- As a political observer from the hinterlands of Canadian politics, I suggest that it will take a lot of imagination to perceive either Freeland or Carney as “western Canadian”. That is a precise statement on a resume, but the credentials they will leverage to win the leadership contest were made elsewhere.
Landslide Annie is a far better descriptor of a Edmontonian who was brilliant and held her own in the Liberal Cabinet of years ago. She still gets the odd call to wade into sensitive situations.
- Jenni Byrne’s ambush of Erin O’toole was a classic bozo eruption from the Conservatives that they have been trying hard to avoid for two years. It’s remarkable that the MPs have toed the line but the strategists are the problem. Not to mention that clothes lining a fellow Conservative for his grace and good manners is remarkable for its tone deafness. The Conservative Party could use some industrial strength grace and good manners.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but my read of the past decade has been that Trump has won in large part because many Americans are sick of political norms, and many of them wanted someone uncouth who'd shake things up. There's doubtless some degree of that in Canada right now too, but I think most of the 84% of people who oppose the Liberals right now are primarily just sick of Justin Trudeau, and not of our norms. I think Poilievre's advisors are miscalculating if they think being rude to Erin O'Toole is something Canadians want (as opposed to "something they'll tolerate to get rid of Justin".)
Jenni Byrne is a cretin, but that was already known. The tone of her tweet didn’t surprise me. But the substance of it convinces me that Poilievre and his team are absolutely Too Online. If they think that Canadians are concerned about DEI and whatever other American culture war crap they are stewing in, they are likely mistaken. That might play well to the F**k Trudeau base of the party, but, as is being asked of Trump, how does this bring down grocery prices?
I’m saying that the average Canadian probably doesn’t give a shit and will never get as worked up about it as Jenni Byrne or Pierre Poilievre. It’s a niche concern that’s got a lot of prominence in the hard-right onlinesphere. And of course it’s possible to shit on DEI initiatives while also tackling inflation. I just wish that I saw a plan for the latter and saw way less of the former.
Here is what my husband thinks will happen. I must confess, I find the idea unutterably depressing. I guess we just have to wait and see.
“Carney and the people who have quickly moved to back his run - even before he formally announces - , Butts, Telford, others in the PMO, the moneyed Laurentian cabal …… are too experienced and skilled to be planning he run directly into the wall of a non-confidence vote, followed by the meat grinder of an election. Think along these lines:
Mr Carney wins. He quickly forms - likely already sketched out - and appoints a Government/Cabinet. If not already decided, two or three Cabinet positions are offered/given to NDP MPs, including Singh. Other sweeteners, such as extending the election date by a week to accommodate NDP and Liberal MP pension vesting, are agreed. The new ‘coalition government’ presents and passes a Throne Speech and budget different and attractive enough for all too willing media support and to bring back progressive voters. And then, attention and energy turns to organizing a by-election win for Carney and, bringing certain Bills back to the table.
An early summer recess and Carney ‘does’ Canada to become known, along with some policy/money attractor announcements. And the Party organizes for a late Fall election. Or, they might even look to over-ride the four year election law and run the game to as late as 20 September, 2026 - the Constitutional deadline for the next election.
They might even work quickly to unite the progressive left before the next election.
Of course, Carney’s national and global connections can surely assure Singh a rewarding life after politics.
It makes no sense whatever for Carney to seek the leadership to only run into a Government non confidence defeat within a week and an early election in which the Liberals will likely be savaged.
Something is afoot, with Singh again likely being the snake in the grass.”
As a Liberal, nope, I don't see this happening. I think Carney is just arrogant enough to think he'll win an election called in March.
That said, leaving partisanship aside, I do tend to believe that Parliaments should run their full length, and would support most of what you've described. If someone can command the support of the House, that's what matters, and ideally, we'd have Parliaments that ran their full length. People were qualitatively pretty sick of Brian Mulroney by 1991; that didn't lop two years off the end of that Parliament's term.
