On the chaos in city centres, I think it's widespread enough that it's hard to say any one entity is to blame. Maybe a good first step would be to talk about it. I was discussing this in the spring with a friend from a big company -- that a national city summit would be interesting, attendance absolutely not mandatory, but say 15 mayors and a few premiers and the PM and two of his ministers and some national organizations, academics, whatever. Sit down and share observations and best practices. My friend's reaction was interesting. He said there's no way it would work because every organisation would arrive with message to emit, and not a one of them would be equipped to listen and integrate what they heard. Not one government, not the politician you dislike the most, but every organisation. This led pretty directly to my summer series on the pathology of strategic communications. This country has gigantic fucking problems and for some reason everyone thinks it's a public speaking contest.
Where my mind went, which actually dovetails with your point: Ontario has an entity called the Big City Mayors' Caucus, and what's fascinating is, it has a lot more than fifteen members. I think it's everything with more than 100,000 residents. The "big cities" include a bunch of municipalities that, ten years ago, were dot-on-the-map suburbs, and several that were until very recently mostly unpopulated farmland. I'm from Ajax - Ajax was "farmland" when I was a kid, a "small town" when I was twenty, and is now a "town". But somehow it's in the "Big Cities" group. Not just the "Cities" group - the "Big Cities" group!
So there are two issues here - the practical (if a municipality goes from 10,000 to 100,000 residents overnight, there'll be growing pains) and the ego-driven (if every small-town mayor needs to be reassured that theirs is just as big as anyone else's, it's harder to get anything done). Less ego would probably help.
It suffices to take a quick look at Toronto's most wanted to understand why a frank dialogue on violence in our big cities is impossible in today's Canada.
This last sentence ( this country has gigantic fucking problems and for some reason everyone thinks it’s a public speaking contest) perfectly sums up the state of affairs. It’s become a performative culture. Words are ascribed some magical powers ( if I say it, why I dont even have to do it. Watch what I say, not what I do ) . And it’s not a simple credibility failure: eg I trust and believe his words but not hers. It’s all of them.
At a certain point inevitably people simply stop listening. Some of us are sick of idle, empty talk. High priced consultants and experts’ power points( not an active verb or complete sentence to be had). Politicians’ talking points. Trauma counselling for those exposed to ‘bad’ words. Empty, meaningless promises ( when will this road be built.? We are committed to completing it as soon as possible).
In the meantime, children go to school hungry, you cant get a family doctor, good luck buying or renting a place to live.
I listened to Dr. Herle’s pod with Dr. BoozaryIf and suggested elsewhere that if ever there was a good reason for a meeting of First Ministers, the care crisis across communities big and small would be it. And, in matters of housing, fix the care equation and you’ll be miles ahead when it comes to fixing things. Like housing.
Big problems indeed, but perhaps if we step back we can see that there is no "government" solution to these, that a lot of our problems come from yesterday's government "solutions", and that we need to find a way to have less government and more people involved.
It was particularly striking to me that the solution to asylum seekers sleeping on the streets of Toronto was provided by a private organization in a matter of a day or so, whereas the combined powers of our municipal, provincial and federal governments were as of naught.
Governments cannot solve the problems we have, and we and they need to stop pretending otherwise.
In less than a day, this has become the longest comment board in the 17-month history of this newsletter, 159 comments including this one. And it's been perfectly civil, or close enough. Thanks to everyone for letting one another have assorted opinions.
This is also the 13th most-shared post on the newsletter (out of 156 posts since I launched), so thanks to everyone for spreading the word. As Art Blakey said, tell your square friends about this music; they're the ones with the money.
As one of your Liberal readers, I think this is a pretty reasonable piece. You refer to the state of Ontario politics in 2018, and, indeed, I think voters are getting to the point with the PM that they were getting to with Kathleen Wynne---they're just irretrievably sick of him, his face, his voice, his manner. Once you reach that point, it's hard to come back from.
Even speaking as a Liberal: I think the other guy's worse, but I cannot dispute anything you've said about the PM here. I can see why he rubs a lot of people the wrong way. A clip was trending on Twitter last night - I'm not sure if it's new or old - of Jean Chretien doing his whole CANADA IS THE BEST, DA PROOF IS DA PROOF shtick, and people were asking, "Why can't we have a prime minister like this? Why doesn't Justin say stuff like this?" And when the answer is, "Justin does say stuff like this, but when he does it, it annoys everyone," that doesn't augur very well.
Communication has been a big problem for the liberal. It was maybe not a big issue in the past but, with an opponent who master public communication like Polievre, it has become one. Polievre was also very good to put every single problem in Canada on Trudeau, even the ones that are clearly provincials or municipals, and the libs have been unable to find a way to respond to this.
Trudeau rarely answers a direct question. He predictably responds with a series of canned messages we've all heard ad nauseum. His handlers are likely well pleased that he has stayed "on message" but it isn't real communication. Being on message loses it's lustre when the same meaningless platitudes are continually offered up. Sooner, or later, the voters tune you out.
I am NOT a fan of JT. There, I said it! Well, I have said it previously. Ad infinitum. The foregoing is simply to provide a framework for the rest of my comment.
M-A, you say, "Communication has been a big problem for the liberal." I hate to break it to you but - and I say this with respect and I apologize for my intemperate language - that is a stupid comment. ALL governments when they become unpopular try to point to SOME supposed good things and complain that their "good works" are not being noticed and they blame poor communications. That would be ALL governments who have dramatically outstayed their welcome and simply are too obtuse to notice.
The reason that their "good works" are not being noticed is that those "good works" are really only "good" to the ideologically "pure" supporters. The REST OF THE COUNTRY notices only that there is very little "good" and a whole lot of "bad" so the alternative seems better. Whether the alternative is actually better is pretty much irrelevant as the incumbent has proven capable of a whole lot of "bad" but not much good.
My point is that substance is REALLY important and to blame communications is simply an attempt to deflect from the absence of a positive substance in policy and in performance.
I don’t disagree with the need to substance but it has been proven again and again they communications is key in politics. Evidence 1: Polievre. Polievre is an extremely good communicator who delivers very limited substance. About the same can also be said for Ford
We’re seeing the results of Doug Ford’s populist communication. We elected one of the most corrupt politicians Ontario has ever had. Wondering if Ontarians will be interested in voting in another right wing populist in a federal election 2 years away. Time is not on Poiliviere’s side in this province.
Ford was reelected because no believable alternative was offered. Very few people had a clue who the leader of the Liberal Party was, something I still find bizarre, and Horwath was same old, same old, not worth listening to. So it wasn't Ford's superior communication skills, it was the lack of any from his opponents.
I hope you're right, Teresa, but so many voters don't think that way. If anything, I worry that because of the soft tradition of Ontario electing one party at one level and another at the other, Ford's slipping will help Poilievre.
Ontario's problem is the same as the rest of the country's. We haven't got a truly democratic voting system. If we had proportional representation, Doug Ford would have to settle for about 40% of the seats in the legislature. Can you imagine him doing anywhere near as much damage in that situation?
Agreed with you---and with Paul. More than any PM of my lifetime before him, the PM is very...one-note? He generally doesn't seem capable of changing course in order to respond to something, whether on a macro level (as prime minister, making big policy changes) or on a micro level (as Justin, changing the inflection of his voice ever at all).
I like Champagne! I don't have the expertise to know if Freeland is a good finance minister or a bad one, and I like her personally, but I think she's widely-enough perceived to share the flaws the PM's perceived to have (smug, holier-than-thou, out-of-touch, limousine-liberal) that I'm not sure how great of a political asset she is.
"Justin does say stuff like this, but when he does it, it annoys everyone,"
For me, the reason the PM pronouncements on 'stuff like this' is annoying is because I always feel like I'm being condescended to. And I suspect that is a large part of the reason so many people have such a visceral dislike of him. Too many people feel rightly or wrongly that he looks down on people who aren't like him.
Yeah, I can't speak to what's in his heart, but I agree. It's just his style---he seems smug and condescending a lot of the time, even if you agree with him.
