Poking the bear a 'little bit'? The entire Liberal Party has been hinging their re-election messaging on calling Trump a bully, calling the CPC Maple MAGA etc. - Trudeau is hated by American conservatives, not just Republican reps but the general conservative minded public of the USA. They think of us as North Korea to their South Korea, and we underestimate their patriotism viz. being willing to take a loss of profits for a little while at our peril. Our economy will be underwater before they even begin to sweat and they know it.
Also, Libs and NDP won't be fighting for second place, they will be fighting for 3rd because presently the BQ is ahead in Quebec, which none of the panelists mentioned at all, and the NDP is presently in 4th place in seats.
This week Poilievre referred to "Trudeau and his Liberal mob". Not sure just who Poilievre was attacking but I don't appreciate the possible next PM insulting a significant % of Cdns.. Poilievre is going to have to do better than insults to lead this country. I am getting very weary of Poilievre's attack dog bullying.
I've always been very leary of Poilievre's sincerity, and I'm more than a little weary of his insults that he constantly slings at Trudeau and Liberals. He encourages his voters to continue what theyve done since Donald Trump made it okay to combine people's names with some disgusting adjective whenever he speaks of them, eg. Sleepy Joe Biden, Crazy Kamala Harris, etc. ad infinitum.
Poilievre makes up childish 3 word slogans just like Trump does and repeas those over and over, like "Canada is broken". Canada, in truth, is not broken at all.
Poilievre says many things that are not based in any facts. His criticism of Trudeau for proroguing Parliament is hypocritical since he was a minster during Stephen Harper's term in office and Harper prorogued Parliament 4 times... 4 times, 1 of which had no acceptable reason.
Poilievre has made a point of going out to visit groups of extreme Conservatives not just to discuss but to encourage their efforts just to make trouble in Canada and have photo ops because he thinks it will get him votes. Indeed, it has gotten him the support of many of the most extreme right-wing voters, but it has alienated anyone sitting on a political fence where they might vote Conservative simply for the changing of the guard. That appears to be a significant number of votes Poilievre stands to lose because he says nothing of how he will accomplish what he promises, he divides rather than bringing people together and he talks more like Trump and Canadian Conservative extremists as time goes on. I don't think Poilievre would make a good prime minister. I think rather than solidarity he would cause even more divisiveness. I don't believe he has to tools to deal with someone like Donald Trump or Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta. I believe Carney has all of the qualities Poilievre lacks. I think that before certain Consevatives gloat so much about the massive majority mandate Pierre Poilievre get with the next election they ought to save the gloating until after the election. Carney is gaining popularity and support regardless,of what some polls say while Poilievre's support is slowly waning.
The reality is that Pierre Poilievre is in campaigning mode, and has been since the conservative leadership campaign. When not blasting the government in the House of Commons as Leader of the Opposition, he is out crossing the country connecting with the people. You may not like him, but right now the polls tells us he is well liked by enough Canadians to form a government.
As a Conservative supporter, I would say the Liberals have been more divisive than the Conservatives, as they constantly instilling fear that under a Conservative government all Canada's social programs would come to a halt. Yet, no Conservative and certainly not Pierre Poilievre have said this would be the case. To make that assertion is fearmongering.
I feel you need to accept that opposing views are beneficial to a healthy exchange of ideas. People come from different backgrounds with different values and have different viewpoints. It benefits everyone to listen and learn different perspectives.
With all respect referring to Liberal supporters as a "woke mob" is both insulting, not the language of engaged respectful dialogue and a very divisive comment. Most certainly, Poilievre does not represent my views nor am I defending the Liberals talk points but having watched Poilievre since he was a junior minister in Harper's cabinet, he isn't interested is respectful conversations.
When Poilievre says that family and communities should be the people looking after people's needs and that he is going to take a second look at pharmacare, the national day care program and the dental care program it is cause for concern.
Over this past week, a supporter of our local provincial Conservative candidate flipped me the bird. Interesting because we hadn't exchanged a single word. Such is the state of our political conversation. I long for the civility of John Robarts and Bill Davis here in Ontario.
When exactly did Pierre Poilievre ay that he is going to take a second look at pharmacare, the national day care program and dental care program? When and in what context did Pierre Poilievre say family and communities should be the people looking after people's needs?
You missed the big one...that the Conservative government will change the current government policy around abortion. Gosh, if I hear one more media type bring it up, I will hurl.
I heard Poilievre say that communities and families are best suited to looking after people in his acceptance speech when he won the leadership of the Conservative Party.