Here is what I think is happening. Both Trudeau and Poilievre think Trudeau should lead the Liberals into the election. Both know who is named in the NSICOP report, and Trudeau no doubt knows a lot more dirt besides. So one or the other is telling the candidates it would be inadvisable to run. Carney will hem and haw and then decline to run at the deadline. This will leave a stricken party that can only be saved by one man, a Messiah who will selflessly come forward and agree to save the party amid soaring string crescendos and a few tears. Sure, Christy Clark will have to be crushed underfoot, but that is entirely on brand.
Precisely what I expect to happen, except that I don't think it will require any cabinet positions for Singh or any other NDP MPs - just patronage appointments down the line.
Thanks for the article. May I ask your thoughts on Telford & Butts helping Carney? Also why is Kathleen Wynn showing up on political TV shows, municipal elections, and weighing in on a possible early Ontario provincial election? I would like to see all of the above to just leave. Go away, you have had your chance.
Members of political parties have a hard time staying out of leadership contests. In fact they're strongly discouraged from staying out, because leadership contests are a good chance to realign factions of the party that had grown estranged. If I were a Liberal I'd pay close attention to Katie's choice of candidate and run fast in a different direction, but that's just me.
In my opinion, it boggles belief that Liberal party honchos think Katie will pull out a win. The frustration that so many disaffected Liberals (and, dare I say it, Canadians in general) who seek a socially progressive/ fiscally conservative choice feel about Butts/Telford and their malign influence cannot be overstated. They facilitated crashing the Ontario economy, ushering in the Doug Ford years. They then moved on to do the same in Ottawa, squandering opportunities to incent real innovation and - it appears - ushering in a Conservative regime that is bereft of a platform. Inability to implement is a common denominator. Train wreck.
Me too most definitely, although I’d be surprised to learn that she has as much political influence ( maybe not the right word) as what a lot of us may have thought.
Agreed completely about "our little feuds". It is becoming harder and harder to ignore the fact that the world has changed and our politicians of all stripes are still fighting the last war. They're fighting about tampons while the Americans are talking about annexation.
I agree and I think PP would be wise to move away from calling this a carbon tax election. That issue has been decided, it’s dead. Trump’s threats and tariffs have changed what this election will be about. Voters will want someone to manage the US trade issue and economic fallout of 25% tariffs. The Cons will be seen as unserious if they campaign on silly distractions like DEI and tampons.
How can anyone think that Carney, who looks like he just came from globalist central casting, is the man for this populist moment? He’s been away, like Ignatieff was, and his fingers are all over Trudeau’s signature (and very unpopular) issue, the carbon tax. And I just heard that thats cretin Butts, who defenestrated Raybould, is working for him. That alone should be disqualifying.
Thank you! That's what I've been saying too! If Butts, Telford, and a broad swathe of the PMO are pro-Carney, then the Liberal party should immediately reject his candidacy. It would be merely lipstick on a pig.
I read some of the comments on Carney's recent interview with John Stewart and I wanted to pull my hair out! People were commenting that Carney was "such a breath of fresh air!" and "so positive"... Yes, that is because Telford and Butts are running the Trudeau-2015 "sunny ways" campaign! We've learned nothing.
Tara, may I suggest you actually watch the interview rather than read comments about it. You'll find plenty of evidence for "fresh air" and a lot of humour -- from both sides of the table.
Yes, it's a bit mystifying to me too. Buddy makes Michael Ignatieff look like Rob Ford. I suspect you and I differ on a lot of issues, but I don't think Mark Carney is a product I can sell.
Carney and the $350,000 ante are meant to keep the list of candidates short and manageable. Carney will decline to run at the last moment, leaving the position open for Trudeau. Carney will run later in the year, in the leadership race after the election.
I really, truly don't see the PM making a comeback. A newspaper recently did a survey of what Liberal MPs thought he should do - about one-sixth said "stay", about five-sixths said either "go" or "no comment". You could *reverse* those numbers and his remaining in the leadership would still be completely untenable. I think a B.C. United-style collapse of the party is likelier at this point than is Justin Trudeau remaining at its leader.
There had to be 20 people in the Progressive Conservative party who'd been mentioned as possible successors to Brian Mulroney in 1993. In the end it came down to Kim Campbell, every one of the other 19 fleeing for the hills, and Jean Charest letting himself be cajoled into running to avoid a coronation. It's worth real money to avoid a losing campaign, more so now than 30 years ago.