...are getting to the point with the PM that they were getting to with Kathleen Wynne---they're just irretrievably sick of him, his face, his voice, his manner.
'Are getting'?
It has been years now that I have opened the computer with trembling fingers knowing that any article I click on may include a pop-up of Junior delivering one of his breathy nasal woke addled bromides.
How many new suits ruined nation wide by viewers who have not taken precautions to protect themselves from exposure?
Ha! I mean, obviously any political leader is always going to have people who dislike him, and obviously anyone for whom "woke" is a pejorative was always going to feel that way about the PM. A third of the country always disliked him and always will. But it seems to me, subjectively, like a tide is turning - like a critical mass of people are coming to be sick of this guy.
I don't know about how sick people may or may not be with the PM but I am going to a breakfast event with two ministers and it's now sold out and a waiting list has started
That's kind of the inverse of what I was saying to the other guy who's always hated the PM, though. We got 2.2 million votes in the disaster that was 2011. Kim Campbell got nearly 2.2 million in 1993. That's about the floor. An absolute minimum of a couple of million people are always going to like us. Out of those couple of million, you'll always be able to scrounge up a few dozen to come to an event.
It's more like a few hundred but my point as in my other comment is that the convention gave what I consider "liberal gold" with all their dumber than dumb resolutions.
My ears are to the ground and I don't see this groundswell for PP that some polls pretend is there. No one took notice of the Nanos polls for the last two weeks that has the Libs dead even with the CPC. I also believe the Abacus poll last week on the day their convention opened was a gift to CPC attendees. The guy now running that part of Abacus is a full on conservative.
Just for fun notes-comparison, when did you realize that Doug Ford was going to win in 2018? It took me until well after Kathleen Wynne conceded. I know this "my guy's going to win, don't believe the polls, the only poll that counts is on election day, my guy is good, everyone I saw at my party's event said so" dance very, very well.
Subjectively, I've seen a huge shift since Poilievre's ads came out. When I was staffing an MP a million years ago, there was pretty much unanimous agreement that the most annoying MP was the man Conservatives called "Skippy" and the man Liberals called "that little (five minutes of expletives) Skippy". I have long believed that Skippy Poilievre could never be PM, and I stand by that - he won't. But millions of Canadians have recently introduced to someone who, according to his ads, is a full-grown adult man named "Pierre", who speaks in calm, soothing tones and seems like a pretty reasonable guy if you're someone who pays two minutes of attention a year to politics.
Same with the Liberal government in Yukon...we know they are in control of the wheels of power, but they don't seem to care if there is any need to do anything with them.
Just this week I was wondering “ where’s Paul Wells ?” ... and here you are ! Thank you for your take on the world this week and more especially on the way of Canada and it’s political morass. I am neither a Liberal or Conservative zealot so I am able to appreciate your ‘pox’ on both their houses.
This is why I have been following you through your various media iterations and why I am happy to recommend you to anyone who will listen.
Actually I owe people more of an answer on the where's-he-been question. The rest of the answer is: getting the podcast ready, in slightly different and I hope better form. It will be back this week.
If Poilievre only scraps the Carbon Tax and gets inflation even remotely under control, and achieves nothing else, I would be a happy citizen.
The BIG thing that we are missing as Paul alludes to is that we are washing out to sea without a lifeboat. My friends who work in housing construction tell me there is no real plan to crank up production because interest rates are too high for builders to carry project expenses into an uncertain market. In Alberta. With oil pushing higher.
The impact of the carbon tax on CPI has been stated by the BoC as .15 of 1% The impact of “ profiteering” by corporations has been stated by the US Federal Reserve at 3%. Which is the greater and of more concern? Which has Poilievre ignored? Facts matter..
I see no cancelled projects in my area and so many housing/condo projects have been announced recently its mind boggling. A $100mm project now paying 2 or 3 points more than before for the 40% of pre construction unsold homes is adding what cost? Not enough to slow them down. And yes it inflates the house price somewhat but so does expensive lumber etc.
Some 8 years ago, Canadians were advised that Justin Trudeau was "just not ready" to be PM. He had no qualifying life or work experience and traded solely on his father's name. Canadians ignored the obvious and bought into the hype. The state in which Canada finds itself today speaks volumes in terms of government competence - as led by Justin Trudeau. Even with almost 8 years on-the-job training, a review of his record would show (at least to some Canadians) that he is still not ready.
Kind of a sidebar, and I know this isn't the crux of your point: I've always thought that saying your opponent is "not ready" is a losing political argument. "He's incompetent" or "he doesn't share your values" or whatever---that says you shouldn't vote for him. "He's not ready" says, "You shouldn't vote for him...now." Which is basically like saying, "You should vote for him, and he should be prime minister, just...not now." To which voters say, "Well, why not? If you think he will one day be ready to be PM, why not now?" This happened with Trudeau, and to some degree it happened in 2008 with Clinton and Obama. It doesn't work.
The same argument could have been used for Harper. He had no qualifying life or work experience. After 9 years Canadians were fed up with him. Now, unfortunately, he has decided to work quietly in the background. Will Cons stand up on their hind legs and tell him to take a hike? That it is no longer his place to weigh in except with his one vote.
Mr. "the budget will balance itself" has overseen Canada's national debt double from roughly $600B in 2015 to $1.2T today. That's at the top of the list ...
Of course an almost 3 year distraction for COVID assistance doesn't enter into it for you. Do you recall Harper doubling the deficit in 2008 when the banking system nearly imploded or does your memory not go back that far. Do you also know that pre covid 70% of our national debt was created by 2 conservative PM's and do you know that the only PM to create a surplus in decades and lower the national debt was Jean Chretien with Paul Martin as FM. Just thought i would help your memory along.
Yes. “ Some damn thing”. I like the idea of cancelling one failed expenditure and applying the money where it’s more needed. I gather the Liberals think they have a communication problem. Perhaps it’s more of an implementation problem. Right now PP is dancing rings around them on communication.
All true but what is he announcing except axe the tax which he can't do in some provinces. Kill bureaucracy in provincial jurisdictions? Libs will start targetting him slowly but surely. Read some of Marc Miller's recent posts. He is credible, smart, and knows how to get under PP's skin. He's just one piece of ammo.
I appreciate the fact that you go after all the parties. I do not see a leader in any of the five parties in the House of Commons that inspires me even a little. Same at the provincial level.
There are a few good MPs like Michael Chong, Don Davies, and Mike Morrice. I also liked former MPs Bernadette Jordan and Paul Manly.
In my dream world all MPs and MLAs are independents and parties no longer exist.
Don't want to see Polievre as PM. Trudeau Liberals are way past their best before date (which IMO was probably after their 1st year). And the NDP stands for what these days? When Conservatives are taking traditionally NDP ridings, what is going on?
(For the record, I think the NDP missed the boat in not electing Charlie Angus as leader. If they had, I think we'd have a much different NDP these days. One that would actually be interested in holding the Liberals feet to the fire.)
Your criticism of the PM on the world stage, Mr. Wells, is unfair!
His presence is absolutely critical for the other participants.
Once the time of his interventions appears on the schedule, all the other leaders know when to schedule those all important 'comfort' breaks.
You don't want to leave the meeting hall when something important may happen and timing your absences when the PM speaks is a guarantee you are going to miss nothing of any importance whatsoever.
I guess I’m one of those Liberals who doesn’t think that things are as gloomy as you project. When I read JT’s tweet I didn’t think that he was lecturing, just that as a group there is more that needs to be done. Not to say that he doesn’t have any faults but are the problems that London is experiencing, really his fault. My son lived there 25 years ago and parts of it were pretty sketchy then.
I listened to PP’s speech on the Friday as well as his wife’s extremely long introduction. As much as I tried to be objective all that I could think “ Are people really going to fall for this BS?” He wasn’t speaking to the people who got him there, he was speaking to the gullible ones who will hopefully wake up to the fact that a leopard can’t change it’s spots.
It has never even remotely been like it is now. And it is worsening by the week.
Parts of the City are on the verge of being unliveable.