As reported by J.P. Tasker on the CBC, April 18, 2024
I think your fears are unfounded, Poilievre isn't the boogeyman that is going to destroy Canada. It's interesting that when he first talked about eliminating the carbon tax he was immediately attacked and insulted, now the Liberal leader candidates are distancing themselves from this policy. I guess "axe the tax" was a pretty effective slogan after all. And last year when Ms. Freeland introduced the capital gains tax changes and Mr. Poilievre opposed it, he was again attacked and insulted and now, guess what, Ms. Freeland has said she would not go ahead with the changes, and the Liberals have extended the implementation date to 2026. Of course they won't reimburse taxpayers for all the money lost, taxes paid and accounting fees spent in order to deal with their half-assed policy. I don't know what Poilievre's intentions are in regards to the dental and pharmacare programs, but before you criticize him remember that he has been right in the past and it may not be long before the current candidates distance themselves from those policies as well. Both dental and pharmacare were merely PR stunts anyway, and were only introduced to appease the NDP and keep Trudeau in power. The dental program is available to a very small percentage of Canadians and the pharmacare program only covers two drugs, hardly comprehensive. And the question you need to ask is not what Poilievre might cut, but ask the Liberal leadership candidates how they intend to balance the budget. Our 62 billion dollar deficit is not sustainable so the Liberals will eventually have to make some cuts as well, perhaps you should be asking that of Carney and Freeland and not worry so much about Poilievre, he isn't the one who made this mess.
I can accept opposing views. I welcome open discussion and debate. I encourage proof to back up opposing views that lend credibility to that opinion.
What I do not like or accept is the language used by so many Conservative supporters. I do not think it's appropriate or acceptable that too many Conservatives supporters call us woke, sheep, and other things intended to insult. I hate that same group swears at us, calls us the most horrendous things your mind can think up and some you'd never think. Both B words, Pedophile, C word, F words are commonplace insults on their list. It's divisive and small-minded. It proves their lack of education and/or lack of intelligence. It also proves they have nothing left to argue their point of view except slurs.
This is what I won't and shouldn't have to put up with anymore.
Do not tell those of us who have been so abused by small-minded Conservatives that we are at fault for the division. That is disingenuous at best.
Back at you. How many times have Poilievre and the Conservative party members been called insulting and untrue words by Trudeau and his cabal. Get real.
I am, and have always been, a Red Tory. I wear the badge proudly. The current leader, who was an intern along with Jenni Byrne, Ray Novak, Shuv Majumdar, Ben Perrin and a host of others both elected since and not under Kory Teneyke's tutelage, was an annoyiing little fart when when I was the web monkey in the Opposition Leader's Office at the same time. He's still an annoying little fart and will not be getting my vote.
What one of the Liberal leadership candidates should do is return to the biggest promise that Trudeau made in 2015 and didn’t deliver, electoral reform. As soon as the House returns that leader should sit down with the NDP and put together a bill for electoral reform to be used in the next election. Passing electoral reform would prevent a super majority for the Tories and even give the Liberals a chance to form a government. And what fun it would be to see Poilievre lose his mind.
We used to just call that a majority. I think we should resist the CPC “supermajority” talking point which seems designed to justify radical political changes and potentially even illiberal norm-busting maneuvers like the willy-nilly use of the notwithstanding clause.
In my opinion it is a form of lie like calling the formation of a legitimate coalition “a coup”.
Really. Well 'a rose is still a rose by any other name'. Other options: whopping victory, overwhelming majority. Surely there is a difference in having a 'majority' of one versus a majority of twenty or a majority of 150 ... If the polls are right then the Tories will have a ... wait for it ... a lot of f**king seats. Unless of course the Liberals and the NDP have the gumption to pass electoral reform in this Parliament. Then we will (finally) get a Parliament that actually reflects the democratic will of the citizens. But I digress ..
If Canadians are ready to accept that two despised political parties that have been dodging a badly needed election for two years can rig electoral reform to consolidate their thin hold on power: that cements our reputation as an unserious government and unserious nation.
I will repeat what I always say about politicians electioneering about the need for electoral reform. Election Day belongs to the people. The one day in the political cycle when the political class have to sit on the sidelines and allow the commoners to oversee the process, count the votes and declare a collective winner. Therefore, we must be on guard against politicians, who in their self centered virtuousness are pushing for something better. Better for who?
Some people apparently really want to see the end of Canada. Canada is really over if some people see themselves and their parties as indispensible parties. Electoral reform cannot be a rushed job by two parties foundering in the polls in the last weeks before an election It has to be a thoughtfully considered effort, ideally put to the people in a referendum, with plenty of time for reasoned debate. Or if there is no referendum, early in a mandate were electoral reform was a major policy plank, and the form of it clearly defined. Not, lets just change the rules before the election because it appears likely that we will lose.
If I may suggest that a citizens' assembly would be a better vehicle for engaging Cdns. in a discussion about changing our electoral system. CA's confer legitimacy to the process and outcome as they are independent of the government of the day and allow for the public to be educated as the process evolves.
Referendums are a break on change & are a too blunt a tool for complex & detailed policy issues. People don't have the time to properly study something like electoral systems which is the work that a CA could undertake. And can be easily gamed by self interested parties.