Oh, it is strange! But from the conversations I'm having, it seems more like a "poisoned chalice" issue than a "the fix is in for Justin" issue.
I'm not 100% clear on this (there's a commenter here who knows a ton about this issue, though I can't remember who it is), but a quick Google suggests to me that a PM doesn't get any pension beyond a regular MP's pension unless they serve at least four years as PM. I wouldn't put money on the next Liberal leader serving at least four months as PM. So I don't think it's that. But on the other hand...being the Kim Campbell of your generation comes with some notoriety, if nothing else, and I'm surprised 95% of the Trudeau cabinet finds it this easy to turn down notoriety.
Jenni Byrne's comments were definitely disrespectful, and completely inappropriate. Shouldn't a political strategist know better?
My support lies with Pierre Poilievre, but I agree there are times when his rhetoric strikes a cord of concern, but not sufficient enough to deter my support. He appears to feel strongly that Canada can do better, and Canadians should benefit more from living in this country. His current role as Leader of the Opposition requires a critical view, and he fills that extremely well. As you say though, the real world with the real challenge of governing awaits.
Also, an interesting comment regarding American news sources. My experience is that for many Canadians they refer to American news outlets for their news. Interestingly enough though as you point out Fox News viewers far outnumber CNN viewers, Canadians tend to rely more on CNN. This explains why Justin Trudeau sought out Jake Tapper rather than Joe Rogan' podcast.
I just want to say it's always refreshing when a reader acknowledges that their preferred candidate isn't perfect. That's a healthy instinct, as is acknowledging that flawed politicians can, on balance, be helpful too.
Anyone who thinks Poilievre is perfect is up there with the MAGA crowd in the US and those that still think Trudeau has done a great job as PM. Poilievre is not perfect, but he is it for now. There are no,other viable options. Let’s hope he rises to the job as he has on occasion shown the ability to do so. I think he is starting to fall behind the curve by constantly calling for a ‘Carbon Tax Election’. That ship has sailed as Guilbault is probably the only strong proponent left in government. The next election will be about Canada/US relations and Canada’s place in the world. The people want one on affordability, but the media and the politicians will make it about the Trump’s World Order.
Poilievre took a hit from the usual journalists who wished that he could have found just a little flicker of diplomacy to “thank Justin Trudeau for his service to the people of Canada”. As per form he had lots to say and none of it cloaked in a blanket of diplomacy.
It is worth noting that Trudeau didn’t quit. He says he will, date TBA. So, are the diplomatic gestures of good will and “future endeavouring” a little premature? Maybe Poilievre was ahead of the curve?
Justin indeed has not (yet) quit - just like his father announced he would resign back in 1979 - and then, due to Joe Clark's ineptitude, did not do so.
Tristan Hopper has a column (paywalled) in NP that outlines this quite well.
Trudeau Sr. did most of his lasting political vandalism to Canada between 1979 and 1984 - after he had announced his resignation.
I'm old enough to remember as a teenager the visceral hatred for PET in the early 80s (particularly in western provinces), and then watched as I entered adulthood as PET's image was gradually rehabilitated (with his active cooperation) by Canadian print and television media from the late 80's until his passing in 2000, where his son Justin's Gerry Butts-penned eulogy launched The Dauphin's political career. I warned folks then that they were looking at Canada's eventual Prime Minister - the eulogy was so clearly crafted by Justin's friend Gerry (and recorded for television) for frequent replaying in the next decade, and the image of Justin by his father's casket was looped whenever Trudeau Sr. or Jr. were mentioned in a newscast.
Like Thanos, I'm pretty sure Justin grew to think 'I am inevitable'.
God forbid that history echoes, and that Justin somehow retains his premiership of Canada for another five years. While that is unlikely, he's only in his early 50s - and through the magic of character rehabilitation, he could come back to run again.
Pierre Poilievre reminds me of Stephen Harper - pragmatic but a bit mechanical and cool. It will be refreshing to hear a Prime Minister speak in complete sentences (and paragraphs!) again, though.