Again, I truly respect the fact that you may feel differently; London has a serious housing/mental health/drug addiction crisis that is not being addressed in any demonstrable fashion.
I lived in London about ten years ago and now live in a city fairly similar to London, and yes, this crisis is getting worse everywhere. No arguments here. The questions for me are, 1. Is that due to Justin Trudeau's policies, and 2. Would Pierre Poilievre make things better?
George - first, I am not a JT fan - I will take on your points one and two. M-A below raises a point three but, as an Albertan, I am unable to comment on Ontario issues with any authority.
Okay, point 1. Who cares if JT's policies caused the problems? I can certainly say that it appears that he is oblivious to the existence of the severity of the problems and he absolutely hasn't generated sufficient policies to convince virtually anyone that he adequately recognizes the issues and is trying do anything but dance around them. More in a moment.
Now, point 2. I am uncertain as to whether PP would do better. What I do know is that he seems to recognize the problems and that is a start to dealing with the problems. He may, indeed, be incapable but the other guy (JT) has had his turn and has failed.
So, back to point 1. JT is responsible for flooding the country with funny money and the resulting inflation. Please don't try to tell me "other countries ..." simply because JT keeps talking about what HE is doing so why don't keep him on that point. He is not pursuing the crooks that got billions in CERB money illegally. He is responsible for the massive deficits. And so forth; I really could go on but, truthfully, you know all this.
Good teeth and lots of hair (I am follickly challenged!) are not enough to justify keeping him.
Ken, you and I have scrapped in the past and disagree about much, so I think it's worth noting that we basically agree here. I can't dispute that there is, with the PM, a sense of disengagement from what's going on. Whether he is or isn't oblivious to what's going on, I agree he seems to be. Remember the testimony he gave at POEC? Whether you love or hate what he said, remember *how* he was? Alert? Awake? Able to answer a question? You might have hated his performance that day, but the man has been an elected official for fifteen years. and that is the only time I've ever seen him speak when it felt like his brain was connected to his mouth in real time and he wasn't just a talking doll whose string somebody had pulled. I cannot blame the 99% of Canadians who've only ever seen Talking-Point Trudeau and think he's a complete bubblehead. That's the image he seems to want to put out there.
I'd have been relatively comfortable with Scheer or O'Toole as PM. I've met both men and liked them. I have really significant reservations about Poilievre which largely mirror Paul's: I find his behaviour as opposition leader to be disqualifyingly unserious. That, to some degree, is the problem with the Parliamentary system. In the States, you generally become president by governing a state or serving in the Senate---this whole "opposition leader" gig isn't always conducive to demonstrating "leader" skills as opposed to "opposition" skills. So I'm not a fan. But I think a lot of people are saying what you're saying - "I don't know this Pierre guy, but I'll take anything over what we have now." And some days I can't blame them.
Remember that what we have now is two years before an election. Seeing that people's memories are short politically why should the PM get over the top presence now. The country has its issues and his team is working through them to get to the next major issue and there will always be one. The housing crisis is one of success making demands even higher. Immigration now is future wealth. Day care subsidies allow more women to be independent and succesful w/o breaking the bank. .
If your question is genuine, I will give you my honest answer.
I remember a time when we would not allow this to happen.
Repairing the damage that has been done will require commitment, effort, funding, & perseverance from all levels of Government.
We require a type of leadership that Justin Trudeau is unwilling or unable to provide.
I am not blaming Liberal policies specifically, but that Party has definitely presided over the greatest decline in the social consensus & social contract I have ever witnessed, and I am an older Canadian.
If Pierre Poilievre can stop the decline in our cultural standards, & construct a wide & welcoming political & cultural consensus, he will be able to expend the political capital necessary to repair the damage that Justin Trudeau’s tired, spent, virtue-signalling Government cannot.
I think we need coordinated, involuntary drug treatment, mental health assessment & counselling, & a massive commitment to entry level housing.
If Pierre Poilievre’s promise to eliminate “Gatekeepers” is kept, then, yes, it can happen. But our typical way of doing things needs to return to the way we used to do things. That is, a solid commitment to success, backed by proper funding & social consensus.
Using only London as an example, I fear the problem is to become much worse before it gets better.
Sorry for the long reply; I sincerely appreciate your indulgence.
Don, I think it's ironic that PP is promising to get rid of gatekeepers as he strives to become the chief gatekeeper of Canada. I agree with with Mr. Wells and everyone else here that the Liberals are running on empty but Poiliever is running on deceit. He has spent his entire political life championing trickle-down economics. It's those policies that have caused most of the problems we're talking about - the problems he's claiming he's going to solve. Notice that he gives very little in the way of actual solutions. His "Axe the Tax" slogan is him signaling his allegiance to Big Oil. The modern right throughout the developed world are all singing from the same hymnbook so if you wonder what PP will do just look at what the Republicans are doing to the south of us. In other words he's going to "unleash" the private sector to solve all these problems and it's often an unleashed private sector that has caused these problems in the first place.
I mean, it's fascinating to me that some people are hearing Poilievre's anti-"gatekeeper" rhetoric as being about...building more houses? When I hear a guy hawking conspiracy theories about shadowy "elites" who "control the money" and are "globalists", I know what that means, and it's baffling to me that some don't.
Thank you for engaging. I honestly don't know what the answers are to this crisis, so I always like to hear others' perspectives. I'm not sure how I feel about involuntary drug treatment - it's something I would have to give more thought to - but more access to housing and more mental health supports seem to me to be good ideas.
My opinion, as a left-leaning Liberal, is that back in the days of e.g. Brian Mulroney, society worked great...for guys like Brian Mulroney. Some of what we're seeing now is growing pains as society tries to offer a fair chance to more people. I have cerebral palsy, and at times I've struggled with poverty, insecure housing, and generally being on the margins of society in some ways. A guy like me, born forty years earlier, never would have had the chance to struggle the way I have, or to achieve some of the things I've achieved, because he'd have simply been thrown in an institution. Would that have been to society's betterment?
To be clear, I don't think the status quo is working, and I agree---all talk about what's under municipal or provincial jurisdiction aside, the PM bears some responsibility, even just for his bully pulpit. It's terrible that so many people struggle with homelessness, poverty, and addiction. I just don't know how we fix it, but I want it to be in a way that gives as many people as possible as much of a chance as possible.
Excellent comment, especially finding the guts to go back to the way we used to do things. The cornerstone of the “old way” was taking pride in our efforts and commitment to high standards. We are flailing along in mediocrity and have been doing it long enough that it has been normalized. Cost overruns, procurement snarl ups and public infrastructure falling apart as fast as it can be completed.
And I would also add 3. Is part of the crisis in london is at least due to the Ontario government? For health care, Ontario spent among the lowest share per capita
Of course I respect your perspective. I’m from a rural area near Owen Sound and even here we see a bit of what you describe. However I can’t imagine what it must be like to see your city deteriorate to the extent that you describe. I’m sure there are lots of reasons it has become so terrible and maybe the federal government should wear some of it. However so should Doug Ford and your local government. It will take everyone working together to solve these huge societal challenges. I’m interested to know how much worse it has been since the pandemic?
Brenda it’s not just London, Winnipeg downtown is suffering the same fate. Part of the problem was the lockdowns during COVID when people began working remotely and businesses lost their clientele and closed. Don’t get me wrong, the lockdowns didn’t start the downturn, issues were starting and COVID was just part of the problem.
I lived in London years ago and now my university age daughter is there. It is a rough place, totally different than 30 years ago, hit hard by the opioid crisis. With opioid addiction comes petty crime and I also see home break ins are a big issue. I saw formerly nice parts of Richmond street looking pretty sketchy and a crowd of 15-20 people openly using in a Victoria park at 2pm on a Saturday.
I thought the same thing. When did it become such a bad thing to wear glasses? If he wore just a bit bigger frames it would show his eyes more, and I think that's important if he wants people to trust him. It sounds a bit knit picky but right now he looks like a phone, which he most likely is.
You are a Liberal; I am a Conservative. To me this is not about finding blame. It is truly a bipartisan issue.