As a BC resident I have been through 3 votes on electoral reform. This change in our government requires education to the electorate and hard work on the part of leaders to accomplish. It scares many people, as well it should, if not completely fleshed out and explained. Unfortunately this idea, already scorched by PM Trudeau, is likely to evoke more bad than good for the Liberal party.
I'm against any electoral system that results in coalition governments. Coalitions always result in more spending and higher taxes. The negotiation is never "how can we reduce government, spend less and save taxpayers money," it's always "we will approve more spending for your pet program if you approve more spending for our pet program." The recent Liberal/NDP coalition is a perfect example, we now have record levels of debt, yearly deficits as far as the eye can see, interest payments of over a billion dollars per week and a general malaise in the population as we all feel much poorer in spite of all the wasteful spending.
To be clear, our government is a minority government not a coalition government. Coalition governments have members from a number of parties in cabinet. It is entirely a different fish.
The Dutch coalition kept Geert Wilders from becoming PM of the Netherlands. All the parties in Germany have said that they will not enter a coalition with the AFD and as a result they will be prevented from having any power. Coalitions have value.
As wonderful as that would be, Elections Canada needs a year to prepare to use a new electoral system. EC was beginning to organize for a new system in 2016 when it looked like Trudeau would keep his promise. There just isn't enough time to write & pass a bill and institute a new electoral system which needs to include a massive national public education campaign. I really like to part about Poilievre losing his mind.
No thanks...I have never thought electoral reform, which to me suggests the struggles and chaos as shown in the many European countries elections that have adopted this type of voting. How many elections has Italy has, for example, under this type of system...or Germany? First past the post may not be for everyone but I think it is the best we have developed in democratic government.
To answer your question, since 1953 Italy has had 18 elections, Germany has had 19 and we have had 23 elections. In Switzerland, the first use of a proportional electoral system was the Canton of Ticina in 1891. Full federal adoption was 1919. Proportional representation has been in use in Europe for a very long time and there has been ample opportunity to move to FPTP. No modern democracy has chosen that option.
Other European countries that use some form of PR are; Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Ireland, Note that Italy is not on this list as they use a hybrid system in which 3/8 the country uses FPTP and 5/8 uses a PR system.
FPTP was tailored made for a two party system. Someone always came out with a plurality of support.
In Canada, our federation is broad based but the power center resides in Ontario and Quebec. This has given rise to numerous political parties that have been on each side of the political spectrum and created for many different reasons. Western farmers and their Progressive Party is a long ways away from the Bloc Party, but it is what it is.
Yes,watching watching Poilievre and his followers lose their mind would be great fun. Problem is going against the wishes of the majority is never a great idea. But then we are seeing the results of axe the tax turncoats.
Yes, some do. But the “some” have no moral authority to run roughshod over those who are wary of electoral reform and like things as they are.
At the very least, proponents of change need to seek a significant plurality of support from a properly informed electorate through a referendum. A landslide victory for any political party is not good enough when electoral reform proposals are buried within 362 other campaign pledges.
A referendum is not a definitive measure of the preferences of public opinion; it is only a snapshot in time of the opinion of those who show up at a ballot box during exceptional circumstances. And when a proposal is defeated or passed based on last-minute misinformation from bad-faith actors, then the result is highly skewed and entirely unreliable as a justification for any permanent policy outcome.
I expect that Canadians would vote against the current system if given three system options on the ballot, as the debate would become more nuanced than a simple yes/no dichotomy like on other electoral reform referenda failures. But there is no reason that public opinion polls or citizens' assemblies cannot give legitimation to a reform option. And if a government proceeds in electoral reform without any of those things but in full respectful consultation of opposition parties alongside a 1-2 year legislative debate, that would hardly constitute any kind of outrage.
We have to be careful when tossing around words like bad actors or misinformation. These days a significant chunk of the problem can cut a direct line to devious politicians and their backroom agents.
A referendum of a properly informed electorate is the fairest approach, because at least the proposal will be taken away from politicians and a plan formulated by clear thinking people who sincerely want to build a consensus.
BTW: A poor turnout for a referendum isn’t any worse than a poor turnout for a federal election.
I think we have underestimated how personal this is between Trump and Trudeau. The one mention of "poking the bear" in your discussion barely covers the animosity that Trump holds for Trudeau, and glosses over how many negative things Trudeau has said. At the G7 meetings during the first Trump presidency where Trudeau started with the negativity, then for the Biden years when he called conservatives "far right MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters," then more recently during the feminist speech where he questioned how Americans could be so ignorant for not electing Kamala Harris. Trump has undoubtedly heard all this and will extract his revenge. For the good of Canada, Trudeau should have stepped aside a long time ago, and definitely after Trump was elected.
Paul: Perhaps we, as Canadians, are getting all gunned up over this for the wrong reasons, and we should be more tolerant of Trump's tariff plan?
At its most, basic level, isn't he simply introducing a federal consumption tax on Americans? They have serious deficit issues that they are trying to get under control. You can't begrudge that. All governments jiggle with the tax system, isn't that just what they do?