Catharina, I'm very much not a fan of Poilievre's, but I do believe he'll be the prime minister, and one thing that gives me a little bit of hope is the exact argument you make about him being leader of the opposition. It's a strange job - one that rarely allows much room for nuance, thoughtfulness, or optimism. You can't run a Barack Obama-style "hope" campaign when your day job is calling the incumbent a bad guy. Maybe as prime minister, he'll think his job is to make things better - or at least his idea of better - and not just to heckle Liberals. I hope so.
“Realistically it’ll come down to Freeland and Carney, if they both run…” Paul are you hearing that she may not run because it seems so bizarre to me that someone who is godfather to her kid and who she calls her mentor and role model for going from Alberta to Harvard is also someone she would face off against to likely lose… plus they have all the same backers outside of Canada as globalists? And the small inner club with Eurasia group, Carney’s wife, Butts, Freeland, etc is just getting a bit weird and feels oligarchy and hypocritical for Liberals. Who funds all of that? I have been asking this question for almost a decade and no one will give me an answer.
As a Canadian living stateside, it’s not like a whole bunch of people are coming and tapping the 🇨🇦 talent that I know down here to come home and run, but yet two of them who are very interlinked are the only race now.
On paper, it’s hard not to be excited about someone with Carney’s talent to cover and write about—as you say, he was put in place by two conservative Prime Ministers who never said anything negative about him. But I think Canadians are going to demand more transparency on who he is supported by outside of Canada and why. I’ll give Musk and Trump this— at least they’re transparent.
Recently heard a comment ; re. our national leaders appearing on Fox, Joe Rogan,etc. in order to reach people who have influence with the Trump crowd. At this point “preaching to the converted”; e.g. Jake Tapper and other commentators having similar views might not have the desired impact. It’s not a matter of either/or, rather it’s about reaching the widest audience.
Hi Paul, it's January 14 and Trump announced the Department of External Revenue to collect tariffs and any other foreign revenue obtained through coersion. That's a game changer.
The freetrade-based economy is dead - well, it was never truly free. It will move to strategic trade deals. I am sure, for Canada, supply management will be sacrificed to save the autoparts sector (urban wins over rural).
Provincial leaders will start making their own bilateral deals. Quebec will be marginalized, as it is each to his own. The rest of the provinces and public will demand resource development - no more blocking pipelines and closing salmon farms. Free trade between provinces. It's a new world, and the short term is economics is ugly.
And that's if Trump is negotiating. What if he just wants to make an example of Canada (like China does)? All bets are off then.
I don't think it's that deep. She is running (or at least wants to) because she genuinely believes that she would be a good choice. If there is anything else going on, it would be to build a national profile and give herself a better chance of surviving the coming tidal wave and keeping her seat. Does that work? Who knows, but I think that's the play. 350k will be tough to raise, though, in what has quickly become a two horse race...
It is an extremely short campaign for a "longshot". Longshots have a chance in a long campaign, not in a short one. It is a lot of money for a politician to ask for financial support in a longshot effort where the chance of success is low, UNLESS the funding is coming from friends of Mark (properly obfuscated), for who money is no object.
It is a shrewd move on her part to raise her standing and status, pretty much if and only if somebody else, rather than her own supporters, are paying for it.
Why yes, that is a Barenaked Ladies reference.
I know. Which is why I have had that f*cking song in my head the whole time I read this article. 🤬
Thing is, I like BNL (just not that song), LOL!
From experience, Paul is not happy unless he's inflicted at least one musical earworm on a reader.
Yes, thank you for embedding that song in my head this morning.
Two quick comments:
- As a political observer from the hinterlands of Canadian politics, I suggest that it will take a lot of imagination to perceive either Freeland or Carney as “western Canadian”. That is a precise statement on a resume, but the credentials they will leverage to win the leadership contest were made elsewhere.
Landslide Annie is a far better descriptor of a Edmontonian who was brilliant and held her own in the Liberal Cabinet of years ago. She still gets the odd call to wade into sensitive situations.
- Jenni Byrne’s ambush of Erin O’toole was a classic bozo eruption from the Conservatives that they have been trying hard to avoid for two years. It’s remarkable that the MPs have toed the line but the strategists are the problem. Not to mention that clothes lining a fellow Conservative for his grace and good manners is remarkable for its tone deafness. The Conservative Party could use some industrial strength grace and good manners.