Yes, it requires a commitment from all levels of Government. But it first requires a commitment from the citizenry to say this current experience is unacceptable. We must acknowledge that massive change is required, both in our thinking & our execution.
In a virtuous society we would collectively assert “Enough! This cannot go on.”
That is where the solution must begin.
Homelessness, mental health abandonment & drug abuse existed long before Doug Ford was elected. That doesn’t mean I’m implying it’s Kathleen Wynne’s fault either. But she did ignore the growing epidemic as well.
However, were we truly concerned about the problems, we would take the billions of subsidies wasted on battery plants, for example, & commit those funds to involuntary drug treatment, mental health counselling, & entry level subsidized housing.
However, we lack the commitment as citizens, & as politicians, in my opinion. We are what we allow, and we have allowed the beneficence of our collective inheritance to be casually & inelegantly dissipated by neglect, cowardice, lack of virtue & discipline.
These were once shared Canadian values. They are shared Canadian values no longer.
Great comments. For the good of Canada, this can’t go on. It is particularly troublesome to come across (and there are many) people who know that things are a mess but prepared to double down and stick with Team Trudeau “because they don’t like the alternative”. Really? Four more years of dithering, high levels of spending and policy based on wedge issues that make everyone angry?
We need change, desperately, or our young people will face a working life with a steadily declining standard of living that will be disgraceful for a G20 country.
And what are the Cons going to do to for our young people? They have no way of reducing rents for gens z or x or whichever. I see many young people making decisions about how they live their lives with different value systems from their parents or grandparents. Going to school, loading up a student loan, working to clear that debt then having a baby or 2 and usually marrying in there somewhere, then working hard to get that mortgage which is the never-never plan of rates of interest. This is all very familiar but it does not have to be the only route. Staying at home or at least in the neighbourhood, tho we are all out-priced from them now. The world has a lot more to offer. I’d rather see my g’kids look much further afield for their futures. Maybe they will come back one day full of experience and ideas. That would be exciting.
In major detail, I couldn’t say. I don’t do Liberal. But I know that the financial help especially early days of Covid was a huge help to some family members and friends. I personally appreciate the extra funding I received. Blaming the Libs for things out of their hands is a fool’s game. PP blames the weather on JT. I can’t see that it is at all helpful.
I have been waiting on daycare promises since my eldest was in daycare. He is 52 yo, about the same age as Justin Trudeau give or take a couple of months. He has a couple of kids, my g’kids, who may actually find $10 daycare a very good thing. I am hoping that it will not be too soon though. I would rather they have more adventure in their lives.
I much prefer my pols to be about their business as quietly as possible. Then when they mess up it would be much more impactful. Now they are ragged on from every direction. So many people feel that they must announce their every inflamed nerve ending when some real or imagined slight occurs. It’s boring. The hyperbole is boring!
Trudeau defeated Erin O'Toole and Andrew Scheer who were mild mannered compared to Pierre. He did that with the help of the the majority of mainstream media who he wanted to meet with off the record before the last election. I know of only one media outlet that refused that request. What's with that? Trudeau also defeats by lying about conservatives, painting them as anti-everything, far right, extremist, white supremacist and people believe him because no one calls him out on it including the major media outlets like the Toronto Star, CBC and CTV news and others. He tells lies about them not supporting giving people benefits during the pandemic. Hs interpretation of not supporting is when the opposition tries to suggest a more efficient or economical way of doing things. He never gives opposition answers in Question Period. He instead accuses them of mudslinging, conspiracy theories and anti-whatever. Sorry JT many people want answers. The Liberals can't account for at least 700 billion plus of our money. Do you ever hear this from the media? No. All the scandals, all the money given to other countries, the carbon tax that has done nothing but make life much more harder for so many who will never be able to buy a taxpayer funded EV. They are happy if they can feed their family. What was Trudeau like as opposition leader? Pierre is tough and goes overboard a bit in blaming Trudeau but most of it is deserved. Why should anyone try to fight fair with Trudeau? He stacks the deck whenever he can. He reaps what he sows and I hope he is defeated.
Cons are always begging to be called out on their positions. Scheer and O’Tool were not great at retail politics. And when they did or said something stupid, which they did, the media were there as they should be.
I’m not a Liberal but I find it fascinating how JT is draped in power by the very people who are trying to bring him down. Did he ask to meet with all the media and all but one acquiesced with his request? Who was that? Does JT actually lie about the many many comments that are made about him? He’s not lying, they do say the most appalling things and they have been saying them since 2017 at least. His family too. I get it. You don’t like him for PM, but your complaints are all over the place and there is no cohesive point. PP’s on the other hand are straightforward, detailed, over-the-top BS. I don’t see that it’s a great improvement.
JT is better at politics than PP is. Different styles. In my opinion, I don’t think PP should be PM. He is erratic, he thinks he knows more than he does. He loves his new family which is very nice but I don’t think he’s getting the best advice from Wifey. Common sense is anything but. He should realize that but he’s tailoring his message to the lesser literate and the KISS program: Keep It Simple Stupid.
I would like to see JT in for at least one more term. I don’t think PP is ready. But if I could have what I really want it would be an NDP majority. Everyone needs to stop looking back over their shoulders and look forward. Jagmeet Singh could get us off to a fine start.
The unspoken bargain is to leave things either the way we found them or better.
Running up the deficits while failing to maintain infrastructure and a competent healthcare system makes me wonder: what did we do with all that money? Is baked in cheap daycare and dental programs a hurt or hindrance for our economy when tenets of universality spread the largesse across those who can pay their own way?
To your last question in the final para, I am sure JT would say we never deserved him, and after 9 years it’s simple to see that the country didn’t deserve a PM who has put us in debt that the Millenials and GenZ’s will spend their lifetime paying off and still be looking for a roof over their head. Yeah, we didn’t deserve the Trudeau Treatment.
As a Liberal voter who aa things stand expects to keep voting Liberal in the face of a truly disturbing alternative, and as someone who has donated a fair amount to the party for years (since the 2015 campaign when I left the NDP over Mulcair), I just want to say: well said, sir.
"Would they view a Liberal election defeat as their failure — or ours?"
That line made me physically cringe, because it nails their greatest flaw so perfectly. He desperately needs a new outsider CoS who lacks the holier than thou defect, or he needs to move on, I think. I used to want him to stay forever. I still think we'll miss him when he's gone, but I'm also increasingly convinced the status quo is untenable for obvious reasons.
And you're so right that while he's clearly got some fight in him (wants a piece of PP), whether or not he has the *job* in him is the salient question.
Bravo sir. Really. Artfully done. This is why I subscribe.
On the chaos in city centres, I think it's widespread enough that it's hard to say any one entity is to blame. Maybe a good first step would be to talk about it. I was discussing this in the spring with a friend from a big company -- that a national city summit would be interesting, attendance absolutely not mandatory, but say 15 mayors and a few premiers and the PM and two of his ministers and some national organizations, academics, whatever. Sit down and share observations and best practices. My friend's reaction was interesting. He said there's no way it would work because every organisation would arrive with message to emit, and not a one of them would be equipped to listen and integrate what they heard. Not one government, not the politician you dislike the most, but every organisation. This led pretty directly to my summer series on the pathology of strategic communications. This country has gigantic fucking problems and for some reason everyone thinks it's a public speaking contest.
Where my mind went, which actually dovetails with your point: Ontario has an entity called the Big City Mayors' Caucus, and what's fascinating is, it has a lot more than fifteen members. I think it's everything with more than 100,000 residents. The "big cities" include a bunch of municipalities that, ten years ago, were dot-on-the-map suburbs, and several that were until very recently mostly unpopulated farmland. I'm from Ajax - Ajax was "farmland" when I was a kid, a "small town" when I was twenty, and is now a "town". But somehow it's in the "Big Cities" group. Not just the "Cities" group - the "Big Cities" group!
So there are two issues here - the practical (if a municipality goes from 10,000 to 100,000 residents overnight, there'll be growing pains) and the ego-driven (if every small-town mayor needs to be reassured that theirs is just as big as anyone else's, it's harder to get anything done). Less ego would probably help.
