I am listening to it right now, and glad to see you had a chat with Lisa… good to hear her perspective even if it is a CPC perspective…. but she doesn’t pass the smell test when she is talking about Poilievre 🙂. (Example- PP and everyone in CPC have made so much fun of JT as a drama teacher, even after he had been a PM for years; Lisa complains that Poilievre is being measured based on his image of 2004, and he is a lot more experienced now 💁🏽♂️ … i know it is only her perspective)
BR, I first saw this comment about four hours ago and I have let it roll around in my noggin to see if I was as convinced as were you about the comparability of JT and PP's image.
My conclusion is that the comparison is not valid - I say that with great respect; please allow me to explain.
It seems to me that JT arrived in Parliament with no experience other than being that drama teacher (I'm ignoring snowboard instructor here) and within a few years proclaimed himself ready to be PM.
By contrast, PP immersed himself in politics, issues, etc., etc. for some number of years BEFORE running for Parliament. He was elected and, yes, he was rough around the edges by all accounts. Now, having said that, his previous experience in politics and issues was put to good use in committee, debate in Parliament, ultimately rising to cabinet. My point is, he started out rough but he started with a base of knowledge and then learned and became what he is today.
To look at PP and only see a contrary type is looking at the past. By contrast, looking at JT and listening to all that he said and did one sees a distinct lack of substance. Dare I say it? A drama teacher masquerading as someone in black/brown face.
I accept that you may not agree with me but that is my conclusion after considering your comment for some time.
Ken, we're 80% in agreement here, which is pretty good, for us. Poilievre, should he become PM, will be one of the most experienced parliamentarians ever to serve in the office. Trudeau had about a third as much parliamentary experience and was missing important management and administrative skills. I'm no fan of Poilievre's, but these two guys are not terribly similar to my eye.
What's fascinating to me is the degree to which left-leaning types and right-leaning types just operate from different facts these days. My understanding is that Trudeau taught primarily math and history and would occasionally substitute as a drama teacher if necessary, and that his critics popularized the "drama teacher" attack because it sounded more delegitimizing. Your understanding is obviously different. I don't know which of us is right. But it's just interesting to me that in this day and age, when more information is available than ever, there's so much disagreement on basic biographical facts - that did not used to be the case. When Chretien became prime minister in the '90s after thirty years in Parliament, there was simply no one saying, "Oh, he wasn't an MP from 1963 to 1993 with a brief break in the middle there. He was a snowboard instructor."
George, I don't get your Chretien reference in the specifics but in the generality of him not being dismissed, etc. I do agree.
As for JT's teaching experience, quite honestly, it is news to me about the math and history side of things although I do recall him being called a "part time" drama teacher so your accounting of things makes sense. In any event, thank you for setting me straight. Having said that, I still don't think that JT's background made him an obvious candidate for PM.
Now, as for the thrust of your comment, that is that folks operate from a basis of "different facts" I expect that a lot of that is simply that what is important to your neighbor may be important to you; or it may not. Put differently, if your neighbor is a hockey fan, he is very interested in the playoff race, but if you are a theater fan you may not be as interested. Or, to put it yet another way, as they say, all politics are local insofar as we are most concerned with the things that happen to us and to our loved ones but not as concerned with the things that happen a long (perhaps metaphorical distance?) ways away.
Thanks, Ken - and I agree with you that whether he taught math, history, or drama doesn't matter that much to his qualifications to be PM. For me - and you may be surprised to hear me say this - Justin Trudeau's background was the worst of both worlds. As a teacher, he wouldn't have been exposed to a lot of the management/administrative/governance work. As Pierre Trudeau's son, he inherited an incredible ego that wasn't backed up by his talents.
Thank you for your nuanced response! Much respect. For me, any MP who has been democratically elected and chosen as the leader of the governing party is a legitimate PM, notwithstanding their experience or lack there of. I think PP is very smart and a political animal with politics running through his veins. I have seen him as my MP in local debates (savvy) and met him personally (he is affable). I don’t share his “take no prisoners” approach to politics. So I have enough reasons for not voting for him.