Agreed on all points, Darcy.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but my read of the past decade has been that Trump has won in large part because many Americans are sick of political norms, and many of them wanted someone uncouth who'd shake things up. There's doubtless some degree of that in Canada right now too, but I think most of the 84% of people who oppose the Liberals right now are primarily just sick of Justin Trudeau, and not of our norms. I think Poilievre's advisors are miscalculating if they think being rude to Erin O'Toole is something Canadians want (as opposed to "something they'll tolerate to get rid of Justin".)
There's a long and storied history of Conservative Circular Firing Squads.
Yes definitely and I would argue it hurts them at the polling booth
Agreed 100%
I would say Freeland and Carney would be no more perceived from Alberta than Poilievre would be perceived from Ontario.
Jenni Byrne is a cretin, but that was already known. The tone of her tweet didn’t surprise me. But the substance of it convinces me that Poilievre and his team are absolutely Too Online. If they think that Canadians are concerned about DEI and whatever other American culture war crap they are stewing in, they are likely mistaken. That might play well to the F**k Trudeau base of the party, but, as is being asked of Trump, how does this bring down grocery prices?
What’s your evidence that the average Canadian is pro-DEI? And one can easily axe DEI programs and lower inflation. They are not mutually exclusive.
I’m saying that the average Canadian probably doesn’t give a shit and will never get as worked up about it as Jenni Byrne or Pierre Poilievre. It’s a niche concern that’s got a lot of prominence in the hard-right onlinesphere. And of course it’s possible to shit on DEI initiatives while also tackling inflation. I just wish that I saw a plan for the latter and saw way less of the former.
Here is what my husband thinks will happen. I must confess, I find the idea unutterably depressing. I guess we just have to wait and see.
“Carney and the people who have quickly moved to back his run - even before he formally announces - , Butts, Telford, others in the PMO, the moneyed Laurentian cabal …… are too experienced and skilled to be planning he run directly into the wall of a non-confidence vote, followed by the meat grinder of an election. Think along these lines:
Mr Carney wins. He quickly forms - likely already sketched out - and appoints a Government/Cabinet. If not already decided, two or three Cabinet positions are offered/given to NDP MPs, including Singh. Other sweeteners, such as extending the election date by a week to accommodate NDP and Liberal MP pension vesting, are agreed. The new ‘coalition government’ presents and passes a Throne Speech and budget different and attractive enough for all too willing media support and to bring back progressive voters. And then, attention and energy turns to organizing a by-election win for Carney and, bringing certain Bills back to the table.
An early summer recess and Carney ‘does’ Canada to become known, along with some policy/money attractor announcements. And the Party organizes for a late Fall election. Or, they might even look to over-ride the four year election law and run the game to as late as 20 September, 2026 - the Constitutional deadline for the next election.
They might even work quickly to unite the progressive left before the next election.
Of course, Carney’s national and global connections can surely assure Singh a rewarding life after politics.
It makes no sense whatever for Carney to seek the leadership to only run into a Government non confidence defeat within a week and an early election in which the Liberals will likely be savaged.
Something is afoot, with Singh again likely being the snake in the grass.”
As a Liberal, nope, I don't see this happening. I think Carney is just arrogant enough to think he'll win an election called in March.
That said, leaving partisanship aside, I do tend to believe that Parliaments should run their full length, and would support most of what you've described. If someone can command the support of the House, that's what matters, and ideally, we'd have Parliaments that ran their full length. People were qualitatively pretty sick of Brian Mulroney by 1991; that didn't lop two years off the end of that Parliament's term.
Here is what I think is happening. Both Trudeau and Poilievre think Trudeau should lead the Liberals into the election. Both know who is named in the NSICOP report, and Trudeau no doubt knows a lot more dirt besides. So one or the other is telling the candidates it would be inadvisable to run. Carney will hem and haw and then decline to run at the deadline. This will leave a stricken party that can only be saved by one man, a Messiah who will selflessly come forward and agree to save the party amid soaring string crescendos and a few tears. Sure, Christy Clark will have to be crushed underfoot, but that is entirely on brand.
Precisely what I expect to happen, except that I don't think it will require any cabinet positions for Singh or any other NDP MPs - just patronage appointments down the line.