Of course it's unpalatable for any conservative politician to say they're introducing a new tax so they call it a tariff? Isn't ultimately, difference between a tariff and calling it a VAT or GST is the narrative for tariffs can create theatre (tough guy, America first, "you're fired", the Apprentice redux) - it's a feature, not a bug!
Trump has been clear he intends to levy every trading partner, to similar degrees, so are we being treated all that punitively?
Of course there is a risk that it can possibly accelerate Canada and Mexico and every other country into recession. As the economists say, "all else being equal" wouldn't that recession be coming regardless? And shouldn't we be preparing for that anyway?
Isn't the Trump administrations' gambit here, economically speaking, to plumb the depths of America's pain tolerance for a federal consumption tax to address the US budget deficit problems?
As for retaliatory measures, shouldn't these be avoided altogether? They make for good politics, but they increase risk and risk scares away badly needed investment in the Cdn economy.
Maybe we should focus on eliminating our own brutal self-penalizing regulatory regime and adapt national pro-business culture?
Can the country's latent animal spirits be ignited and released from the opium den of socialism we've fallen into in the Trudeau / Singh era?
Regardless of stripe, the next PM of Canada should take a page or two from the Javier Miliei playbook of how make your country competitive again... Argentina seems to be returning from where Canada is headed.
Maybe we should thanking Trump for the wake-up call.
Apologies, a lot of questions for a Saturday morning.
Trump fired 2000000 public servants the other day. Who do you think will collect those tarifs? Maybe Elon has a trick up his sleeve….do you think? As during COVID toilet paper was squirrelled away i think we should put 100% tariffs on toilet paper.
I just read Musk, either fired or he quit, the most senior official over a payment system. So I guess we know Musk will drive His agenda. Story in the Washington Post.
Paul, Trump says Canada has taken advantage in many ways., even suggesting that Canada is not a friend. My Nfld wife asks why, to date, no one has suggested that we remind Trump of our 9/11 support which by any standard of kindness was still “above and beyond” what might be expected (of course, for the citizens of Newfoundland & Labrador there is no limit to doing the right thing!)
Mr. Wells, I am delighted to hear from you. I apparently have hit a little bit of a nerve? You really did not have to defend/justify your eclectic/depth of SUBSTACK activities.
And, as for my ‘newness’, Andrew Potter - philosopher writer of the wonderful book titled “On Decline” motivated me to study SUBSTACK (still only ‘new’?) - has long ago motivated me to enjoy SUBSTACK.
And, you have left me in significant awe of your credentials, sincerely. Still, the world, since Trump his Greatness, has sent this world in circles chasing great minds, at their tails.
P.S. Perhaps, keep in mind that often the best strategy to eliminate misbehaviours like Trump, are best dealt, as often as possible, by ignoring the ignorant?
Are you seriously impressed by Trump? And, having the title of President? He has truly cheapened the title and most of his words. Half the country is so frustrated they chose a truly questionable leader. And, what do you mean “ I’ll do me “ ?
You really think that Biden was in charge in the last few years. Not me and Harris was a fool and didn't deserve to lead what, to me, is a great country.
I get the clear impression that Canadians - especially the SUBSTACK/general MEDIA - are like a squirrel chasing after an exciting shiny coin, rolling along the road. Dear North American leader is having great delight watching the world chasing their tails in circles. He must surely be laughing and laughing at this frantic world.
Paul, is there any way to put these Panel discussions on the subscriber-only podcast feed as a bonus? (I get they're not sponsored by McGill etc. but that's why I'm thinking a bonus for subscribers - and selfishly I want to listen to these while I walk / am not at my computer). Thanks!
Poking the bear a 'little bit'? The entire Liberal Party has been hinging their re-election messaging on calling Trump a bully, calling the CPC Maple MAGA etc. - Trudeau is hated by American conservatives, not just Republican reps but the general conservative minded public of the USA. They think of us as North Korea to their South Korea, and we underestimate their patriotism viz. being willing to take a loss of profits for a little while at our peril. Our economy will be underwater before they even begin to sweat and they know it.
Also, Libs and NDP won't be fighting for second place, they will be fighting for 3rd because presently the BQ is ahead in Quebec, which none of the panelists mentioned at all, and the NDP is presently in 4th place in seats.
This week Poilievre referred to "Trudeau and his Liberal mob". Not sure just who Poilievre was attacking but I don't appreciate the possible next PM insulting a significant % of Cdns.. Poilievre is going to have to do better than insults to lead this country. I am getting very weary of Poilievre's attack dog bullying.
I've always been very leary of Poilievre's sincerity, and I'm more than a little weary of his insults that he constantly slings at Trudeau and Liberals. He encourages his voters to continue what theyve done since Donald Trump made it okay to combine people's names with some disgusting adjective whenever he speaks of them, eg. Sleepy Joe Biden, Crazy Kamala Harris, etc. ad infinitum.