But my comment was on how conservative partisans defend his actions. (I hear similar arguments about his refusal to obtain security clearance. He is un curious about the consequences of that … )
Paul - This was really great - thanks so much. Both guests are impressive. Helene Buzzetti was a revelation, though, and has inspired me to read and listen to Quebec news in French.
Being on TV with her in French once a week is one of the great gifts of my career. When I got that gig I started prepping all week long so I’d be ready.
I question the description of the polls as volatile. The have changed on a steady trend up for the liberals and down for ndp and less down for conservatives.
I wonder if Radio Canada set the French debate schedule late to reduce the impact of Carney's predictable loss. Their future budget is assured by a Liberal win.
Paul, always impressed when I see you doing French interviews and discussions, really appreciate the insight provided by Hélène Buzzetti on the Quebec factor so far in this campaign.
I have a lot of time and respect for Lisa MacLeod but she is a bit too partisan in this interview to be valid in her perspective. While she acknowledges that her riding flipped in the last provincial election, she overlooks that there was barely a 2K vote margin in the previous one which may have influenced her decision not to run for reelection. As for not being a solid Liberal base for Carney to safely put his name on the ballot, it ignores that the era of John Baird is long past, the Liberals have won the past elections with over 50% in 2015 and more than 45% in each election since with a low profile candidate. Seems pretty solid to me!
Although Carleton riding next door is more conservative (thus a good reason for PP having decided to run there), as recently as 2015 PP only won by fewer than 2K votes while having outspent his Liberal opponent by more $60K. Albeit the last result was a 50% vote for the Conservatives, they may want to look over their shoulders if the NDP fails to show up and the Liberals gain traction (and the PPC shaves a couple of points).
Yes, I enjoyed the interview and like Lisa (I know her very slightly and our interactions have been positive), but there was definitely some spin here. Her argument that Ford's response to the pandemic was "populist" while Poilievre's was "conservative" is certainly...one lens through which to define those particular words.
I agree with Lisa MacLeod description of Poilievre, it is true that he is meticulous, a strategist, organized. But it is also true as she said that he has strong conservatives value and as of today he rallies the extreme right groups. He is praised by people like Musk and others in the Trump entourage. That is problematic and scary. Poilievre has no credibility with me. Poilievre would in my opinion find common ground with Trump and Canada would be weakened/lost in the process. Lisa MacLeod was playing down the Trump factor, which is a mistake conservatives make, many in the CPC love Trump.
Hélene Buzzetti is a good choice. Her analysis is solid on Quebec, like Hébert.
Mr Wells, TVA struck with the money request from candidate an ethical point. Chantal Hébert pointed that out and now Buzzetti does. The problem is not Carney it's TVA and Péladeau. The debate will happen on 16-17 April, good enough. People in Quebec which include my family, are angry at the insults from USA/Trump and having to leave Florida and will not return. Trump is the threat a much bigger threat than some may imagine, the ROC may not understand the thinking of people of Quebec in this unique context. Buzzetti is really great, thank you for having her on your show.
Oh my, when it's said that Joe Clark spoke better French decades ago than you do now, you're in a tough spot. Your handlers can only shield you for so long. Sortez, venez d'où que vous soyez, (come out, come out, wherever you are).
Speaking of Clarks, poor Christy must be seething...
On all these security questions, one seems to not be posed: in filling out the form are applicants required to list their assets and sources of income? If so, then Carney once again has revealed and Polièvre has not. What has one (P) to hide and why does not the other (C) simply explain. If you are in the limelight, don't be shy for fear of looking dodgey and dishonest.
an excellent podcast. I did not know Lisa MacLeod and found her particularly knowledgeable and articulate. Too bad she likes Poilièvre so much! Hélène Buzetti is as always well informed and interesting. Thanks for this.