Plenty of pork to barrel out
Thanks for the article. May I ask your thoughts on Telford & Butts helping Carney? Also why is Kathleen Wynn showing up on political TV shows, municipal elections, and weighing in on a possible early Ontario provincial election? I would like to see all of the above to just leave. Go away, you have had your chance.
Members of political parties have a hard time staying out of leadership contests. In fact they're strongly discouraged from staying out, because leadership contests are a good chance to realign factions of the party that had grown estranged. If I were a Liberal I'd pay close attention to Katie's choice of candidate and run fast in a different direction, but that's just me.
Man, will Katie Telford ever have a book to write when she finally pulls the pin.
I guess only political junkies like us would buy it, but just imagine if she actually came clean about the last decade.
Doubt it will happen, but I'd read it.
In my opinion, it boggles belief that Liberal party honchos think Katie will pull out a win. The frustration that so many disaffected Liberals (and, dare I say it, Canadians in general) who seek a socially progressive/ fiscally conservative choice feel about Butts/Telford and their malign influence cannot be overstated. They facilitated crashing the Ontario economy, ushering in the Doug Ford years. They then moved on to do the same in Ottawa, squandering opportunities to incent real innovation and - it appears - ushering in a Conservative regime that is bereft of a platform. Inability to implement is a common denominator. Train wreck.
Me too most definitely, although I’d be surprised to learn that she has as much political influence ( maybe not the right word) as what a lot of us may have thought.
Agreed completely about "our little feuds". It is becoming harder and harder to ignore the fact that the world has changed and our politicians of all stripes are still fighting the last war. They're fighting about tampons while the Americans are talking about annexation.
I agree and I think PP would be wise to move away from calling this a carbon tax election. That issue has been decided, it’s dead. Trump’s threats and tariffs have changed what this election will be about. Voters will want someone to manage the US trade issue and economic fallout of 25% tariffs. The Cons will be seen as unserious if they campaign on silly distractions like DEI and tampons.
How can anyone think that Carney, who looks like he just came from globalist central casting, is the man for this populist moment? He’s been away, like Ignatieff was, and his fingers are all over Trudeau’s signature (and very unpopular) issue, the carbon tax. And I just heard that thats cretin Butts, who defenestrated Raybould, is working for him. That alone should be disqualifying.
Thank you! That's what I've been saying too! If Butts, Telford, and a broad swathe of the PMO are pro-Carney, then the Liberal party should immediately reject his candidacy. It would be merely lipstick on a pig.
I read some of the comments on Carney's recent interview with John Stewart and I wanted to pull my hair out! People were commenting that Carney was "such a breath of fresh air!" and "so positive"... Yes, that is because Telford and Butts are running the Trudeau-2015 "sunny ways" campaign! We've learned nothing.
If the brain trust of the PMO + Mr. Butts is working on the Carney Coronation, who is running HMS Canada?
They are still shoveling money out the door, though that may be just reflexes.
That's the question isn't it.
Tara, may I suggest you actually watch the interview rather than read comments about it. You'll find plenty of evidence for "fresh air" and a lot of humour -- from both sides of the table.
Yes, it's a bit mystifying to me too. Buddy makes Michael Ignatieff look like Rob Ford. I suspect you and I differ on a lot of issues, but I don't think Mark Carney is a product I can sell.
Carney and the $350,000 ante are meant to keep the list of candidates short and manageable. Carney will decline to run at the last moment, leaving the position open for Trudeau. Carney will run later in the year, in the leadership race after the election.
I really, truly don't see the PM making a comeback. A newspaper recently did a survey of what Liberal MPs thought he should do - about one-sixth said "stay", about five-sixths said either "go" or "no comment". You could *reverse* those numbers and his remaining in the leadership would still be completely untenable. I think a B.C. United-style collapse of the party is likelier at this point than is Justin Trudeau remaining at its leader.
I just find it strange that so many are declining to run for the leadership. Sure, they'd lose the election but they would get a PM's pension.
