Campaign notebook: the final Friday

This and that. Plus, the other thing.

I am jet-lagged, bigly, so I was up super-duper early, Tel Aviv time. Going to head to the Carmel shuk, which is apparently quite something.

Before I do so, here's some random bits and pieces.

**

The stories about Pierre Poilievre losing his riding continues to cause a stir, here and here and elsewhere. Is it even possible?

Sure it is. Of course it is. Leaders do lose their seats - not often, but enough. Bonnie Crombie in Ontario, just recently. Kim Campbell. Robert Bourassa. It happens.

I can’t see it happening in Poilievre’s case, whether he angered Ottawa-area voters with his fondness for the Ottawa convoy lunatics or not. He’s owned that riding for almost a generation. I wager he’ll win it again.

**

Mark Carney’s campaign made a big mistake yesterday. As a general principle, if the president of the United States says he wants to take over your country, you usually have an obligation to let people know about that. It's kind of big.

Carney didn’t. Which - to me - is more bizarre than a scandal.

The Liberals have clearly benefitted from Trump’s 51st state madness. Some (like me) would even say it’s the main reason they are ahead in campaign 2025.

So why wouldn't Carney disclose that? It was dishonest not to - yes, I agree.

But it was also not taking advantage of a political gift. Which, as I say, is totally bizarre.

Scandal? No. Dumb? Yes.

**

No Trumpy legalist, am I. But this story kind of shocked me:

A Quebec judge has handed a partial victory to the province’s two largest English universities in a dispute over an increase in tuition fees for domestic students from outside Quebec and a requirement for most of those students to have intermediate proficiency in French.

In a decision released Thursday, Quebec Superior Court Justice Éric Dufour concluded that a Quebec government policy that raised tuition at the two institutions, McGill University and Concordia University, for Canadian students from outside Quebec is unreasonable and invalid.

With the greatest of respect – and lawyers always say that just before they say something mean - this one feels like a massive judicial overreach. Ruling on the constitutional rights of citizens? That's a legitimate exercise of judicial authority.

But throwing out the fairly-routine policy decision of a duly-elected democratic body, because it’s somehow “unreasonable?”

Not appropriate. And, I think, not constitutional.

**

What lies ahead for the NDP and Jagmeet Singh, asks The Globe and Mail?

Well, according to just about every single poll, oblivion. Singh is going to lose his own seat (see leaders, seats, above), and the NDP may well lose official party status in the House of Commons.

How did all that come to pass for this formerly significant national political party? Two reasons, I think.

One, the NDP propped up Justin Trudeau for such a long time, they became indelibly associated with his brand. Some of his stink got onto them.

Two, there has been a general trend against leftist political parties across Western democracy. It's directly related to inflation and the affordability crisis. People are looking for political parties and politicians who live within their means.

Jagmeet Singh and the NDP don't easily fit that job description. Ta ta.

**

Present view. Not bad.