me, a voter who has voted conservative in the past, and would be open to voting for them again, reasonably convinced that they would make a meaningful improvement over the current government And wouldn’t fuck stuff up through reckless stupidity.
And they aren’t convincing me. I’m the national security hawk, gun guy. And I still don’t think these guys are necessarily ready for prime time. It’s not that they aren’t capable of the more thoughtful kind of opposition. There’s been plenty of good work by the Conservatives, and even at times the other opposition parties, trying to shine light on government waste or stupidity, or arrogance, or whatever. The critical issue, as I see it, is that the smart, thoughtful stuff that actually gives me a sense that this is a group of people who are ready to govern a country of 40 million people seem to be little vestigial appendages to what seems to be the actual core of this party: a shitpost meme machine, always looking first and foremost for a sweet dunk on social media.
It wasn’t always this way. But these guys went to a dark place after the double defeats in 2019 and 2021. You may be willing to write them a blank cheque so long as whatever they are doing nominally fits some concept of “opposing“ the government. I expect more from a group of people I might be about to hand the national keys over to.
Because here is my real concern: hard times bring out someone’s true self. Justin Trudeau didn’t have a problem before the world started to go to ratshit on all of us. But when hard times hit, we began seeing his weaknesses. This is an optics-first government that is so captured by their own belief in their own bullshit that actually delivering critical things in a timely way doesn’t always seem to interest them. They take themselves and their own pledges at face value and are generally shocked when others don’t do the same. Shocked and angry. That’s the core of the Trudeau liberals: boundless faith in their own goodwill and hostility to anyone less impressed by them than they are with themselves.
That hasn’t fared well in recent years, and I think the polls rightly reflect that. But as someone who is pretty convinced that our last few bumpy years are the beginning of a new normal, as opposed to a temporary shitty blip, I need to have faith that whoever takes over next will actually have at their core a thoughtful, focused desire to make this country battle ready for whatever the future might bring. I don’t see that from these guys.
I think they’re just mirror images of what we already have. The Liberals offered us a country adrift and a patronizing smile. I don’t see any reason to expect Poilievre to offer me anything other than a country that remains adrift, but this time, topped with an angry snarl.
I truly appreciate your thoughtful response. I would generally agree with what you have said and would add a couple of minor things.
Firstly, while the Conservatives have indeed looked like they are focussed on putting on a show, it has to be acknowledged that this was primarily seen only in the past few weeks. Prior to that (and, in fact, for all of 2023), Pierre Poilievre and the CPC had been laser focussed on housing and cost of living with the core message/solution being their current slogan "Axe the Tax". They have clearly reaped the benefits of this with sky high poll numbers. They hit the absolute jackpot when the Liberals made an Atlantic Canada carve out for Carbon tax on heating. It was clearly a massive strategic and campaign fundraising win for the party.
But I do believe they began to botch it with their first misstep of the vote against the Ukraine deal. Then came the "terrorist attack" confrontation with the reporter, and now this dog and pony show with the procedural votes. The risk they run is becoming the dog that doesn't know what to do when the car it is chasing actually stops.
But in spite of all this, my own view (and you may not agree with me) is that the opposition doesn't need to demonstrate like it is a government in waiting until such a time that the actual elections are in the near future. It is not their job and they are better focused on differentiating themselves from the current government and speaking for the general populace who feel left out by the government policies - which I do believe the CPC had been doing extremely well this past year till a few weeks back. Once the elections are coming near, yes, I will definitely hold them to a higher standard and a different set of expectations.
So, listening to Jen and Mat and ignoring the foul language (sorry, it just sets my teeth on edge when it is not needed) it seems that you fear PP and the CRC. No one is perfect but can you not at least give the man credit for having policies that he can articulate that will actually help Canada? The video on housing is plain and factual but you just can't seem to see that people might actually vote FOR the Conservatives instead of voting AGAINST Justin. I read recently that JT has not once spoken with Cretien to get opinions and advice from the voice of experience. The same article indicated that Harper and Cretien respect and like each other because they recognize that the other had the ability to make a decision when it was needed. Currently the only answer is to throw money at an issue and hope that helps and apologies to the comenter who thinks that JT got the COVID response right, that was another issue that money was thrown at with no rules or contracts or expectations.
I actually am disapointed in so many of our politicians because there is no vision, no goal, no project that Canadians can get enthused about. Carbon reduction is a sham of a project before the liberal readers get started and JT's recent flip flops on green issues proves the point. Where is the national dream?