There had to be 20 people in the Progressive Conservative party who'd been mentioned as possible successors to Brian Mulroney in 1993. In the end it came down to Kim Campbell, every one of the other 19 fleeing for the hills, and Jean Charest letting himself be cajoled into running to avoid a coronation. It's worth real money to avoid a losing campaign, more so now than 30 years ago.
Oh, it is strange! But from the conversations I'm having, it seems more like a "poisoned chalice" issue than a "the fix is in for Justin" issue.
I'm not 100% clear on this (there's a commenter here who knows a ton about this issue, though I can't remember who it is), but a quick Google suggests to me that a PM doesn't get any pension beyond a regular MP's pension unless they serve at least four years as PM. I wouldn't put money on the next Liberal leader serving at least four months as PM. So I don't think it's that. But on the other hand...being the Kim Campbell of your generation comes with some notoriety, if nothing else, and I'm surprised 95% of the Trudeau cabinet finds it this easy to turn down notoriety.
I have to admit that my "the fix is in for Justin" conspiracy theory does require far more finesse than Mr. Trudeau and the PMO have shown to date.
As always a great take on the news of the day.
Jenni Byrne's comments were definitely disrespectful, and completely inappropriate. Shouldn't a political strategist know better?
My support lies with Pierre Poilievre, but I agree there are times when his rhetoric strikes a cord of concern, but not sufficient enough to deter my support. He appears to feel strongly that Canada can do better, and Canadians should benefit more from living in this country. His current role as Leader of the Opposition requires a critical view, and he fills that extremely well. As you say though, the real world with the real challenge of governing awaits.
Also, an interesting comment regarding American news sources. My experience is that for many Canadians they refer to American news outlets for their news. Interestingly enough though as you point out Fox News viewers far outnumber CNN viewers, Canadians tend to rely more on CNN. This explains why Justin Trudeau sought out Jake Tapper rather than Joe Rogan' podcast.
I just want to say it's always refreshing when a reader acknowledges that their preferred candidate isn't perfect. That's a healthy instinct, as is acknowledging that flawed politicians can, on balance, be helpful too.
Anyone who thinks Poilievre is perfect is up there with the MAGA crowd in the US and those that still think Trudeau has done a great job as PM. Poilievre is not perfect, but he is it for now. There are no,other viable options. Let’s hope he rises to the job as he has on occasion shown the ability to do so. I think he is starting to fall behind the curve by constantly calling for a ‘Carbon Tax Election’. That ship has sailed as Guilbault is probably the only strong proponent left in government. The next election will be about Canada/US relations and Canada’s place in the world. The people want one on affordability, but the media and the politicians will make it about the Trump’s World Order.
Poilievre took a hit from the usual journalists who wished that he could have found just a little flicker of diplomacy to “thank Justin Trudeau for his service to the people of Canada”. As per form he had lots to say and none of it cloaked in a blanket of diplomacy.
It is worth noting that Trudeau didn’t quit. He says he will, date TBA. So, are the diplomatic gestures of good will and “future endeavouring” a little premature? Maybe Poilievre was ahead of the curve?
Justin indeed has not (yet) quit - just like his father announced he would resign back in 1979 - and then, due to Joe Clark's ineptitude, did not do so.
Tristan Hopper has a column (paywalled) in NP that outlines this quite well.
Trudeau Sr. did most of his lasting political vandalism to Canada between 1979 and 1984 - after he had announced his resignation.
I'm old enough to remember as a teenager the visceral hatred for PET in the early 80s (particularly in western provinces), and then watched as I entered adulthood as PET's image was gradually rehabilitated (with his active cooperation) by Canadian print and television media from the late 80's until his passing in 2000, where his son Justin's Gerry Butts-penned eulogy launched The Dauphin's political career. I warned folks then that they were looking at Canada's eventual Prime Minister - the eulogy was so clearly crafted by Justin's friend Gerry (and recorded for television) for frequent replaying in the next decade, and the image of Justin by his father's casket was looped whenever Trudeau Sr. or Jr. were mentioned in a newscast.
Like Thanos, I'm pretty sure Justin grew to think 'I am inevitable'.
God forbid that history echoes, and that Justin somehow retains his premiership of Canada for another five years. While that is unlikely, he's only in his early 50s - and through the magic of character rehabilitation, he could come back to run again.
Be wary, Canada - we've been here before.