Carney’s biggest challenge is to remain authentic in all things but particularly in the conversation around his understanding of Québec. Carney should simply acknowledge that he hasn’t spent much time in Québec, his French is very weak, but that like many Canadians he does understand and deeply values the fundamental role that Québec, it’s culture, language and history, has played in creating a distinct Canadian society which is more open and tolerant as a consequence of Québec’s place in Canada. Acknowledging Québec’s central place in the creation of Canadian culture then extends to the importance of protecting the French language and culture today, supporting the means required. Of course, Carney could also add the fact that the reason Québec has retained the French language and culture in North America, in contrast to the extinction of that same thing in the United States, is because it’s part of Canada. Thus, the existential risk to Québec from Trump’s 51st state applies as much if not more to Québec than it does to the rest of Canada. Hence a vote for the Liberals is a vote to save Québec. Of course, all the polling data suggests that savvy Québec voters already understand this, but it would help if Carney said it.
Paul, this was great ….two very informed and intelligent commentators without any particular axes to grind. Lisa Macleod was a bit partisan and that was to be expected but Helene Buzzetti was a real treat. I am never going to hear her in French so please bring her back in English as often as you can.
AND…I am loving this format…informed, non partisan commentary to keep us in touch with stuff as it happens ….all the emphasis elsewhere on polling is leaving me cold
Paul, there seems to be something wrong with the video of this panel. There is no response when clicking on the Play arrow. All other sites work, including your own podcast with McLeod and the Quebec journalist.
Did I hear Helene correctly - that Carney isn’t doing the TVA debate because it’s pay to play and he thinks it’s unethical? If so, that’s hilarious as he has the ethics of a guy who runs a hedge fund.
Well I covered many hedge funds in my role as market economist. Hedge funds use active investing strategies like shortening and extending risk to improve performance. For example, if your analysis leads you to the conclusion that a company like Nortel is loved by the market and you think it’s going bankrupt, you can use investment strategies that allow you to benefit from your analysis by shorting the stock. Of course like any business there’s unethical players but there are laws that regulates behaviour. Your commentator simply doesn’t understandwhat a hedge fund is.
I am listening to it right now, and glad to see you had a chat with Lisa… good to hear her perspective even if it is a CPC perspective…. but she doesn’t pass the smell test when she is talking about Poilievre 🙂. (Example- PP and everyone in CPC have made so much fun of JT as a drama teacher, even after he had been a PM for years; Lisa complains that Poilievre is being measured based on his image of 2004, and he is a lot more experienced now 💁🏽♂️ … i know it is only her perspective)
BR, I first saw this comment about four hours ago and I have let it roll around in my noggin to see if I was as convinced as were you about the comparability of JT and PP's image.
My conclusion is that the comparison is not valid - I say that with great respect; please allow me to explain.
It seems to me that JT arrived in Parliament with no experience other than being that drama teacher (I'm ignoring snowboard instructor here) and within a few years proclaimed himself ready to be PM.
By contrast, PP immersed himself in politics, issues, etc., etc. for some number of years BEFORE running for Parliament. He was elected and, yes, he was rough around the edges by all accounts. Now, having said that, his previous experience in politics and issues was put to good use in committee, debate in Parliament, ultimately rising to cabinet. My point is, he started out rough but he started with a base of knowledge and then learned and became what he is today.
To look at PP and only see a contrary type is looking at the past. By contrast, looking at JT and listening to all that he said and did one sees a distinct lack of substance. Dare I say it? A drama teacher masquerading as someone in black/brown face.
I accept that you may not agree with me but that is my conclusion after considering your comment for some time.
Ken, we're 80% in agreement here, which is pretty good, for us. Poilievre, should he become PM, will be one of the most experienced parliamentarians ever to serve in the office. Trudeau had about a third as much parliamentary experience and was missing important management and administrative skills. I'm no fan of Poilievre's, but these two guys are not terribly similar to my eye.
What's fascinating to me is the degree to which left-leaning types and right-leaning types just operate from different facts these days. My understanding is that Trudeau taught primarily math and history and would occasionally substitute as a drama teacher if necessary, and that his critics popularized the "drama teacher" attack because it sounded more delegitimizing. Your understanding is obviously different. I don't know which of us is right. But it's just interesting to me that in this day and age, when more information is available than ever, there's so much disagreement on basic biographical facts - that did not used to be the case. When Chretien became prime minister in the '90s after thirty years in Parliament, there was simply no one saying, "Oh, he wasn't an MP from 1963 to 1993 with a brief break in the middle there. He was a snowboard instructor."