It suffices to take a quick look at Toronto's most wanted to understand why a frank dialogue on violence in our big cities is impossible in today's Canada.
This last sentence ( this country has gigantic fucking problems and for some reason everyone thinks it’s a public speaking contest) perfectly sums up the state of affairs. It’s become a performative culture. Words are ascribed some magical powers ( if I say it, why I dont even have to do it. Watch what I say, not what I do ) . And it’s not a simple credibility failure: eg I trust and believe his words but not hers. It’s all of them.
At a certain point inevitably people simply stop listening. Some of us are sick of idle, empty talk. High priced consultants and experts’ power points( not an active verb or complete sentence to be had). Politicians’ talking points. Trauma counselling for those exposed to ‘bad’ words. Empty, meaningless promises ( when will this road be built.? We are committed to completing it as soon as possible).
In the meantime, children go to school hungry, you cant get a family doctor, good luck buying or renting a place to live.
I listened to Dr. Herle’s pod with Dr. BoozaryIf and suggested elsewhere that if ever there was a good reason for a meeting of First Ministers, the care crisis across communities big and small would be it. And, in matters of housing, fix the care equation and you’ll be miles ahead when it comes to fixing things. Like housing.
Great piece. Thx
Big problems indeed, but perhaps if we step back we can see that there is no "government" solution to these, that a lot of our problems come from yesterday's government "solutions", and that we need to find a way to have less government and more people involved.
It was particularly striking to me that the solution to asylum seekers sleeping on the streets of Toronto was provided by a private organization in a matter of a day or so, whereas the combined powers of our municipal, provincial and federal governments were as of naught.
Governments cannot solve the problems we have, and we and they need to stop pretending otherwise.
There might be a tendency in that direction, but a good moderator would keep things under control and encourage good communication. It can be done.
In less than a day, this has become the longest comment board in the 17-month history of this newsletter, 159 comments including this one. And it's been perfectly civil, or close enough. Thanks to everyone for letting one another have assorted opinions.
This is also the 13th most-shared post on the newsletter (out of 156 posts since I launched), so thanks to everyone for spreading the word. As Art Blakey said, tell your square friends about this music; they're the ones with the money.
I think this is a good summary of the state of affairs of both Justin Trudeau, and of the mood of the Country at the moment.
Your comments on London are on point; it is frightening to travel in certain parts of the City, and it is getting demonstrably worse.
I like the writing style, and the sentiment expressed.
Well-done.
As one of your Liberal readers, I think this is a pretty reasonable piece. You refer to the state of Ontario politics in 2018, and, indeed, I think voters are getting to the point with the PM that they were getting to with Kathleen Wynne---they're just irretrievably sick of him, his face, his voice, his manner. Once you reach that point, it's hard to come back from.
Even speaking as a Liberal: I think the other guy's worse, but I cannot dispute anything you've said about the PM here. I can see why he rubs a lot of people the wrong way. A clip was trending on Twitter last night - I'm not sure if it's new or old - of Jean Chretien doing his whole CANADA IS THE BEST, DA PROOF IS DA PROOF shtick, and people were asking, "Why can't we have a prime minister like this? Why doesn't Justin say stuff like this?" And when the answer is, "Justin does say stuff like this, but when he does it, it annoys everyone," that doesn't augur very well.
Communication has been a big problem for the liberal. It was maybe not a big issue in the past but, with an opponent who master public communication like Polievre, it has become one. Polievre was also very good to put every single problem in Canada on Trudeau, even the ones that are clearly provincials or municipals, and the libs have been unable to find a way to respond to this.
Trudeau rarely answers a direct question. He predictably responds with a series of canned messages we've all heard ad nauseum. His handlers are likely well pleased that he has stayed "on message" but it isn't real communication. Being on message loses it's lustre when the same meaningless platitudes are continually offered up. Sooner, or later, the voters tune you out.
I know. Sweeping statements with little in the way of fact is irritating.
I am NOT a fan of JT. There, I said it! Well, I have said it previously. Ad infinitum. The foregoing is simply to provide a framework for the rest of my comment.
M-A, you say, "Communication has been a big problem for the liberal." I hate to break it to you but - and I say this with respect and I apologize for my intemperate language - that is a stupid comment. ALL governments when they become unpopular try to point to SOME supposed good things and complain that their "good works" are not being noticed and they blame poor communications. That would be ALL governments who have dramatically outstayed their welcome and simply are too obtuse to notice.
The reason that their "good works" are not being noticed is that those "good works" are really only "good" to the ideologically "pure" supporters. The REST OF THE COUNTRY notices only that there is very little "good" and a whole lot of "bad" so the alternative seems better. Whether the alternative is actually better is pretty much irrelevant as the incumbent has proven capable of a whole lot of "bad" but not much good.
My point is that substance is REALLY important and to blame communications is simply an attempt to deflect from the absence of a positive substance in policy and in performance.
I don’t disagree with the need to substance but it has been proven again and again they communications is key in politics. Evidence 1: Polievre. Polievre is an extremely good communicator who delivers very limited substance. About the same can also be said for Ford
We’re seeing the results of Doug Ford’s populist communication. We elected one of the most corrupt politicians Ontario has ever had. Wondering if Ontarians will be interested in voting in another right wing populist in a federal election 2 years away. Time is not on Poiliviere’s side in this province.
Ford was reelected because no believable alternative was offered. Very few people had a clue who the leader of the Liberal Party was, something I still find bizarre, and Horwath was same old, same old, not worth listening to. So it wasn't Ford's superior communication skills, it was the lack of any from his opponents.
I hope you're right, Teresa, but so many voters don't think that way. If anything, I worry that because of the soft tradition of Ontario electing one party at one level and another at the other, Ford's slipping will help Poilievre.
Ontario's problem is the same as the rest of the country's. We haven't got a truly democratic voting system. If we had proportional representation, Doug Ford would have to settle for about 40% of the seats in the legislature. Can you imagine him doing anywhere near as much damage in that situation?
Agreed with you---and with Paul. More than any PM of my lifetime before him, the PM is very...one-note? He generally doesn't seem capable of changing course in order to respond to something, whether on a macro level (as prime minister, making big policy changes) or on a micro level (as Justin, changing the inflection of his voice ever at all).
I would add part of the problem is also Freeland as a minister of Finance during an economic crisis. She is not up to the job.
Your criticism of Minister Freelunch is unfair!
Show me another finance minister who has figured out a way to borrow money so that Canadians don't have to?
Debt of the government of Canada that is not the debt of Canadians!
Genius!
Followed by Morneau who was not up to the job.
Who would you prefer?
Good question. Champagne would be my quick bet
I like Champagne! I don't have the expertise to know if Freeland is a good finance minister or a bad one, and I like her personally, but I think she's widely-enough perceived to share the flaws the PM's perceived to have (smug, holier-than-thou, out-of-touch, limousine-liberal) that I'm not sure how great of a political asset she is.
"Justin does say stuff like this, but when he does it, it annoys everyone,"
For me, the reason the PM pronouncements on 'stuff like this' is annoying is because I always feel like I'm being condescended to. And I suspect that is a large part of the reason so many people have such a visceral dislike of him. Too many people feel rightly or wrongly that he looks down on people who aren't like him.
Yeah, I can't speak to what's in his heart, but I agree. It's just his style---he seems smug and condescending a lot of the time, even if you agree with him.
...are getting to the point with the PM that they were getting to with Kathleen Wynne---they're just irretrievably sick of him, his face, his voice, his manner.
'Are getting'?
It has been years now that I have opened the computer with trembling fingers knowing that any article I click on may include a pop-up of Junior delivering one of his breathy nasal woke addled bromides.
How many new suits ruined nation wide by viewers who have not taken precautions to protect themselves from exposure?
Ha! I mean, obviously any political leader is always going to have people who dislike him, and obviously anyone for whom "woke" is a pejorative was always going to feel that way about the PM. A third of the country always disliked him and always will. But it seems to me, subjectively, like a tide is turning - like a critical mass of people are coming to be sick of this guy.