Poilievre makes up childish 3 word slogans just like Trump does and repeas those over and over, like "Canada is broken". Canada, in truth, is not broken at all.
Poilievre says many things that are not based in any facts. His criticism of Trudeau for proroguing Parliament is hypocritical since he was a minster during Stephen Harper's term in office and Harper prorogued Parliament 4 times... 4 times, 1 of which had no acceptable reason.
Poilievre has made a point of going out to visit groups of extreme Conservatives not just to discuss but to encourage their efforts just to make trouble in Canada and have photo ops because he thinks it will get him votes. Indeed, it has gotten him the support of many of the most extreme right-wing voters, but it has alienated anyone sitting on a political fence where they might vote Conservative simply for the changing of the guard. That appears to be a significant number of votes Poilievre stands to lose because he says nothing of how he will accomplish what he promises, he divides rather than bringing people together and he talks more like Trump and Canadian Conservative extremists as time goes on. I don't think Poilievre would make a good prime minister. I think rather than solidarity he would cause even more divisiveness. I don't believe he has to tools to deal with someone like Donald Trump or Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta. I believe Carney has all of the qualities Poilievre lacks. I think that before certain Consevatives gloat so much about the massive majority mandate Pierre Poilievre get with the next election they ought to save the gloating until after the election. Carney is gaining popularity and support regardless,of what some polls say while Poilievre's support is slowly waning.
The reality is that Pierre Poilievre is in campaigning mode, and has been since the conservative leadership campaign. When not blasting the government in the House of Commons as Leader of the Opposition, he is out crossing the country connecting with the people. You may not like him, but right now the polls tells us he is well liked by enough Canadians to form a government.
As a Conservative supporter, I would say the Liberals have been more divisive than the Conservatives, as they constantly instilling fear that under a Conservative government all Canada's social programs would come to a halt. Yet, no Conservative and certainly not Pierre Poilievre have said this would be the case. To make that assertion is fearmongering.
I feel you need to accept that opposing views are beneficial to a healthy exchange of ideas. People come from different backgrounds with different values and have different viewpoints. It benefits everyone to listen and learn different perspectives.
Catharina,
With all respect referring to Liberal supporters as a "woke mob" is both insulting, not the language of engaged respectful dialogue and a very divisive comment. Most certainly, Poilievre does not represent my views nor am I defending the Liberals talk points but having watched Poilievre since he was a junior minister in Harper's cabinet, he isn't interested is respectful conversations.
When Poilievre says that family and communities should be the people looking after people's needs and that he is going to take a second look at pharmacare, the national day care program and the dental care program it is cause for concern.
Over this past week, a supporter of our local provincial Conservative candidate flipped me the bird. Interesting because we hadn't exchanged a single word. Such is the state of our political conversation. I long for the civility of John Robarts and Bill Davis here in Ontario.
When exactly did Pierre Poilievre ay that he is going to take a second look at pharmacare, the national day care program and dental care program? When and in what context did Pierre Poilievre say family and communities should be the people looking after people's needs?
You missed the big one...that the Conservative government will change the current government policy around abortion. Gosh, if I hear one more media type bring it up, I will hurl.
I heard Poilievre say that communities and families are best suited to looking after people in his acceptance speech when he won the leadership of the Conservative Party.
As reported by J.P. Tasker on the CBC, April 18, 2024
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-budget-reaction-social-programs-1.7177636
I think your fears are unfounded, Poilievre isn't the boogeyman that is going to destroy Canada. It's interesting that when he first talked about eliminating the carbon tax he was immediately attacked and insulted, now the Liberal leader candidates are distancing themselves from this policy. I guess "axe the tax" was a pretty effective slogan after all. And last year when Ms. Freeland introduced the capital gains tax changes and Mr. Poilievre opposed it, he was again attacked and insulted and now, guess what, Ms. Freeland has said she would not go ahead with the changes, and the Liberals have extended the implementation date to 2026. Of course they won't reimburse taxpayers for all the money lost, taxes paid and accounting fees spent in order to deal with their half-assed policy. I don't know what Poilievre's intentions are in regards to the dental and pharmacare programs, but before you criticize him remember that he has been right in the past and it may not be long before the current candidates distance themselves from those policies as well. Both dental and pharmacare were merely PR stunts anyway, and were only introduced to appease the NDP and keep Trudeau in power. The dental program is available to a very small percentage of Canadians and the pharmacare program only covers two drugs, hardly comprehensive. And the question you need to ask is not what Poilievre might cut, but ask the Liberal leadership candidates how they intend to balance the budget. Our 62 billion dollar deficit is not sustainable so the Liberals will eventually have to make some cuts as well, perhaps you should be asking that of Carney and Freeland and not worry so much about Poilievre, he isn't the one who made this mess.
I can accept opposing views. I welcome open discussion and debate. I encourage proof to back up opposing views that lend credibility to that opinion.