Oh, another thing, I vote Conservative but pay to lsiten to this podcast to broaden my information sources. Judging from osme of the anti conservatie comments I suspect a lot of responders are liberals living in an echo chamber, but, hey, I'm just some guy sitting in front of a computer.
On a totally unrelated note - carry some cash in your pocket or wallet and support some of our great charities that are trying to help during this season. Volunteer to man a Salvation Army kettle or pass some cash to a worthy charity that doesn't spend 50% of income on management and fund raising and Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Let's hope 2024 is a better year than the train wreck we have expeienced.
Not afraid. Just don’t think he’ll fix the things I need him to fix. More of the same dysfunction and drift, but meaner tweets to keep the base satisfied that someone is Standing Up To The Elites or some bullshit like that.
If Poilievre becomes prime minister, he’s going to echo one of Justin Trudeau’s problems: they’ve got one really good political trick, and they’re going to keep trying to make it work even when it’s not adequate for the task.
Trudeau’s thing is being the coolest kid in school. He knew how to project the image, he knew how to mouth the cool stuff. What that masked was that he’d slacked off in his studies and was a dismal student with a poor grasp of what he was actually there to learn. When his “cool” schtick stopped working, he’s had nothing to fall back on.
Poilievre has always been the partisan bomb thrower. That’s what he was good at in the Harper government, and that’s the talent that’s tickled the erogenous zone of right leaning Canadians in a populist moment. We’re seeing now that he doesn’t have a grasp of other tactics, because he keeps falling back on this approach even when it’s not needed and could be counterproductive. Stephen Harper likely knew this too: Poilievre never held any serious cabinet post, a sign that he was politically connected but not trusted to be competent. This is going to be a problem if Poilievre becomes prime minister. That partisan urge to poke the other side in the eye all the time is going to distract from real priorities, and cost them support they’ll need to do routine things. This was something Obama and Trudeau did all the time too: it wasn’t sufficient to do something, they had to do it in a way that was obnoxious and scored points with their base while enraging their opponents.
The CPC couldn’t get over the last hill with the quintessential Canadian Erin O’Toole. That was unfortunate George. Their response was to pass the flag.
Stephen Harper endorsed Pierre Poilivere. If he wins a John Diefenbaker-Brian Mulroney type majority on first try he’ll have to incorporate some semblance of Julie Andrews (Mary Poppins) style diplomacy and give them all important jobs to keep them happy. Good leaders delegate, with purpose and astuteness. Ronald Reagan, The Great Communicator, read everything apparently, let his Cabinet hash things out, and then gave guidance. Pierre Poilivere will surely find an up and coming protégé bomb thrower in that large caucus to be to keep the Liberals from being lonely in the wilderness and himself sanitized. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Why cover the CPC “stunt” without also covering the conditions that created it? It’s totally fine to see the Senate throw credibility out the window to capitulate to Guilbeault and Trudeau? A blatant intervention to stall the further unraveling of their carbon tax platform even though they themselves first pulled on the loose thread with their Atlantic carve out.
It’s fine to criticize CPC buffoonery, it’s hardly the first time filibustering has been used but it would be useful to paint the wider picture too. As we are finding out from our progressive friends daily, context matters people.
6 months ago I would have voted strategically to vote out Trudeau(he's useless, prone to horrid decisions, and I can't stand him). I am now reversed and will vote to stop Pierre. Pierre only knows how to be an asshole. That is not what Canada needs.
I think Erin O'Toole would be ahead by 25 points because he's actually somewhat rational and reasonable, and unlike Pierre, had actual plans. Pierre is hot air devoid of substance. As mentioned, there are no leaders in Canada. That's the biggest problem. There are no plans, no vision; only long delayed reactions. You can't run a country with a "fire extinguisher"
Trudeau's legacy will be getting COVID right. Especially when compared to our neighbours. If Andrew wasn't the biggest idiot since Tim Hudak, his legacy would have been SNC. That should have been the end of it.
The CPC is still the same party of factions and opinionated members. They as desperately wanted to get elected as Trudeau wants to get reelected. A quintessential Canadian’s plans (O’Toole’s) are still on CPC desks. To keep those plans from languishing they had to swap leaders for votes. The Liberals are shrewd enough to steal them as their own. Job one is to get elected before they steal too many. Poilievre is on that. Job two is to govern wisely. Poilievre will have to provide evidence that he can pivot from job one to job two. You aren’t convinced that vinegar can turn back into wine. The Liberals will gladly drink from your cup to print counterfeit hope.