“Breathy nasal woke addled bromides.” Did it take you long to come up with that one?
Maybe your trembling fingers need a new hobby.
I don't know about how sick people may or may not be with the PM but I am going to a breakfast event with two ministers and it's now sold out and a waiting list has started
Every train wreck draws its share of spectators.
So that's why so many blood thirsty fans turn out for PP? I can buy that.
That's kind of the inverse of what I was saying to the other guy who's always hated the PM, though. We got 2.2 million votes in the disaster that was 2011. Kim Campbell got nearly 2.2 million in 1993. That's about the floor. An absolute minimum of a couple of million people are always going to like us. Out of those couple of million, you'll always be able to scrounge up a few dozen to come to an event.
It's more like a few hundred but my point as in my other comment is that the convention gave what I consider "liberal gold" with all their dumber than dumb resolutions.
My ears are to the ground and I don't see this groundswell for PP that some polls pretend is there. No one took notice of the Nanos polls for the last two weeks that has the Libs dead even with the CPC. I also believe the Abacus poll last week on the day their convention opened was a gift to CPC attendees. The guy now running that part of Abacus is a full on conservative.
Just for fun notes-comparison, when did you realize that Doug Ford was going to win in 2018? It took me until well after Kathleen Wynne conceded. I know this "my guy's going to win, don't believe the polls, the only poll that counts is on election day, my guy is good, everyone I saw at my party's event said so" dance very, very well.
Subjectively, I've seen a huge shift since Poilievre's ads came out. When I was staffing an MP a million years ago, there was pretty much unanimous agreement that the most annoying MP was the man Conservatives called "Skippy" and the man Liberals called "that little (five minutes of expletives) Skippy". I have long believed that Skippy Poilievre could never be PM, and I stand by that - he won't. But millions of Canadians have recently introduced to someone who, according to his ads, is a full-grown adult man named "Pierre", who speaks in calm, soothing tones and seems like a pretty reasonable guy if you're someone who pays two minutes of attention a year to politics.
Define “ woke” .. factually
They never do.
Same with the Liberal government in Yukon...we know they are in control of the wheels of power, but they don't seem to care if there is any need to do anything with them.
They have become superfluous.
It doesn't really play the same when the person in charge shrugs off problems.
Just this week I was wondering “ where’s Paul Wells ?” ... and here you are ! Thank you for your take on the world this week and more especially on the way of Canada and it’s political morass. I am neither a Liberal or Conservative zealot so I am able to appreciate your ‘pox’ on both their houses.
This is why I have been following you through your various media iterations and why I am happy to recommend you to anyone who will listen.
Keep it up !
Actually I owe people more of an answer on the where's-he-been question. The rest of the answer is: getting the podcast ready, in slightly different and I hope better form. It will be back this week.
I was wondering where the podcast went. I’m glad to hear you and your guests will be back soon.
If Poilievre only scraps the Carbon Tax and gets inflation even remotely under control, and achieves nothing else, I would be a happy citizen.
The BIG thing that we are missing as Paul alludes to is that we are washing out to sea without a lifeboat. My friends who work in housing construction tell me there is no real plan to crank up production because interest rates are too high for builders to carry project expenses into an uncertain market. In Alberta. With oil pushing higher.
Fixing this mess is not going to be easy.
The impact of the carbon tax on CPI has been stated by the BoC as .15 of 1% The impact of “ profiteering” by corporations has been stated by the US Federal Reserve at 3%. Which is the greater and of more concern? Which has Poilievre ignored? Facts matter..
I see no cancelled projects in my area and so many housing/condo projects have been announced recently its mind boggling. A $100mm project now paying 2 or 3 points more than before for the 40% of pre construction unsold homes is adding what cost? Not enough to slow them down. And yes it inflates the house price somewhat but so does expensive lumber etc.
Some 8 years ago, Canadians were advised that Justin Trudeau was "just not ready" to be PM. He had no qualifying life or work experience and traded solely on his father's name. Canadians ignored the obvious and bought into the hype. The state in which Canada finds itself today speaks volumes in terms of government competence - as led by Justin Trudeau. Even with almost 8 years on-the-job training, a review of his record would show (at least to some Canadians) that he is still not ready.
Kind of a sidebar, and I know this isn't the crux of your point: I've always thought that saying your opponent is "not ready" is a losing political argument. "He's incompetent" or "he doesn't share your values" or whatever---that says you shouldn't vote for him. "He's not ready" says, "You shouldn't vote for him...now." Which is basically like saying, "You should vote for him, and he should be prime minister, just...not now." To which voters say, "Well, why not? If you think he will one day be ready to be PM, why not now?" This happened with Trudeau, and to some degree it happened in 2008 with Clinton and Obama. It doesn't work.
What qualifications does Pierre Poilievre bring to the table that have been demonstrated in progressive legislation?
Thinking. Thinking... I’ve got nothing.
The same argument could have been used for Harper. He had no qualifying life or work experience. After 9 years Canadians were fed up with him. Now, unfortunately, he has decided to work quietly in the background. Will Cons stand up on their hind legs and tell him to take a hike? That it is no longer his place to weigh in except with his one vote.
Harper is now an international fascist instead of just a Canadian one that he failed at.
And pray tell please inform us of all those weaknesses that says he is still not ready. We await with bated breath.
Mr. "the budget will balance itself" has overseen Canada's national debt double from roughly $600B in 2015 to $1.2T today. That's at the top of the list ...
Of course an almost 3 year distraction for COVID assistance doesn't enter into it for you. Do you recall Harper doubling the deficit in 2008 when the banking system nearly imploded or does your memory not go back that far. Do you also know that pre covid 70% of our national debt was created by 2 conservative PM's and do you know that the only PM to create a surplus in decades and lower the national debt was Jean Chretien with Paul Martin as FM. Just thought i would help your memory along.
I am aware of all that and can only wish that the current PM had the smarts to appoint someone like Paul Martin as Finance Minister.
Or maybe you would prefer the bookkeeper PP has as his current financial whiz. Then again that guy might be good at crypto or Bitcoin finance.
Yes. “ Some damn thing”. I like the idea of cancelling one failed expenditure and applying the money where it’s more needed. I gather the Liberals think they have a communication problem. Perhaps it’s more of an implementation problem. Right now PP is dancing rings around them on communication.
All true but what is he announcing except axe the tax which he can't do in some provinces. Kill bureaucracy in provincial jurisdictions? Libs will start targetting him slowly but surely. Read some of Marc Miller's recent posts. He is credible, smart, and knows how to get under PP's skin. He's just one piece of ammo.
I appreciate the fact that you go after all the parties. I do not see a leader in any of the five parties in the House of Commons that inspires me even a little. Same at the provincial level.
There are a few good MPs like Michael Chong, Don Davies, and Mike Morrice. I also liked former MPs Bernadette Jordan and Paul Manly.
In my dream world all MPs and MLAs are independents and parties no longer exist.
Thanks for your reporting :)
Really hoping the Centre Ice Canadians announce the creation of a new party later this month. We desperately need another option.
Yes, I'd like to see that also.
Don't want to see Polievre as PM. Trudeau Liberals are way past their best before date (which IMO was probably after their 1st year). And the NDP stands for what these days? When Conservatives are taking traditionally NDP ridings, what is going on?
(For the record, I think the NDP missed the boat in not electing Charlie Angus as leader. If they had, I think we'd have a much different NDP these days. One that would actually be interested in holding the Liberals feet to the fire.)
Did Charlie Angus run against Tom Mulcair? I know that Nathan Cullen did. My husband voted for him. I think he would have made a good leader too.
Your criticism of the PM on the world stage, Mr. Wells, is unfair!
His presence is absolutely critical for the other participants.
Once the time of his interventions appears on the schedule, all the other leaders know when to schedule those all important 'comfort' breaks.
You don't want to leave the meeting hall when something important may happen and timing your absences when the PM speaks is a guarantee you are going to miss nothing of any importance whatsoever.