What I do not like or accept is the language used by so many Conservative supporters. I do not think it's appropriate or acceptable that too many Conservatives supporters call us woke, sheep, and other things intended to insult. I hate that same group swears at us, calls us the most horrendous things your mind can think up and some you'd never think. Both B words, Pedophile, C word, F words are commonplace insults on their list. It's divisive and small-minded. It proves their lack of education and/or lack of intelligence. It also proves they have nothing left to argue their point of view except slurs.
This is what I won't and shouldn't have to put up with anymore.
Do not tell those of us who have been so abused by small-minded Conservatives that we are at fault for the division. That is disingenuous at best.
This comment was meant for Catharina Summers, not anyone else. I have no idea why it went to the wrong person.
Back at you. How many times have Poilievre and the Conservative party members been called insulting and untrue words by Trudeau and his cabal. Get real.
That's right, its not like the Libs ever accuse Mr Poilievre and his party of extremism, call them "Nazis", etc.
I am, and have always been, a Red Tory. I wear the badge proudly. The current leader, who was an intern along with Jenni Byrne, Ray Novak, Shuv Majumdar, Ben Perrin and a host of others both elected since and not under Kory Teneyke's tutelage, was an annoyiing little fart when when I was the web monkey in the Opposition Leader's Office at the same time. He's still an annoying little fart and will not be getting my vote.
What one of the Liberal leadership candidates should do is return to the biggest promise that Trudeau made in 2015 and didn’t deliver, electoral reform. As soon as the House returns that leader should sit down with the NDP and put together a bill for electoral reform to be used in the next election. Passing electoral reform would prevent a super majority for the Tories and even give the Liberals a chance to form a government. And what fun it would be to see Poilievre lose his mind.
This is an interesting idea.
Paul, Pass it on …
First I’d like to know what a “supermajority” is and what it’s for. Please advise.
A lot more seats than everyone else.
We used to just call that a majority. I think we should resist the CPC “supermajority” talking point which seems designed to justify radical political changes and potentially even illiberal norm-busting maneuvers like the willy-nilly use of the notwithstanding clause.
In my opinion it is a form of lie like calling the formation of a legitimate coalition “a coup”.
Really. Well 'a rose is still a rose by any other name'. Other options: whopping victory, overwhelming majority. Surely there is a difference in having a 'majority' of one versus a majority of twenty or a majority of 150 ... If the polls are right then the Tories will have a ... wait for it ... a lot of f**king seats. Unless of course the Liberals and the NDP have the gumption to pass electoral reform in this Parliament. Then we will (finally) get a Parliament that actually reflects the democratic will of the citizens. But I digress ..
If Canadians are ready to accept that two despised political parties that have been dodging a badly needed election for two years can rig electoral reform to consolidate their thin hold on power: that cements our reputation as an unserious government and unserious nation.
I will repeat what I always say about politicians electioneering about the need for electoral reform. Election Day belongs to the people. The one day in the political cycle when the political class have to sit on the sidelines and allow the commoners to oversee the process, count the votes and declare a collective winner. Therefore, we must be on guard against politicians, who in their self centered virtuousness are pushing for something better. Better for who?
Canadians.
say you and you may be wrong.
https://www.fairvote.ca/nationalpoll/
The facts, just the facts ...
Some people apparently really want to see the end of Canada. Canada is really over if some people see themselves and their parties as indispensible parties. Electoral reform cannot be a rushed job by two parties foundering in the polls in the last weeks before an election It has to be a thoughtfully considered effort, ideally put to the people in a referendum, with plenty of time for reasoned debate. Or if there is no referendum, early in a mandate were electoral reform was a major policy plank, and the form of it clearly defined. Not, lets just change the rules before the election because it appears likely that we will lose.
As an advocate of PR I agree with this.
If I may suggest that a citizens' assembly would be a better vehicle for engaging Cdns. in a discussion about changing our electoral system. CA's confer legitimacy to the process and outcome as they are independent of the government of the day and allow for the public to be educated as the process evolves.
Referendums are a break on change & are a too blunt a tool for complex & detailed policy issues. People don't have the time to properly study something like electoral systems which is the work that a CA could undertake. And can be easily gamed by self interested parties.
No time like the present. It’s become a hardball world. Fastball, high and in.
As a BC resident I have been through 3 votes on electoral reform. This change in our government requires education to the electorate and hard work on the part of leaders to accomplish. It scares many people, as well it should, if not completely fleshed out and explained. Unfortunately this idea, already scorched by PM Trudeau, is likely to evoke more bad than good for the Liberal party.
Great comment from a person who has seen upfront how diverse opinions are about electoral reform.
I'm against any electoral system that results in coalition governments. Coalitions always result in more spending and higher taxes. The negotiation is never "how can we reduce government, spend less and save taxpayers money," it's always "we will approve more spending for your pet program if you approve more spending for our pet program." The recent Liberal/NDP coalition is a perfect example, we now have record levels of debt, yearly deficits as far as the eye can see, interest payments of over a billion dollars per week and a general malaise in the population as we all feel much poorer in spite of all the wasteful spending.