I'm not. having watched the GOP led by a serial liar, and watched the behaviour of Conservative Premiers here, I can see no reason to believe that anything Erin stood for still exists within the party, while its extreme elements; especially the evangelical ones have found a home. Pretending that the Conservatives did anything but turn on O'Toole doing his election hopes significant damage seems naive; and it was pushed by the more extreme elements of the party; the people who embraced Pierre.
I'll be really curious to see Pierre's platform when it comes out. I suspect it will be a lot of "I'm not Trudeau"; the same platform Andy ran and lost on.
I would prefer that Justin take his walk in the snow, as I'd vote for a Liberal stuffed animal with a different name. I think Conservatism has been altered by the Trump effect. I don't think it's beneficial to anyone. It certainly isn't fiscally responsible( and the Conservatives never have been when in power) but I'll take counterfeit hope with over an empty mug intentionally left blank.
What else can the Liberals "run on" other than the assertion that unlike JT, PP, is just not nice? As for style: what's to choose between vinegar and unctuous molasses
The electors should look deeper than the figureheads. The enduring flaw in our system is your one vote has three vectors: local candidate, party, party leader (possible PM). You have to pick your priority if the three vectors don't align for you.
I knew I wasn't signing up for unicorns and rainbows when I bought a subscription. And I get it — Matt needs a holiday, Jen is reeeaally grumpy and the world is insane. But your latest podcast had me question my listening choice. You guys are seriously bumming me out. More analysis about the news would be much appreciated.
Yes, the SNC Lavalin scandal should top the list of the PM’s peccadillos. For who can forget:
• acceding to the lobbying and pressure for immunity by a perennial Quebec favourite, who doesn’t want to lose profits, in Canada, to qualified but less-tainted or politically connected competitors (ignore the “lost jobs” ploy, which was pure deflection and remember the Montreal hospital scandal which the Montreal Gazette called the biggest fraud in Canadian history),
• the surreptitious way in which the underlying legislation was lobbied-for and slyly smuggled into law, without real parliamentary scrutiny or debate,
• the involvement of senior public servants (the top guy eventually had to resign) and the PM himself, in pressuring the Attorney General, to exercise a discretion that was hers alone,
• the specter of the AG, a senior law officer of the Crown, taping her conversations in the (well-unfounded) fear that her interlocutors might later lie about what was being said,
• and the ultimate sad outcome for a couple of talented, but principled women, who were not disposed to be marionettes for the PMO - especially the AG, whose independence in the legal system has a constitutional dimension.
• All incidentally demonstrating that gender balance in the cabinet was another empty gesture – just clever stage management by the drama teacher who excels at progressive gestures and imagery (two billion trees!). In this case, gender parity for puppets.
So yes, the PM should have been penalized for this, especially given all the handwringing about Trump’s shenanigans and the oft intoned concerns about the “rule of law”.
this so-called feminist government also allowed violent & opportunist men to self declare themselves women, and get transferred to women's prisons.
(and Trudeau did that unilaterally after ONE comment at a townhall; no discussion in parliament, or an announcement to the press. just BAM- make it so)
I live to hate on that sad figure in the PMs office and I mean daily but he had lots of help with his gender agenda from the cons as well. Michelle Rempell is a darling of the dysphoria crowd and responsible for the damage that many Canadian children will suffer for generations as a result of their 'woke ideoligy' being enshrined in law. The conservatives need to smarten up fast. Millions of Canadians are pissed about how our culture has been shat upon.
Rick, it is impossible for me to look inside Trudeau to definitively pin down his gut moral agenda. Ditto for Poilievre. My chimes on those two won’t add anything useful to the melody blowing in the wind. Politics is a Machiavellian sport. Job one is to get elected, and that ultimately perverts and complicates everything. I can only put the past evidence into two columns per party and total up to see which party has the better plus-minus, per basketball stats. As the past doesn’t predict the future well enough, my best alternative is to observe the moral fiber of the party and leader choices before me, reach a conclusion, take a leap of faith and be thankful there’s always an election no more than five years away.
If the polls hold then Canadians have totalled up their columns and made their collective moral determination. Trudeau is hanging on because black swan events can decimate polls. Poilievre is charging forward for the same reason. It’s the nature of the beast of the system we have created.
I agree with most of what you have said to varying degrees. What I’m uncomfortable with is hate. I’m old so I file the word hate in the traditional sense, not in the "Zeitgeist" sense that you likely intend. Hate is too negative and too powerful a word to use cavalierly. Too many political issues don’t get solved and linger on because we have difficulty breaking the hate, revenge, hate, revenge, hate, … cycle. Let’s at least pull each other out of that ditch.