Justin Trudeau the indispensable man!
Counterpoint: it was a tweet
I guess I’m one of those Liberals who doesn’t think that things are as gloomy as you project. When I read JT’s tweet I didn’t think that he was lecturing, just that as a group there is more that needs to be done. Not to say that he doesn’t have any faults but are the problems that London is experiencing, really his fault. My son lived there 25 years ago and parts of it were pretty sketchy then.
I listened to PP’s speech on the Friday as well as his wife’s extremely long introduction. As much as I tried to be objective all that I could think “ Are people really going to fall for this BS?” He wasn’t speaking to the people who got him there, he was speaking to the gullible ones who will hopefully wake up to the fact that a leopard can’t change it’s spots.
Brenda, I have lived in London my entire life.
I respectfully beg-to-differ on your take.
It has never even remotely been like it is now. And it is worsening by the week.
Parts of the City are on the verge of being unliveable.
Again, I truly respect the fact that you may feel differently; London has a serious housing/mental health/drug addiction crisis that is not being addressed in any demonstrable fashion.
I lived in London about ten years ago and now live in a city fairly similar to London, and yes, this crisis is getting worse everywhere. No arguments here. The questions for me are, 1. Is that due to Justin Trudeau's policies, and 2. Would Pierre Poilievre make things better?
George - first, I am not a JT fan - I will take on your points one and two. M-A below raises a point three but, as an Albertan, I am unable to comment on Ontario issues with any authority.
Okay, point 1. Who cares if JT's policies caused the problems? I can certainly say that it appears that he is oblivious to the existence of the severity of the problems and he absolutely hasn't generated sufficient policies to convince virtually anyone that he adequately recognizes the issues and is trying do anything but dance around them. More in a moment.
Now, point 2. I am uncertain as to whether PP would do better. What I do know is that he seems to recognize the problems and that is a start to dealing with the problems. He may, indeed, be incapable but the other guy (JT) has had his turn and has failed.
So, back to point 1. JT is responsible for flooding the country with funny money and the resulting inflation. Please don't try to tell me "other countries ..." simply because JT keeps talking about what HE is doing so why don't keep him on that point. He is not pursuing the crooks that got billions in CERB money illegally. He is responsible for the massive deficits. And so forth; I really could go on but, truthfully, you know all this.
Good teeth and lots of hair (I am follickly challenged!) are not enough to justify keeping him.
Ken, you and I have scrapped in the past and disagree about much, so I think it's worth noting that we basically agree here. I can't dispute that there is, with the PM, a sense of disengagement from what's going on. Whether he is or isn't oblivious to what's going on, I agree he seems to be. Remember the testimony he gave at POEC? Whether you love or hate what he said, remember *how* he was? Alert? Awake? Able to answer a question? You might have hated his performance that day, but the man has been an elected official for fifteen years. and that is the only time I've ever seen him speak when it felt like his brain was connected to his mouth in real time and he wasn't just a talking doll whose string somebody had pulled. I cannot blame the 99% of Canadians who've only ever seen Talking-Point Trudeau and think he's a complete bubblehead. That's the image he seems to want to put out there.
I'd have been relatively comfortable with Scheer or O'Toole as PM. I've met both men and liked them. I have really significant reservations about Poilievre which largely mirror Paul's: I find his behaviour as opposition leader to be disqualifyingly unserious. That, to some degree, is the problem with the Parliamentary system. In the States, you generally become president by governing a state or serving in the Senate---this whole "opposition leader" gig isn't always conducive to demonstrating "leader" skills as opposed to "opposition" skills. So I'm not a fan. But I think a lot of people are saying what you're saying - "I don't know this Pierre guy, but I'll take anything over what we have now." And some days I can't blame them.
Remember that what we have now is two years before an election. Seeing that people's memories are short politically why should the PM get over the top presence now. The country has its issues and his team is working through them to get to the next major issue and there will always be one. The housing crisis is one of success making demands even higher. Immigration now is future wealth. Day care subsidies allow more women to be independent and succesful w/o breaking the bank. .
If your question is genuine, I will give you my honest answer.
I remember a time when we would not allow this to happen.
Repairing the damage that has been done will require commitment, effort, funding, & perseverance from all levels of Government.
We require a type of leadership that Justin Trudeau is unwilling or unable to provide.
I am not blaming Liberal policies specifically, but that Party has definitely presided over the greatest decline in the social consensus & social contract I have ever witnessed, and I am an older Canadian.
If Pierre Poilievre can stop the decline in our cultural standards, & construct a wide & welcoming political & cultural consensus, he will be able to expend the political capital necessary to repair the damage that Justin Trudeau’s tired, spent, virtue-signalling Government cannot.
I think we need coordinated, involuntary drug treatment, mental health assessment & counselling, & a massive commitment to entry level housing.
If Pierre Poilievre’s promise to eliminate “Gatekeepers” is kept, then, yes, it can happen. But our typical way of doing things needs to return to the way we used to do things. That is, a solid commitment to success, backed by proper funding & social consensus.
Using only London as an example, I fear the problem is to become much worse before it gets better.
Sorry for the long reply; I sincerely appreciate your indulgence.
Don, I think it's ironic that PP is promising to get rid of gatekeepers as he strives to become the chief gatekeeper of Canada. I agree with with Mr. Wells and everyone else here that the Liberals are running on empty but Poiliever is running on deceit. He has spent his entire political life championing trickle-down economics. It's those policies that have caused most of the problems we're talking about - the problems he's claiming he's going to solve. Notice that he gives very little in the way of actual solutions. His "Axe the Tax" slogan is him signaling his allegiance to Big Oil. The modern right throughout the developed world are all singing from the same hymnbook so if you wonder what PP will do just look at what the Republicans are doing to the south of us. In other words he's going to "unleash" the private sector to solve all these problems and it's often an unleashed private sector that has caused these problems in the first place.
I mean, it's fascinating to me that some people are hearing Poilievre's anti-"gatekeeper" rhetoric as being about...building more houses? When I hear a guy hawking conspiracy theories about shadowy "elites" who "control the money" and are "globalists", I know what that means, and it's baffling to me that some don't.
Thank you for engaging. I honestly don't know what the answers are to this crisis, so I always like to hear others' perspectives. I'm not sure how I feel about involuntary drug treatment - it's something I would have to give more thought to - but more access to housing and more mental health supports seem to me to be good ideas.
My opinion, as a left-leaning Liberal, is that back in the days of e.g. Brian Mulroney, society worked great...for guys like Brian Mulroney. Some of what we're seeing now is growing pains as society tries to offer a fair chance to more people. I have cerebral palsy, and at times I've struggled with poverty, insecure housing, and generally being on the margins of society in some ways. A guy like me, born forty years earlier, never would have had the chance to struggle the way I have, or to achieve some of the things I've achieved, because he'd have simply been thrown in an institution. Would that have been to society's betterment?
To be clear, I don't think the status quo is working, and I agree---all talk about what's under municipal or provincial jurisdiction aside, the PM bears some responsibility, even just for his bully pulpit. It's terrible that so many people struggle with homelessness, poverty, and addiction. I just don't know how we fix it, but I want it to be in a way that gives as many people as possible as much of a chance as possible.
Excellent comment, especially finding the guts to go back to the way we used to do things. The cornerstone of the “old way” was taking pride in our efforts and commitment to high standards. We are flailing along in mediocrity and have been doing it long enough that it has been normalized. Cost overruns, procurement snarl ups and public infrastructure falling apart as fast as it can be completed.
How old are you? And who told you the cornerstone of the old ways?
I’ve been hearing about the “good old days” for donkey’s years but believe me, overall we are better off now.
And I would also add 3. Is part of the crisis in london is at least due to the Ontario government? For health care, Ontario spent among the lowest share per capita
Of course I respect your perspective. I’m from a rural area near Owen Sound and even here we see a bit of what you describe. However I can’t imagine what it must be like to see your city deteriorate to the extent that you describe. I’m sure there are lots of reasons it has become so terrible and maybe the federal government should wear some of it. However so should Doug Ford and your local government. It will take everyone working together to solve these huge societal challenges. I’m interested to know how much worse it has been since the pandemic?