To be clear, our government is a minority government not a coalition government. Coalition governments have members from a number of parties in cabinet. It is entirely a different fish.
The Dutch coalition kept Geert Wilders from becoming PM of the Netherlands. All the parties in Germany have said that they will not enter a coalition with the AFD and as a result they will be prevented from having any power. Coalitions have value.
As wonderful as that would be, Elections Canada needs a year to prepare to use a new electoral system. EC was beginning to organize for a new system in 2016 when it looked like Trudeau would keep his promise. There just isn't enough time to write & pass a bill and institute a new electoral system which needs to include a massive national public education campaign. I really like to part about Poilievre losing his mind.
Anything is possible.
Not likely, but..
No thanks...I have never thought electoral reform, which to me suggests the struggles and chaos as shown in the many European countries elections that have adopted this type of voting. How many elections has Italy has, for example, under this type of system...or Germany? First past the post may not be for everyone but I think it is the best we have developed in democratic government.
To answer your question, since 1953 Italy has had 18 elections, Germany has had 19 and we have had 23 elections. In Switzerland, the first use of a proportional electoral system was the Canton of Ticina in 1891. Full federal adoption was 1919. Proportional representation has been in use in Europe for a very long time and there has been ample opportunity to move to FPTP. No modern democracy has chosen that option.
Other European countries that use some form of PR are; Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Ireland, Note that Italy is not on this list as they use a hybrid system in which 3/8 the country uses FPTP and 5/8 uses a PR system.
FPTP was tailored made for a two party system. Someone always came out with a plurality of support.
In Canada, our federation is broad based but the power center resides in Ontario and Quebec. This has given rise to numerous political parties that have been on each side of the political spectrum and created for many different reasons. Western farmers and their Progressive Party is a long ways away from the Bloc Party, but it is what it is.
Yes,watching watching Poilievre and his followers lose their mind would be great fun. Problem is going against the wishes of the majority is never a great idea. But then we are seeing the results of axe the tax turncoats.
Canadians support electoral reform.
Yes, some do. But the “some” have no moral authority to run roughshod over those who are wary of electoral reform and like things as they are.
At the very least, proponents of change need to seek a significant plurality of support from a properly informed electorate through a referendum. A landslide victory for any political party is not good enough when electoral reform proposals are buried within 362 other campaign pledges.
A referendum is not a definitive measure of the preferences of public opinion; it is only a snapshot in time of the opinion of those who show up at a ballot box during exceptional circumstances. And when a proposal is defeated or passed based on last-minute misinformation from bad-faith actors, then the result is highly skewed and entirely unreliable as a justification for any permanent policy outcome.
I expect that Canadians would vote against the current system if given three system options on the ballot, as the debate would become more nuanced than a simple yes/no dichotomy like on other electoral reform referenda failures. But there is no reason that public opinion polls or citizens' assemblies cannot give legitimation to a reform option. And if a government proceeds in electoral reform without any of those things but in full respectful consultation of opposition parties alongside a 1-2 year legislative debate, that would hardly constitute any kind of outrage.
We have to be careful when tossing around words like bad actors or misinformation. These days a significant chunk of the problem can cut a direct line to devious politicians and their backroom agents.
A referendum of a properly informed electorate is the fairest approach, because at least the proposal will be taken away from politicians and a plan formulated by clear thinking people who sincerely want to build a consensus.
BTW: A poor turnout for a referendum isn’t any worse than a poor turnout for a federal election.
I think we have underestimated how personal this is between Trump and Trudeau. The one mention of "poking the bear" in your discussion barely covers the animosity that Trump holds for Trudeau, and glosses over how many negative things Trudeau has said. At the G7 meetings during the first Trump presidency where Trudeau started with the negativity, then for the Biden years when he called conservatives "far right MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters," then more recently during the feminist speech where he questioned how Americans could be so ignorant for not electing Kamala Harris. Trump has undoubtedly heard all this and will extract his revenge. For the good of Canada, Trudeau should have stepped aside a long time ago, and definitely after Trump was elected.
Well, this should cheer me up...(fingers crossed as I hit play).
Paul, you have the best podcast going on Canadian politics. All of the panelists were excellent.
TARIFFS BABY TARIFFS
Paul: Perhaps we, as Canadians, are getting all gunned up over this for the wrong reasons, and we should be more tolerant of Trump's tariff plan?
At its most, basic level, isn't he simply introducing a federal consumption tax on Americans? They have serious deficit issues that they are trying to get under control. You can't begrudge that. All governments jiggle with the tax system, isn't that just what they do?
Of course it's unpalatable for any conservative politician to say they're introducing a new tax so they call it a tariff? Isn't ultimately, difference between a tariff and calling it a VAT or GST is the narrative for tariffs can create theatre (tough guy, America first, "you're fired", the Apprentice redux) - it's a feature, not a bug!