I agree with you, of course.
But I too am “old”, and once upon a time, politics seemed to be animated by something other than resentment; so, I lament the passing of those times – although perhaps that is just seeing things through rose-coloured glasses, clouded by the mists of time.
But I can’t help but wonder what the Liberal Party might have been like, if Bob Rae had been leader, or even if Erin O’Toole had been given another chance.
Because when cabinet government decays and the PM becomes an uncrowned King (be they tyrant or fool), their personal character and capacities matter, and not just their talent for performance, whether it is spiced by vinegar or molasses.
And poseurs of whatever stripe are SO tiresome.
But we are breaching the Line’s rules against “dialogue” between subscribers, so we had better stop.
Latkes? Bah. Bantam league. Vancouver had high-powered assault sufganiyot. 😋
What I cannot fathom with all the commentary against Pierre Poilievre and the CPC is the fundamental expectation that they act as the GOVERNING party instead of the OPPOSITION party.
Just because our illustrious Prime minister and his band of acolytes are incompetent doesn't behoove the opposition party to start running the government. The CPC is not on the hook to provide solutions to all problems (even though they have put forward specific bills for this purpose) - the Liberals and the NDP are. Pierre Poilievre does not need to put up his entire climate action plan for everyone's review - the Government does.
So when a commentator calls out the Conservatives for not having a plan or policy proposal, my question really is "What the fuck are you talking about?". They are the opposition party. They are doing literally what every single opposition party would do in their position - while also tabling legitimate bills that the government outright dismissed without a debate. So again, if you have a policy question, ask the damn government - not the opposition party.
I want to respond to this with all the respect a paying subscriber is owed. Because you truly are the best people in the world. And obviously possessed of excellent taste.
But you’re wrong here. You’re not wrong in the facts or even in your argument. You’re wrong because you are stretching a little saying, which is true on its own merits, beyond what is reasonable. Yeah, absolutely. The job of the opposition is to oppose. You’re right about that.
But what that cute little saying doesn’t cover is that there is a massive spectrum in HOW the opposition can oppose. And that spectrum covers everything from the thoughtful and powerful all the way over to the cheap stunts we were seeing last week.
I’m a realist. I get that different things will work better in different circumstances, and in different times and places. You want to bring a different skillset to, for example, a moderated debate panel compared to, as another example, a social media fundraising campaign.
So even while I find some of this stuff personally, who cares? I’m downtown elitist with a stick up my ass. The CPC doesn’t need me to be morally or ethically comfortable with literally every single thing they do. They just need to keep me, a voter who has voted conservative in the past, and would be open to voting for them again, reasonably convinced that they would make a meaningful improvement over the current government And wouldn’t fuck stuff up through reckless stupidity.
And they aren’t convincing me. I’m the national security hawk, gun guy. And I still don’t think these guys are necessarily ready for prime time. It’s not that they aren’t capable of the more thoughtful kind of opposition. There’s been plenty of good work by the Conservatives, and even at times the other opposition parties, trying to shine light on government waste or stupidity, or arrogance, or whatever. The critical issue, as I see it, is that the smart, thoughtful stuff that actually gives me a sense that this is a group of people who are ready to govern a country of 40 million people seem to be little vestigial appendages to what seems to be the actual core of this party: a shitpost meme machine, always looking first and foremost for a sweet dunk on social media.
It wasn’t always this way. But these guys went to a dark place after the double defeats in 2019 and 2021. You may be willing to write them a blank cheque so long as whatever they are doing nominally fits some concept of “opposing“ the government. I expect more from a group of people I might be about to hand the national keys over to.
Because here is my real concern: hard times bring out someone’s true self. Justin Trudeau didn’t have a problem before the world started to go to ratshit on all of us. But when hard times hit, we began seeing his weaknesses. This is an optics-first government that is so captured by their own belief in their own bullshit that actually delivering critical things in a timely way doesn’t always seem to interest them. They take themselves and their own pledges at face value and are generally shocked when others don’t do the same. Shocked and angry. That’s the core of the Trudeau liberals: boundless faith in their own goodwill and hostility to anyone less impressed by them than they are with themselves.
That hasn’t fared well in recent years, and I think the polls rightly reflect that. But as someone who is pretty convinced that our last few bumpy years are the beginning of a new normal, as opposed to a temporary shitty blip, I need to have faith that whoever takes over next will actually have at their core a thoughtful, focused desire to make this country battle ready for whatever the future might bring. I don’t see that from these guys.