Brenda it’s not just London, Winnipeg downtown is suffering the same fate. Part of the problem was the lockdowns during COVID when people began working remotely and businesses lost their clientele and closed. Don’t get me wrong, the lockdowns didn’t start the downturn, issues were starting and COVID was just part of the problem.
I lived in London years ago and now my university age daughter is there. It is a rough place, totally different than 30 years ago, hit hard by the opioid crisis. With opioid addiction comes petty crime and I also see home break ins are a big issue. I saw formerly nice parts of Richmond street looking pretty sketchy and a crowd of 15-20 people openly using in a Victoria park at 2pm on a Saturday.
Less Ana and let Skippy put his glasses back on. His constant squint makes me think he is going to do a face-plant any moment.
I thought the same thing. When did it become such a bad thing to wear glasses? If he wore just a bit bigger frames it would show his eyes more, and I think that's important if he wants people to trust him. It sounds a bit knit picky but right now he looks like a phone, which he most likely is.
With all due respect Brenda I feel the same way when I hear Mr. Trudeau speaks.
You are a Liberal; I am a Conservative. To me this is not about finding blame. It is truly a bipartisan issue.
Yes, it requires a commitment from all levels of Government. But it first requires a commitment from the citizenry to say this current experience is unacceptable. We must acknowledge that massive change is required, both in our thinking & our execution.
In a virtuous society we would collectively assert “Enough! This cannot go on.”
That is where the solution must begin.
Homelessness, mental health abandonment & drug abuse existed long before Doug Ford was elected. That doesn’t mean I’m implying it’s Kathleen Wynne’s fault either. But she did ignore the growing epidemic as well.
However, were we truly concerned about the problems, we would take the billions of subsidies wasted on battery plants, for example, & commit those funds to involuntary drug treatment, mental health counselling, & entry level subsidized housing.
However, we lack the commitment as citizens, & as politicians, in my opinion. We are what we allow, and we have allowed the beneficence of our collective inheritance to be casually & inelegantly dissipated by neglect, cowardice, lack of virtue & discipline.
These were once shared Canadian values. They are shared Canadian values no longer.
That is my reply.
Great comments. For the good of Canada, this can’t go on. It is particularly troublesome to come across (and there are many) people who know that things are a mess but prepared to double down and stick with Team Trudeau “because they don’t like the alternative”. Really? Four more years of dithering, high levels of spending and policy based on wedge issues that make everyone angry?
We need change, desperately, or our young people will face a working life with a steadily declining standard of living that will be disgraceful for a G20 country.
And what are the Cons going to do to for our young people? They have no way of reducing rents for gens z or x or whichever. I see many young people making decisions about how they live their lives with different value systems from their parents or grandparents. Going to school, loading up a student loan, working to clear that debt then having a baby or 2 and usually marrying in there somewhere, then working hard to get that mortgage which is the never-never plan of rates of interest. This is all very familiar but it does not have to be the only route. Staying at home or at least in the neighbourhood, tho we are all out-priced from them now. The world has a lot more to offer. I’d rather see my g’kids look much further afield for their futures. Maybe they will come back one day full of experience and ideas. That would be exciting.
So what are the Liberals doing for young people now?
In major detail, I couldn’t say. I don’t do Liberal. But I know that the financial help especially early days of Covid was a huge help to some family members and friends. I personally appreciate the extra funding I received. Blaming the Libs for things out of their hands is a fool’s game. PP blames the weather on JT. I can’t see that it is at all helpful.
I have been waiting on daycare promises since my eldest was in daycare. He is 52 yo, about the same age as Justin Trudeau give or take a couple of months. He has a couple of kids, my g’kids, who may actually find $10 daycare a very good thing. I am hoping that it will not be too soon though. I would rather they have more adventure in their lives.
I much prefer my pols to be about their business as quietly as possible. Then when they mess up it would be much more impactful. Now they are ragged on from every direction. So many people feel that they must announce their every inflamed nerve ending when some real or imagined slight occurs. It’s boring. The hyperbole is boring!
Trudeau defeated Erin O'Toole and Andrew Scheer who were mild mannered compared to Pierre. He did that with the help of the the majority of mainstream media who he wanted to meet with off the record before the last election. I know of only one media outlet that refused that request. What's with that? Trudeau also defeats by lying about conservatives, painting them as anti-everything, far right, extremist, white supremacist and people believe him because no one calls him out on it including the major media outlets like the Toronto Star, CBC and CTV news and others. He tells lies about them not supporting giving people benefits during the pandemic. Hs interpretation of not supporting is when the opposition tries to suggest a more efficient or economical way of doing things. He never gives opposition answers in Question Period. He instead accuses them of mudslinging, conspiracy theories and anti-whatever. Sorry JT many people want answers. The Liberals can't account for at least 700 billion plus of our money. Do you ever hear this from the media? No. All the scandals, all the money given to other countries, the carbon tax that has done nothing but make life much more harder for so many who will never be able to buy a taxpayer funded EV. They are happy if they can feed their family. What was Trudeau like as opposition leader? Pierre is tough and goes overboard a bit in blaming Trudeau but most of it is deserved. Why should anyone try to fight fair with Trudeau? He stacks the deck whenever he can. He reaps what he sows and I hope he is defeated.
Cons are always begging to be called out on their positions. Scheer and O’Tool were not great at retail politics. And when they did or said something stupid, which they did, the media were there as they should be.
I’m not a Liberal but I find it fascinating how JT is draped in power by the very people who are trying to bring him down. Did he ask to meet with all the media and all but one acquiesced with his request? Who was that? Does JT actually lie about the many many comments that are made about him? He’s not lying, they do say the most appalling things and they have been saying them since 2017 at least. His family too. I get it. You don’t like him for PM, but your complaints are all over the place and there is no cohesive point. PP’s on the other hand are straightforward, detailed, over-the-top BS. I don’t see that it’s a great improvement.
JT is better at politics than PP is. Different styles. In my opinion, I don’t think PP should be PM. He is erratic, he thinks he knows more than he does. He loves his new family which is very nice but I don’t think he’s getting the best advice from Wifey. Common sense is anything but. He should realize that but he’s tailoring his message to the lesser literate and the KISS program: Keep It Simple Stupid.
I would like to see JT in for at least one more term. I don’t think PP is ready. But if I could have what I really want it would be an NDP majority. Everyone needs to stop looking back over their shoulders and look forward. Jagmeet Singh could get us off to a fine start.
The unspoken bargain is to leave things either the way we found them or better.
Running up the deficits while failing to maintain infrastructure and a competent healthcare system makes me wonder: what did we do with all that money? Is baked in cheap daycare and dental programs a hurt or hindrance for our economy when tenets of universality spread the largesse across those who can pay their own way?
Thank you Paul for yet another great article. A nice Sunday read. Enjoying your sub stack.
To your last question in the final para, I am sure JT would say we never deserved him, and after 9 years it’s simple to see that the country didn’t deserve a PM who has put us in debt that the Millenials and GenZ’s will spend their lifetime paying off and still be looking for a roof over their head. Yeah, we didn’t deserve the Trudeau Treatment.
As a Liberal voter who aa things stand expects to keep voting Liberal in the face of a truly disturbing alternative, and as someone who has donated a fair amount to the party for years (since the 2015 campaign when I left the NDP over Mulcair), I just want to say: well said, sir.
"Would they view a Liberal election defeat as their failure — or ours?"
That line made me physically cringe, because it nails their greatest flaw so perfectly. He desperately needs a new outsider CoS who lacks the holier than thou defect, or he needs to move on, I think. I used to want him to stay forever. I still think we'll miss him when he's gone, but I'm also increasingly convinced the status quo is untenable for obvious reasons.
And you're so right that while he's clearly got some fight in him (wants a piece of PP), whether or not he has the *job* in him is the salient question.
Bravo sir. Really. Artfully done. This is why I subscribe.