OK, we get it. You didn't like Pierre Poilievre. In spite of his clearly thought out platform and its very reasonable presentation in the debate, his previous fixation on the dismal ten year record of the Liberals was "too Trumpy". Taking a cue from your own objection that Carney is "nothing like" Trudeau, Mr Poilievre is nothing like trump. What Piere has vaguely in common with trump is that both purport to stand for the rank and file ordinary voters as opposed to the entitled arrogant morally smug economically incompetent left wing elite. Both of them walk upright on two legs too. There the similarity ends. Moreover, by that standard of left wing elitism, Carney is indeed Trudeau 2.0. Being fair, agreed that Carney is at least an adult, which, yes, is a big improvement over Trudeau. Oh and he plans to grow our national debt by about $225 billion over four years. That works out to about a $56 billion a year deficit. So again, you're correct Warren, Carney is "nothing like" Trudeau. Our ex's typical deficits were more on the order of 20 billion per year. That makes Mr Carney sort of a "Trudeau on steroids", economically speaking. Definitely a difference, yes. But his biggest "Trudeau-ism" seems to me to be his absolutely MIA stand against Jew hatred here in Canada. That, for me at least is an absolute deal breaker. Both opposing men have one major positive quality: they are adults. That distinguishes both of them well from both overgrown teenager Trudeau and childlike bullying demagogue trump. So please can we quit dumping on Poilievre? He at least can be counted on to take a firm stand against domestic Jew hatred.
I agree there is a lot of difference between Poilievre and Trump. Poilievre certainly does not come across as an inarticulate immature beast. What Poilievre has strongly in common with Trump is the over blown rhetoric, personalized attacks, silly slogans, unfair and unsupported criticism and his flirtation with far-right extremists. Yes, Poilievre has a well thought out platform but because a big part of the base he needs to appeal to are not interested in policy specifics or governing generally it is completely drowned out as he spends all his prime time with silly slogans.
Fair comments. I only followed Poilievre closely in the new year, after Trudeau hamstrung parliament while desparately seeking a successor. I also realized that both leaders (ie. Poilievre and Carney) had to hang onto their core voter base, which is always going to include extremists. So I took some of both their past baggage with a grain of salt, focusing instead on serious policy when an election was actually imminent. But we've had "nice guy moderates" in the opposition before and Trudeau buried them. Be tough or succumb to Trudeau's dishonest mudslinging. Seems like a difficult tightrope for the leader of the Conservatives to walk. What vexes me is seeing both the former and present Liberal leaders seeming to get away with the same sins. And then there's policy, a whole other dimension of ongoing concern in Carney. Last but not least the failure to stand firm against Jew Hatred. Colour me "disappointed". Make no mistake, nobody owns my vote. I have voted for both sides right and left in years past. I was hoping for a leader in Carney who would fix the bad course the Liberals have now steered for ten years. I don't see it yet. And the Jew hatred thing (or ANY comparable racism) is huge for me. I want a leader with a spine. Advantage Poilievre. But yes, agreed, some disquieting baggage there.
From a policy perspective, what we’ve seen from Carney so far, seems appropriate for the times. We’ll see how he executes but that will take time, so I’ll give the benefit of that. As for Poilievre and toughness. Toughness without a real point has no value. The slogans, personal attacks, name calling and the misrepresentation of facts all have no value. Making them “tough,” while appealing to a certain part of the base, only amplifies their overall negative impact for the rest of us - and for the process. Plus, it’s like he’s always crying wolf. When Trudeau was in, everyday there was apparently a new travesty (even if nothing happened), everything was Trudeaus fault (even where he had 0 influence). It’s all bad, bad, bad. Everything is broken. It’s natural that if he occasionally pointed to something real, many people will miss it. This approach made him, in my view, completely ineffective in that role. He did not influence the government to “do the right thing” - ever- because anything they did was guaranteed to be wrong. I sincerely hope Poilievre’s leadership is challenged.
Some of the best, most effective, opposition leaders have not been belligerent, did not rely primarily on personal attacks, and did not constantly stretch the truth. I can think of Jack Layton, Alexa McDonough, Brian Mulroney or going way back Robert Stanfield (I’m old). Provincially I think of Roy Romano’s, Jean Charest, and Gordon Wilson. They could all cut the PM or Premier brutally when called for, and very effectively hold the government to account, but the vast majority of the time spoke respectfully and constructively. And that’s exactly why when they did criticize, it actually meant something. Some of them went on to get the top job… some did not. But they certainly showed that the approach of Poilievre is not necessary. That the Leader of the Opposition can be a force for good.