George, I don't get your Chretien reference in the specifics but in the generality of him not being dismissed, etc. I do agree.
As for JT's teaching experience, quite honestly, it is news to me about the math and history side of things although I do recall him being called a "part time" drama teacher so your accounting of things makes sense. In any event, thank you for setting me straight. Having said that, I still don't think that JT's background made him an obvious candidate for PM.
Now, as for the thrust of your comment, that is that folks operate from a basis of "different facts" I expect that a lot of that is simply that what is important to your neighbor may be important to you; or it may not. Put differently, if your neighbor is a hockey fan, he is very interested in the playoff race, but if you are a theater fan you may not be as interested. Or, to put it yet another way, as they say, all politics are local insofar as we are most concerned with the things that happen to us and to our loved ones but not as concerned with the things that happen a long (perhaps metaphorical distance?) ways away.
Again, thank you for the additional information.
Thanks, Ken - and I agree with you that whether he taught math, history, or drama doesn't matter that much to his qualifications to be PM. For me - and you may be surprised to hear me say this - Justin Trudeau's background was the worst of both worlds. As a teacher, he wouldn't have been exposed to a lot of the management/administrative/governance work. As Pierre Trudeau's son, he inherited an incredible ego that wasn't backed up by his talents.
Thank you for your nuanced response! Much respect. For me, any MP who has been democratically elected and chosen as the leader of the governing party is a legitimate PM, notwithstanding their experience or lack there of. I think PP is very smart and a political animal with politics running through his veins. I have seen him as my MP in local debates (savvy) and met him personally (he is affable). I don’t share his “take no prisoners” approach to politics. So I have enough reasons for not voting for him.
But my comment was on how conservative partisans defend his actions. (I hear similar arguments about his refusal to obtain security clearance. He is un curious about the consequences of that … )
Anyway thank you once again 🙏🏽
Paul - This was really great - thanks so much. Both guests are impressive. Helene Buzzetti was a revelation, though, and has inspired me to read and listen to Quebec news in French.
Being on TV with her in French once a week is one of the great gifts of my career. When I got that gig I started prepping all week long so I’d be ready.
I question the description of the polls as volatile. The have changed on a steady trend up for the liberals and down for ndp and less down for conservatives.
I wonder if Radio Canada set the French debate schedule late to reduce the impact of Carney's predictable loss. Their future budget is assured by a Liberal win.
Quebecers realize that their status in a 51st state is full absorption. Separation disappears as a lever with Trump.
Paul, always impressed when I see you doing French interviews and discussions, really appreciate the insight provided by Hélène Buzzetti on the Quebec factor so far in this campaign.
I have a lot of time and respect for Lisa MacLeod but she is a bit too partisan in this interview to be valid in her perspective. While she acknowledges that her riding flipped in the last provincial election, she overlooks that there was barely a 2K vote margin in the previous one which may have influenced her decision not to run for reelection. As for not being a solid Liberal base for Carney to safely put his name on the ballot, it ignores that the era of John Baird is long past, the Liberals have won the past elections with over 50% in 2015 and more than 45% in each election since with a low profile candidate. Seems pretty solid to me!
Although Carleton riding next door is more conservative (thus a good reason for PP having decided to run there), as recently as 2015 PP only won by fewer than 2K votes while having outspent his Liberal opponent by more $60K. Albeit the last result was a 50% vote for the Conservatives, they may want to look over their shoulders if the NDP fails to show up and the Liberals gain traction (and the PPC shaves a couple of points).
Yes, I enjoyed the interview and like Lisa (I know her very slightly and our interactions have been positive), but there was definitely some spin here. Her argument that Ford's response to the pandemic was "populist" while Poilievre's was "conservative" is certainly...one lens through which to define those particular words.