I think they’re just mirror images of what we already have. The Liberals offered us a country adrift and a patronizing smile. I don’t see any reason to expect Poilievre to offer me anything other than a country that remains adrift, but this time, topped with an angry snarl.
I truly appreciate your thoughtful response. I would generally agree with what you have said and would add a couple of minor things.
Firstly, while the Conservatives have indeed looked like they are focussed on putting on a show, it has to be acknowledged that this was primarily seen only in the past few weeks. Prior to that (and, in fact, for all of 2023), Pierre Poilievre and the CPC had been laser focussed on housing and cost of living with the core message/solution being their current slogan "Axe the Tax". They have clearly reaped the benefits of this with sky high poll numbers. They hit the absolute jackpot when the Liberals made an Atlantic Canada carve out for Carbon tax on heating. It was clearly a massive strategic and campaign fundraising win for the party.
But I do believe they began to botch it with their first misstep of the vote against the Ukraine deal. Then came the "terrorist attack" confrontation with the reporter, and now this dog and pony show with the procedural votes. The risk they run is becoming the dog that doesn't know what to do when the car it is chasing actually stops.
But in spite of all this, my own view (and you may not agree with me) is that the opposition doesn't need to demonstrate like it is a government in waiting until such a time that the actual elections are in the near future. It is not their job and they are better focused on differentiating themselves from the current government and speaking for the general populace who feel left out by the government policies - which I do believe the CPC had been doing extremely well this past year till a few weeks back. Once the elections are coming near, yes, I will definitely hold them to a higher standard and a different set of expectations.
So, listening to Jen and Mat and ignoring the foul language (sorry, it just sets my teeth on edge when it is not needed) it seems that you fear PP and the CRC. No one is perfect but can you not at least give the man credit for having policies that he can articulate that will actually help Canada? The video on housing is plain and factual but you just can't seem to see that people might actually vote FOR the Conservatives instead of voting AGAINST Justin. I read recently that JT has not once spoken with Cretien to get opinions and advice from the voice of experience. The same article indicated that Harper and Cretien respect and like each other because they recognize that the other had the ability to make a decision when it was needed. Currently the only answer is to throw money at an issue and hope that helps and apologies to the comenter who thinks that JT got the COVID response right, that was another issue that money was thrown at with no rules or contracts or expectations.
I actually am disapointed in so many of our politicians because there is no vision, no goal, no project that Canadians can get enthused about. Carbon reduction is a sham of a project before the liberal readers get started and JT's recent flip flops on green issues proves the point. Where is the national dream?
Oh, another thing, I vote Conservative but pay to lsiten to this podcast to broaden my information sources. Judging from osme of the anti conservatie comments I suspect a lot of responders are liberals living in an echo chamber, but, hey, I'm just some guy sitting in front of a computer.
On a totally unrelated note - carry some cash in your pocket or wallet and support some of our great charities that are trying to help during this season. Volunteer to man a Salvation Army kettle or pass some cash to a worthy charity that doesn't spend 50% of income on management and fund raising and Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Let's hope 2024 is a better year than the train wreck we have expeienced.
Not afraid. Just don’t think he’ll fix the things I need him to fix. More of the same dysfunction and drift, but meaner tweets to keep the base satisfied that someone is Standing Up To The Elites or some bullshit like that.
If Poilievre becomes prime minister, he’s going to echo one of Justin Trudeau’s problems: they’ve got one really good political trick, and they’re going to keep trying to make it work even when it’s not adequate for the task.
Trudeau’s thing is being the coolest kid in school. He knew how to project the image, he knew how to mouth the cool stuff. What that masked was that he’d slacked off in his studies and was a dismal student with a poor grasp of what he was actually there to learn. When his “cool” schtick stopped working, he’s had nothing to fall back on.
Poilievre has always been the partisan bomb thrower. That’s what he was good at in the Harper government, and that’s the talent that’s tickled the erogenous zone of right leaning Canadians in a populist moment. We’re seeing now that he doesn’t have a grasp of other tactics, because he keeps falling back on this approach even when it’s not needed and could be counterproductive. Stephen Harper likely knew this too: Poilievre never held any serious cabinet post, a sign that he was politically connected but not trusted to be competent. This is going to be a problem if Poilievre becomes prime minister. That partisan urge to poke the other side in the eye all the time is going to distract from real priorities, and cost them support they’ll need to do routine things. This was something Obama and Trudeau did all the time too: it wasn’t sufficient to do something, they had to do it in a way that was obnoxious and scored points with their base while enraging their opponents.