Trudeau and Poilievre’s actions were so performative and also divisive in their own ways. I hope we can move on from both.
I like your thoughtful analyses, as they make me re-evaluate. But all this political discussion does start to make my head hurt lol. It's really a bit of a challenge to sort out all the arguments and I always did like a good puzzle.
It gets less entertaining and much more serious for me when bullets are hitting a Jewish school and the business climate I depend on for my own survival is crashing, so, in spite of all the nuances and pros and cons, when it came down to it I just wanted a serious change of leadership. Too bad, for me it didn't happen. And who knows: maybe the Conservatives would have been terrible. I did my little part to kick them out decades ago when Kim Campbell took over.
So I hope against hope that Mr Carney will rise to the occasion. That said, his feet still need to be held to the fire. Good points about some of the past opposition leaders. (I remember Stanfield too.) By now I've seen Erin O'Toole and Andrew Scheer get eviscerated, and now we want Poilievre out too? Given how utterly poor Trudeau was, when is any Conservative leader good enough?
It's not that easy being committed to "moderate" (rueful smile). My science nerd background demands it of me. But believe me, quantum mechanics IS easier than ^&% politics! Your points were well taken, so it seems like either let's hope that both of them grow a bit with the job or a true savior comes along. At my age I don't have much time left for a miracle, so get moving guys! Going back to my garden, machine shop, and nerd books now. And thank you for the added perspective. It HAS been added to my memory bank.
Agreed. Space didn't really permit a more nuanced description, and in truth I'm never 100 percent certain about anything in politics. I do speculate that early last fall when Trudeau had ground parliament to a halt to save Liberal bacon from the green fund scandal, he was still thinking he could lead his party to a fourth victory. Trudeau's ego and his willingness to face a fight seemed hardly in doubt. It also seems clear that he planned to throw Chrystia Freeland under the bus just as he'd done with Bill Morneau and various other team members previously. The plan was to shift any blame and carry on with his adoring faithful. Freeland wasn't having any of it, so time for Plan B. It was finally getting through to Trudeau that he himself was his party's biggest liability, so he did the next best thing to hanging on to the bitter end: found a plausible replacement for himself. Of course the party elite played a role in the choice, and obviously Freeland was out of the question. It could be argued that Trudeau did the noble thing and "took one for the team" but in truth he hardly had a choice: the alternative would have been to lead his party to an historic overwhelming defeat, a shame his ego could not bear. Credit to him for at least seeing it coming. As for who they chose, it had to be somebody with star power, also well in the Liberal fold, but suitably distanced from direct association with the existing cabinet and party. Hence a political figure as outwardly different from Trudeau as possible, and not even a serving member of parliament, but also an intimate true believer in the elite Liberal philosophy. Mark Carney was the perfect choice for that. And credit to Trudeau & Co for a political chess game well played, even if the resulting business climate does scare the hell out of me. So yes, "desperate" might not be quite the correct adjective, but Trudeau having to save his own butt from the ignominy of a stunning defeat of his party must certainly have been lighting a fire under his butt. As for Canada being effectively without a functioning government all last fall and through trump's rabid ascendancy, who cares eh? Golden PM pensions, here come Justin and Jagmeet.
Last I looked there is still no functioning government. They plan to sit 20 days before their vacay starts. And they have spent two days on pomp and circumstance which some folks think was supposed to be helpful in dealing with the “existential threat” that we are facing. Existential threats just aren’t taken as seriously as they used to be.
In my mission to be fair I just want to add a few qualifiers.
The dollar has fallen, and the whole world is in an inflationary spiral, so yes, continuing deficits are unavoidable. But the surrounding trappings of the Carney administration thus far and his own economic track record do not inspire confidence that he is a step in the right direction. It appears we may have jumped out of the Trudeau frying pan and into the Carney fire. Secondly, yes absolutely, inviting King Charles to deliver the speech from the throne was an excellent move. Forget the political boogeyman trump: the crown is an honoured and decent part of OUR history, and we need a reminder now and then that we even have a history of honour and democracy. So a bit of leeway on the budget critique and yes an A+ for bringing in our symbolic head of state.