I agree with Lisa MacLeod description of Poilievre, it is true that he is meticulous, a strategist, organized. But it is also true as she said that he has strong conservatives value and as of today he rallies the extreme right groups. He is praised by people like Musk and others in the Trump entourage. That is problematic and scary. Poilievre has no credibility with me. Poilievre would in my opinion find common ground with Trump and Canada would be weakened/lost in the process. Lisa MacLeod was playing down the Trump factor, which is a mistake conservatives make, many in the CPC love Trump.
Hélene Buzzetti is a good choice. Her analysis is solid on Quebec, like Hébert.
Mr Wells, TVA struck with the money request from candidate an ethical point. Chantal Hébert pointed that out and now Buzzetti does. The problem is not Carney it's TVA and Péladeau. The debate will happen on 16-17 April, good enough. People in Quebec which include my family, are angry at the insults from USA/Trump and having to leave Florida and will not return. Trump is the threat a much bigger threat than some may imagine, the ROC may not understand the thinking of people of Quebec in this unique context. Buzzetti is really great, thank you for having her on your show.
Thanks again Paul for providing us with such excellent insights. By far the best Canadian political podcast going, and worth every penny.
Oh my, when it's said that Joe Clark spoke better French decades ago than you do now, you're in a tough spot. Your handlers can only shield you for so long. Sortez, venez d'où que vous soyez, (come out, come out, wherever you are).
Speaking of Clarks, poor Christy must be seething...
On all these security questions, one seems to not be posed: in filling out the form are applicants required to list their assets and sources of income? If so, then Carney once again has revealed and Polièvre has not. What has one (P) to hide and why does not the other (C) simply explain. If you are in the limelight, don't be shy for fear of looking dodgey and dishonest.
an excellent podcast. I did not know Lisa MacLeod and found her particularly knowledgeable and articulate. Too bad she likes Poilièvre so much! Hélène Buzetti is as always well informed and interesting. Thanks for this.
Carney’s biggest challenge is to remain authentic in all things but particularly in the conversation around his understanding of Québec. Carney should simply acknowledge that he hasn’t spent much time in Québec, his French is very weak, but that like many Canadians he does understand and deeply values the fundamental role that Québec, it’s culture, language and history, has played in creating a distinct Canadian society which is more open and tolerant as a consequence of Québec’s place in Canada. Acknowledging Québec’s central place in the creation of Canadian culture then extends to the importance of protecting the French language and culture today, supporting the means required. Of course, Carney could also add the fact that the reason Québec has retained the French language and culture in North America, in contrast to the extinction of that same thing in the United States, is because it’s part of Canada. Thus, the existential risk to Québec from Trump’s 51st state applies as much if not more to Québec than it does to the rest of Canada. Hence a vote for the Liberals is a vote to save Québec. Of course, all the polling data suggests that savvy Québec voters already understand this, but it would help if Carney said it.
Paul, this was great ….two very informed and intelligent commentators without any particular axes to grind. Lisa Macleod was a bit partisan and that was to be expected but Helene Buzzetti was a real treat. I am never going to hear her in French so please bring her back in English as often as you can.
AND…I am loving this format…informed, non partisan commentary to keep us in touch with stuff as it happens ….all the emphasis elsewhere on polling is leaving me cold
As a Westerner, it's disheartening to view (hear)Easterners' viewpoints.
Paul, there seems to be something wrong with the video of this panel. There is no response when clicking on the Play arrow. All other sites work, including your own podcast with McLeod and the Quebec journalist.
Did I hear Helene correctly - that Carney isn’t doing the TVA debate because it’s pay to play and he thinks it’s unethical? If so, that’s hilarious as he has the ethics of a guy who runs a hedge fund.
What is unethical about running a hedge fund?
ASK A HEDGE, PAUL
Well I covered many hedge funds in my role as market economist. Hedge funds use active investing strategies like shortening and extending risk to improve performance. For example, if your analysis leads you to the conclusion that a company like Nortel is loved by the market and you think it’s going bankrupt, you can use investment strategies that allow you to benefit from your analysis by shorting the stock. Of course like any business there’s unethical players but there are laws that regulates behaviour. Your commentator simply doesn’t understandwhat a hedge fund is.