The CPC couldn’t get over the last hill with the quintessential Canadian Erin O’Toole. That was unfortunate George. Their response was to pass the flag.
Stephen Harper endorsed Pierre Poilivere. If he wins a John Diefenbaker-Brian Mulroney type majority on first try he’ll have to incorporate some semblance of Julie Andrews (Mary Poppins) style diplomacy and give them all important jobs to keep them happy. Good leaders delegate, with purpose and astuteness. Ronald Reagan, The Great Communicator, read everything apparently, let his Cabinet hash things out, and then gave guidance. Pierre Poilivere will surely find an up and coming protégé bomb thrower in that large caucus to be to keep the Liberals from being lonely in the wilderness and himself sanitized. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Why cover the CPC “stunt” without also covering the conditions that created it? It’s totally fine to see the Senate throw credibility out the window to capitulate to Guilbeault and Trudeau? A blatant intervention to stall the further unraveling of their carbon tax platform even though they themselves first pulled on the loose thread with their Atlantic carve out.
It’s fine to criticize CPC buffoonery, it’s hardly the first time filibustering has been used but it would be useful to paint the wider picture too. As we are finding out from our progressive friends daily, context matters people.
Okay fine we will criticize the Liberals too.
6 months ago I would have voted strategically to vote out Trudeau(he's useless, prone to horrid decisions, and I can't stand him). I am now reversed and will vote to stop Pierre. Pierre only knows how to be an asshole. That is not what Canada needs.
I think Erin O'Toole would be ahead by 25 points because he's actually somewhat rational and reasonable, and unlike Pierre, had actual plans. Pierre is hot air devoid of substance. As mentioned, there are no leaders in Canada. That's the biggest problem. There are no plans, no vision; only long delayed reactions. You can't run a country with a "fire extinguisher"
Trudeau's legacy will be getting COVID right. Especially when compared to our neighbours. If Andrew wasn't the biggest idiot since Tim Hudak, his legacy would have been SNC. That should have been the end of it.
The CPC is still the same party of factions and opinionated members. They as desperately wanted to get elected as Trudeau wants to get reelected. A quintessential Canadian’s plans (O’Toole’s) are still on CPC desks. To keep those plans from languishing they had to swap leaders for votes. The Liberals are shrewd enough to steal them as their own. Job one is to get elected before they steal too many. Poilievre is on that. Job two is to govern wisely. Poilievre will have to provide evidence that he can pivot from job one to job two. You aren’t convinced that vinegar can turn back into wine. The Liberals will gladly drink from your cup to print counterfeit hope.
I'm not. having watched the GOP led by a serial liar, and watched the behaviour of Conservative Premiers here, I can see no reason to believe that anything Erin stood for still exists within the party, while its extreme elements; especially the evangelical ones have found a home. Pretending that the Conservatives did anything but turn on O'Toole doing his election hopes significant damage seems naive; and it was pushed by the more extreme elements of the party; the people who embraced Pierre.
I'll be really curious to see Pierre's platform when it comes out. I suspect it will be a lot of "I'm not Trudeau"; the same platform Andy ran and lost on.
I would prefer that Justin take his walk in the snow, as I'd vote for a Liberal stuffed animal with a different name. I think Conservatism has been altered by the Trump effect. I don't think it's beneficial to anyone. It certainly isn't fiscally responsible( and the Conservatives never have been when in power) but I'll take counterfeit hope with over an empty mug intentionally left blank.
What else can the Liberals "run on" other than the assertion that unlike JT, PP, is just not nice? As for style: what's to choose between vinegar and unctuous molasses
Both parties can run on evidence based policy.
The electors should look deeper than the figureheads. The enduring flaw in our system is your one vote has three vectors: local candidate, party, party leader (possible PM). You have to pick your priority if the three vectors don't align for you.
Matt,
It would be great if you put a menorah in your window.
Matt get your Christmas lights up and cheer up 🎄
I knew I wasn't signing up for unicorns and rainbows when I bought a subscription. And I get it — Matt needs a holiday, Jen is reeeaally grumpy and the world is insane. But your latest podcast had me question my listening choice. You guys are seriously bumming me out. More analysis about the news would be much appreciated.
The analysis of the news is what bummed you out.
LOL I won't argue with that. Maybe I really DO need some unicorns and rainbows after all.
Loved this podcast. Your dark humour relieves the stress of seriously thinking about the Canadian political scene while sober.