Looking at the video of the Joly/Carney exchange, any dismissive gesture on Carney’s part seems understandable. It looks to me like Joly is swinging some small object attached to a string around her finger. This behaviour doesn’t project gravitas, considering the circumstances.
If you behave like a child, expect to be treated like one.
I agree that Carney must have been aware that Joly is a featherweight between the ears. Furthermore, the scuttlebutt is that the PM does not suffer fools lightly. So the interaction in the video should be no surprise.
My comment wasn’t a defence of Carney’s behaviour towards Joly. It is an explanation of the reason the exchange between the two shouldn’t surprise people familiar with the personalities involved.
Re: Jolly and dismissiveness. We may or may not see more of this from Carney and it may, or may not, be a concern. I suspect not.
This looks to me like a person about to appear in the HoC for the first time ever… and he’s doing so as the PM! If you can imagine a more stressful situation and one calling for more focus, let me know. For Joly to casually sidle up right at that moment with who knows what chit-chat that occurred to her (this could be what we’re seeing) shows an amazing lack of self-control or good judgement on her part.
And yet he still picked her as a cabinet minister knowing full well her limitations or he should have known them if we are to believe his press releases.
Carney is a showman. Bringing the king here.. showing Trump, i have friend in high places.. dont test me too much. G7 is coming up.. carney wants respect there ..i agree.
The walk for israel was a great success, without the mayor or anyone else. But some others did show up.
The police chief made an effort. Sort of.
Pierre was having fun with his slogans..
winning people over, Just like Justin and forgot to keep his eye on the big prize. Cost him ..maybe..but not over.
Universities are a problem for antisemitism. Young minds..and disgruntled professors spreading the word of hamas. Its world wide now. Every country has a problem with it. A cancer if you will. Cancer is cureable but taks time and knowledge. Doable..
Last, pip pip cherrio, have not heard that since my dad passed away in 1999. Ge said it often.
OK, we get it. You didn't like Pierre Poilievre. In spite of his clearly thought out platform and its very reasonable presentation in the debate, his previous fixation on the dismal ten year record of the Liberals was "too Trumpy". Taking a cue from your own objection that Carney is "nothing like" Trudeau, Mr Poilievre is nothing like trump. What Piere has vaguely in common with trump is that both purport to stand for the rank and file ordinary voters as opposed to the entitled arrogant morally smug economically incompetent left wing elite. Both of them walk upright on two legs too. There the similarity ends. Moreover, by that standard of left wing elitism, Carney is indeed Trudeau 2.0. Being fair, agreed that Carney is at least an adult, which, yes, is a big improvement over Trudeau. Oh and he plans to grow our national debt by about $225 billion over four years. That works out to about a $56 billion a year deficit. So again, you're correct Warren, Carney is "nothing like" Trudeau. Our ex's typical deficits were more on the order of 20 billion per year. That makes Mr Carney sort of a "Trudeau on steroids", economically speaking. Definitely a difference, yes. But his biggest "Trudeau-ism" seems to me to be his absolutely MIA stand against Jew hatred here in Canada. That, for me at least is an absolute deal breaker. Both opposing men have one major positive quality: they are adults. That distinguishes both of them well from both overgrown teenager Trudeau and childlike bullying demagogue trump. So please can we quit dumping on Poilievre? He at least can be counted on to take a firm stand against domestic Jew hatred.
I agree there is a lot of difference between Poilievre and Trump. Poilievre certainly does not come across as an inarticulate immature beast. What Poilievre has strongly in common with Trump is the over blown rhetoric, personalized attacks, silly slogans, unfair and unsupported criticism and his flirtation with far-right extremists. Yes, Poilievre has a well thought out platform but because a big part of the base he needs to appeal to are not interested in policy specifics or governing generally it is completely drowned out as he spends all his prime time with silly slogans.