Pierre Poilievre reminds me of Stephen Harper - pragmatic but a bit mechanical and cool. It will be refreshing to hear a Prime Minister speak in complete sentences (and paragraphs!) again, though.
Catharina, I'm very much not a fan of Poilievre's, but I do believe he'll be the prime minister, and one thing that gives me a little bit of hope is the exact argument you make about him being leader of the opposition. It's a strange job - one that rarely allows much room for nuance, thoughtfulness, or optimism. You can't run a Barack Obama-style "hope" campaign when your day job is calling the incumbent a bad guy. Maybe as prime minister, he'll think his job is to make things better - or at least his idea of better - and not just to heckle Liberals. I hope so.
“Realistically it’ll come down to Freeland and Carney, if they both run…” Paul are you hearing that she may not run because it seems so bizarre to me that someone who is godfather to her kid and who she calls her mentor and role model for going from Alberta to Harvard is also someone she would face off against to likely lose… plus they have all the same backers outside of Canada as globalists? And the small inner club with Eurasia group, Carney’s wife, Butts, Freeland, etc is just getting a bit weird and feels oligarchy and hypocritical for Liberals. Who funds all of that? I have been asking this question for almost a decade and no one will give me an answer.
As a Canadian living stateside, it’s not like a whole bunch of people are coming and tapping the 🇨🇦 talent that I know down here to come home and run, but yet two of them who are very interlinked are the only race now.
On paper, it’s hard not to be excited about someone with Carney’s talent to cover and write about—as you say, he was put in place by two conservative Prime Ministers who never said anything negative about him. But I think Canadians are going to demand more transparency on who he is supported by outside of Canada and why. I’ll give Musk and Trump this— at least they’re transparent.
I like this. Lots of clarity. You get a hall pass Master Wells- use it wisely. School Mistress Suzie.
Small correction fwiw: Mr O’Toole was an Air Force officer (not the navy).
Yikes! Thanks. Will fix.
Totally understand the confusion. It’s still the leftover from Unification where the RCAF flies planes off RCN ships.
I really appreciate your overview. Many of us are fascinated by the "inside the beltway" stuff, and you're our access to it.
Recently heard a comment ; re. our national leaders appearing on Fox, Joe Rogan,etc. in order to reach people who have influence with the Trump crowd. At this point “preaching to the converted”; e.g. Jake Tapper and other commentators having similar views might not have the desired impact. It’s not a matter of either/or, rather it’s about reaching the widest audience.
Hi Paul, it's January 14 and Trump announced the Department of External Revenue to collect tariffs and any other foreign revenue obtained through coersion. That's a game changer.
The freetrade-based economy is dead - well, it was never truly free. It will move to strategic trade deals. I am sure, for Canada, supply management will be sacrificed to save the autoparts sector (urban wins over rural).
Provincial leaders will start making their own bilateral deals. Quebec will be marginalized, as it is each to his own. The rest of the provinces and public will demand resource development - no more blocking pipelines and closing salmon farms. Free trade between provinces. It's a new world, and the short term is economics is ugly.
And that's if Trump is negotiating. What if he just wants to make an example of Canada (like China does)? All bets are off then.
Question:
Is Karina Gould the stalking horse candidate for Carney (to lure votes away from Freeland)?
I don't think it's that deep. She is running (or at least wants to) because she genuinely believes that she would be a good choice. If there is anything else going on, it would be to build a national profile and give herself a better chance of surviving the coming tidal wave and keeping her seat. Does that work? Who knows, but I think that's the play. 350k will be tough to raise, though, in what has quickly become a two horse race...
It is an extremely short campaign for a "longshot". Longshots have a chance in a long campaign, not in a short one. It is a lot of money for a politician to ask for financial support in a longshot effort where the chance of success is low, UNLESS the funding is coming from friends of Mark (properly obfuscated), for who money is no object.
It is a shrewd move on her part to raise her standing and status, pretty much if and only if somebody else, rather than her own supporters, are paying for it.
Thank you for this Tuesday Morning writing.
As always on Point. Always Great.
You mentioned the liberals and the horizon, is it possible with the liberals diminishing fortunes, they are looking at the Event Horizon.