Trump has been clear he intends to levy every trading partner, to similar degrees, so are we being treated all that punitively?
Of course there is a risk that it can possibly accelerate Canada and Mexico and every other country into recession. As the economists say, "all else being equal" wouldn't that recession be coming regardless? And shouldn't we be preparing for that anyway?
Isn't the Trump administrations' gambit here, economically speaking, to plumb the depths of America's pain tolerance for a federal consumption tax to address the US budget deficit problems?
As for retaliatory measures, shouldn't these be avoided altogether? They make for good politics, but they increase risk and risk scares away badly needed investment in the Cdn economy.
Maybe we should focus on eliminating our own brutal self-penalizing regulatory regime and adapt national pro-business culture?
Can the country's latent animal spirits be ignited and released from the opium den of socialism we've fallen into in the Trudeau / Singh era?
Regardless of stripe, the next PM of Canada should take a page or two from the Javier Miliei playbook of how make your country competitive again... Argentina seems to be returning from where Canada is headed.
Maybe we should thanking Trump for the wake-up call.
Apologies, a lot of questions for a Saturday morning.
P.S. Love your work on Substack, big fan.
Trump fired 2000000 public servants the other day. Who do you think will collect those tarifs? Maybe Elon has a trick up his sleeve….do you think? As during COVID toilet paper was squirrelled away i think we should put 100% tariffs on toilet paper.
I just read Musk, either fired or he quit, the most senior official over a payment system. So I guess we know Musk will drive His agenda. Story in the Washington Post.
G7. Trump is inadmisable to the country as a convicted felon. Nothing would be better than refusing the bully entry.
You assume that he wants to come to Canada. He might decide to pass on Trudeau’s Swan Song G7 event.
Anyones’ guess right?
Paul, Trump says Canada has taken advantage in many ways., even suggesting that Canada is not a friend. My Nfld wife asks why, to date, no one has suggested that we remind Trump of our 9/11 support which by any standard of kindness was still “above and beyond” what might be expected (of course, for the citizens of Newfoundland & Labrador there is no limit to doing the right thing!)
One of our proudest moments and I have no doubt that if called upon, any place in Canada would have done the same.
CF, yes.
It's a bird, it's a plane... It's SUPER Majority! Great panel. Just listening to it is therapeutic in these nutso times.
Mr. Wells, I am delighted to hear from you. I apparently have hit a little bit of a nerve? You really did not have to defend/justify your eclectic/depth of SUBSTACK activities.
And, as for my ‘newness’, Andrew Potter - philosopher writer of the wonderful book titled “On Decline” motivated me to study SUBSTACK (still only ‘new’?) - has long ago motivated me to enjoy SUBSTACK.
And, you have left me in significant awe of your credentials, sincerely. Still, the world, since Trump his Greatness, has sent this world in circles chasing great minds, at their tails.
P.S. Perhaps, keep in mind that often the best strategy to eliminate misbehaviours like Trump, are best dealt, as often as possible, by ignoring the ignorant?
He's the President of the United States. You ignore him if you like. I'll do me.
Are you seriously impressed by Trump? And, having the title of President? He has truly cheapened the title and most of his words. Half the country is so frustrated they chose a truly questionable leader. And, what do you mean “ I’ll do me “ ?
You really think that Biden was in charge in the last few years. Not me and Harris was a fool and didn't deserve to lead what, to me, is a great country.
I get the clear impression that Canadians - especially the SUBSTACK/general MEDIA - are like a squirrel chasing after an exciting shiny coin, rolling along the road. Dear North American leader is having great delight watching the world chasing their tails in circles. He must surely be laughing and laughing at this frantic world.
Here's my piece about a new oral history of The Village Voice.
https://paulwells.substack.com/p/finding-your-voice
Here's my piece about some new Charlie Parker recordings.
https://paulwells.substack.com/p/kansas-city-lightning
My interview with Jane Philpott about health-care reform.
https://paulwells.substack.com/p/can-jane-philpott-fix-ontario-health
Anne Applebaum and Timothy Snyder on the Ukraine war.
https://paulwells.substack.com/p/democracy-under-threat-anne-applebaum
The most comprehensive critique of Poilievre's housing policy I've seen anywhere.
https://paulwells.substack.com/p/small-sticks
The beginning of a three-part series on opioids in Edmonton.
https://paulwells.substack.com/p/worse-than-ive-ever-seen
If you think we chase coins around here, I have to assume you're new.
Nuff Said
Trump is trying to get Trudeau to call him. Justin! Please don’t!
Paul, is there any way to put these Panel discussions on the subscriber-only podcast feed as a bonus? (I get they're not sponsored by McGill etc. but that's why I'm thinking a bonus for subscribers - and selfishly I want to listen to these while I walk / am not at my computer). Thanks!