Fair comments. I only followed Poilievre closely in the new year, after Trudeau hamstrung parliament while desparately seeking a successor. I also realized that both leaders (ie. Poilievre and Carney) had to hang onto their core voter base, which is always going to include extremists. So I took some of both their past baggage with a grain of salt, focusing instead on serious policy when an election was actually imminent. But we've had "nice guy moderates" in the opposition before and Trudeau buried them. Be tough or succumb to Trudeau's dishonest mudslinging. Seems like a difficult tightrope for the leader of the Conservatives to walk. What vexes me is seeing both the former and present Liberal leaders seeming to get away with the same sins. And then there's policy, a whole other dimension of ongoing concern in Carney. Last but not least the failure to stand firm against Jew Hatred. Colour me "disappointed". Make no mistake, nobody owns my vote. I have voted for both sides right and left in years past. I was hoping for a leader in Carney who would fix the bad course the Liberals have now steered for ten years. I don't see it yet. And the Jew hatred thing (or ANY comparable racism) is huge for me. I want a leader with a spine. Advantage Poilievre. But yes, agreed, some disquieting baggage there.
From a policy perspective, what we’ve seen from Carney so far, seems appropriate for the times. We’ll see how he executes but that will take time, so I’ll give the benefit of that. As for Poilievre and toughness. Toughness without a real point has no value. The slogans, personal attacks, name calling and the misrepresentation of facts all have no value. Making them “tough,” while appealing to a certain part of the base, only amplifies their overall negative impact for the rest of us - and for the process. Plus, it’s like he’s always crying wolf. When Trudeau was in, everyday there was apparently a new travesty (even if nothing happened), everything was Trudeaus fault (even where he had 0 influence). It’s all bad, bad, bad. Everything is broken. It’s natural that if he occasionally pointed to something real, many people will miss it. This approach made him, in my view, completely ineffective in that role. He did not influence the government to “do the right thing” - ever- because anything they did was guaranteed to be wrong. I sincerely hope Poilievre’s leadership is challenged.
Some of the best, most effective, opposition leaders have not been belligerent, did not rely primarily on personal attacks, and did not constantly stretch the truth. I can think of Jack Layton, Alexa McDonough, Brian Mulroney or going way back Robert Stanfield (I’m old). Provincially I think of Roy Romano’s, Jean Charest, and Gordon Wilson. They could all cut the PM or Premier brutally when called for, and very effectively hold the government to account, but the vast majority of the time spoke respectfully and constructively. And that’s exactly why when they did criticize, it actually meant something. Some of them went on to get the top job… some did not. But they certainly showed that the approach of Poilievre is not necessary. That the Leader of the Opposition can be a force for good.
Trudeau and Poilievre’s actions were so performative and also divisive in their own ways. I hope we can move on from both.
I like your thoughtful analyses, as they make me re-evaluate. But all this political discussion does start to make my head hurt lol. It's really a bit of a challenge to sort out all the arguments and I always did like a good puzzle.
It gets less entertaining and much more serious for me when bullets are hitting a Jewish school and the business climate I depend on for my own survival is crashing, so, in spite of all the nuances and pros and cons, when it came down to it I just wanted a serious change of leadership. Too bad, for me it didn't happen. And who knows: maybe the Conservatives would have been terrible. I did my little part to kick them out decades ago when Kim Campbell took over.
So I hope against hope that Mr Carney will rise to the occasion. That said, his feet still need to be held to the fire. Good points about some of the past opposition leaders. (I remember Stanfield too.) By now I've seen Erin O'Toole and Andrew Scheer get eviscerated, and now we want Poilievre out too? Given how utterly poor Trudeau was, when is any Conservative leader good enough?
It's not that easy being committed to "moderate" (rueful smile). My science nerd background demands it of me. But believe me, quantum mechanics IS easier than ^&% politics! Your points were well taken, so it seems like either let's hope that both of them grow a bit with the job or a true savior comes along. At my age I don't have much time left for a miracle, so get moving guys! Going back to my garden, machine shop, and nerd books now. And thank you for the added perspective. It HAS been added to my memory bank.
They were never desperately seeking a successor. The fix was in when Freeland “quit”.
Agreed. Space didn't really permit a more nuanced description, and in truth I'm never 100 percent certain about anything in politics. I do speculate that early last fall when Trudeau had ground parliament to a halt to save Liberal bacon from the green fund scandal, he was still thinking he could lead his party to a fourth victory. Trudeau's ego and his willingness to face a fight seemed hardly in doubt. It also seems clear that he planned to throw Chrystia Freeland under the bus just as he'd done with Bill Morneau and various other team members previously. The plan was to shift any blame and carry on with his adoring faithful. Freeland wasn't having any of it, so time for Plan B. It was finally getting through to Trudeau that he himself was his party's biggest liability, so he did the next best thing to hanging on to the bitter end: found a plausible replacement for himself. Of course the party elite played a role in the choice, and obviously Freeland was out of the question. It could be argued that Trudeau did the noble thing and "took one for the team" but in truth he hardly had a choice: the alternative would have been to lead his party to an historic overwhelming defeat, a shame his ego could not bear. Credit to him for at least seeing it coming. As for who they chose, it had to be somebody with star power, also well in the Liberal fold, but suitably distanced from direct association with the existing cabinet and party. Hence a political figure as outwardly different from Trudeau as possible, and not even a serving member of parliament, but also an intimate true believer in the elite Liberal philosophy. Mark Carney was the perfect choice for that. And credit to Trudeau & Co for a political chess game well played, even if the resulting business climate does scare the hell out of me. So yes, "desperate" might not be quite the correct adjective, but Trudeau having to save his own butt from the ignominy of a stunning defeat of his party must certainly have been lighting a fire under his butt. As for Canada being effectively without a functioning government all last fall and through trump's rabid ascendancy, who cares eh? Golden PM pensions, here come Justin and Jagmeet.
Last I looked there is still no functioning government. They plan to sit 20 days before their vacay starts. And they have spent two days on pomp and circumstance which some folks think was supposed to be helpful in dealing with the “existential threat” that we are facing. Existential threats just aren’t taken as seriously as they used to be.
Pierre certainly may not be perfect but at least he is not a condescending, misogynistic, arrogant, smug, know it all, micro manager so there's that!
In my mission to be fair I just want to add a few qualifiers.
The dollar has fallen, and the whole world is in an inflationary spiral, so yes, continuing deficits are unavoidable. But the surrounding trappings of the Carney administration thus far and his own economic track record do not inspire confidence that he is a step in the right direction. It appears we may have jumped out of the Trudeau frying pan and into the Carney fire. Secondly, yes absolutely, inviting King Charles to deliver the speech from the throne was an excellent move. Forget the political boogeyman trump: the crown is an honoured and decent part of OUR history, and we need a reminder now and then that we even have a history of honour and democracy. So a bit of leeway on the budget critique and yes an A+ for bringing in our symbolic head of state.
Looking at the video of the Joly/Carney exchange, any dismissive gesture on Carney’s part seems understandable. It looks to me like Joly is swinging some small object attached to a string around her finger. This behaviour doesn’t project gravitas, considering the circumstances.
If you behave like a child, expect to be treated like one.
Again, he knew what he was getting. So if that is the defence, it is not persuasive.
I agree that Carney must have been aware that Joly is a featherweight between the ears. Furthermore, the scuttlebutt is that the PM does not suffer fools lightly. So the interaction in the video should be no surprise.
My comment wasn’t a defence of Carney’s behaviour towards Joly. It is an explanation of the reason the exchange between the two shouldn’t surprise people familiar with the personalities involved.
Re: Jolly and dismissiveness. We may or may not see more of this from Carney and it may, or may not, be a concern. I suspect not.
This looks to me like a person about to appear in the HoC for the first time ever… and he’s doing so as the PM! If you can imagine a more stressful situation and one calling for more focus, let me know. For Joly to casually sidle up right at that moment with who knows what chit-chat that occurred to her (this could be what we’re seeing) shows an amazing lack of self-control or good judgement on her part.
And yet he still picked her as a cabinet minister knowing full well her limitations or he should have known them if we are to believe his press releases.
Carney is a showman. Bringing the king here.. showing Trump, i have friend in high places.. dont test me too much. G7 is coming up.. carney wants respect there ..i agree.
The walk for israel was a great success, without the mayor or anyone else. But some others did show up.
The police chief made an effort. Sort of.
Pierre was having fun with his slogans..
winning people over, Just like Justin and forgot to keep his eye on the big prize. Cost him ..maybe..but not over.
Universities are a problem for antisemitism. Young minds..and disgruntled professors spreading the word of hamas. Its world wide now. Every country has a problem with it. A cancer if you will. Cancer is cureable but taks time and knowledge. Doable..
Last, pip pip cherrio, have not heard that since my dad passed away in 1999. Ge said it often.
He was a happy man. Miss him .. funny!
Good review. And some new!!!