$130 billion over the existing deficit spending JT signed the taxpayer up to, and somehow the 'Emperor with no clothes' is still the legit CV everyone has painted him as? Its not serious. There seems to be a crowd of insulated voters who are willing to give the liberals a pass no matter what they do, and apply the bar 10 feet higher for the conservatives. There's no consistency. Just admit you're not interested in the long-term viability of what could be a serious country and let the rest of us work it out.
Allison: “…vote in the national interest ‘or’ whether the Conservative base is as strong…”. WTH? So, if you vote Conservative, according to Allison, it’s NOT in the national interest. WOW!
I agree with Jason L. this is not a policy election. It's all about leadership. Platforms do not necessarily translate into what one does if you win and govern. The mandate will dictate something different now. Also the costing of a platform is not the same as your family's budget, so that does not influence me as a voter. After the Election, Carney can be his own man and do what he believes needs doing, forget Justin.
Agreed, Laurent. I always find it funny when someone says, "Politicians never keep their promises!" and then, in the next breath, "I have to vote against this guy because of what he's promising!" Like, which is it, fellas?
For whatever reason, Mr Carney seems to have solidified his vote. There doesn't seem to be any serious discussion about why the Liberals should, considering their decade of mismanagement, be shown the door.
Indeed. It’s been remarkable how easily switching leaders has given Liberals a free pass in this election on having to defend their past decade in power.
I didn’t see that coming to the degree it has occurred.
If it's a minority gov, I could absolutely see a confidence vote in less than a year and another election. Carney's spending promises will be the death of this country if put into action. I will lose faith in Canada even more than I lost faith in Ontario when Wynne was elected after so many disastrous years under McGuinty.
Mark Carney put out that abomination of another Trudeau platform, while the the Canadian public service, Policy Horizons Canada, handed him this report. https://horizons.service.canada.ca/en/2025/01/10/future-lives-social-mobility/index.shtml Policy Horizons Canada is the Government of Canada’s centre of excellence in foresight. We empower the Government of Canada with a future-oriented mindset and outlook to strengthen decision making.
Carney and the Laurentian establishment election machine (which includes the mainstream media) choose gaslighting as a campaign strategy rather than the truth. As Jean-Claude Juncker said (Ursula’s predecessor) “When it becomes serious, you have to lie.” So who is Carney listening to? The public service, or his closest advisor Mark (open the borders) Wiseman of the Century Initiative, which is what the Laurentian business establishment wan.t
1. I love the point about how most ministers don't know much about their portfolios, especially at first. I see so many paeans to government by cabinet, but with the way our system works, I can't think of a single time when a given cabinet minister has been the country's subject-matter expert in their portfolio, or, indeed, *a* subject matter expert in *any* portfolio. An exception in the current Liberal fold may be Anita Anand, who has exceptional credentials to be attorney general, and so, of course, is not attorney general. The name that comes most readily to mind when I think of a rookie minister who hit the ground running is Jim Flaherty, and even he had never served as an MP before becoming finance minister. Would he have been ready to write his own mandate letter while he was still learning where the bathrooms were on the Hill?
A U.S. president gets to pick their cabinet out of three hundred million people from varying walks of life. A Canadian prime minister picks theirs out of a hundred and eighty people, all of them politicians. The odds of thirty out of those one hundred and eighty people also being really excellent administrators and exceptionally knowledgeable about a given policy area are fairly slim.
2. Poilievre is so self-assured, always - I haven't seen anyone until now make the point that he seemed incredibly nervous in that debate. It humanized him. And, yes, if I'd seen that side of him more over the past twenty years, I might have seriously considered throwing my vote to a smaller party this time rather than voting strategically to keep Poilievre out of the PMO.
Poilievre's emotional slip near the end of the English debate was endearing, humanizing, and yet seemed particularly well-timed - though I do think it was genuine. As leadership goes, looking at Carney's performance as the UK's bank governor and what is being said about that performance by those across the pond, one wonders why we're not being bombarded with anti-Carneyisms by the MSM. Oh yeah... never mind. I guess I should tell myself to look inside myself after that one.
;-)
Your last two or three sentences indicate you and I don't agree on whom to vote for. Fair 'nuff. However, we do agree that most of those who'll end up in cabinet may be incompetent at the outset due to a lack of domain knowledge, regardless of the party. And that said, if we're going to have cabinets, let's bring in SMART people, even if their performance isn't strong off the bat due to that lack of DK.
Scheer, whatever *feeling* one has about him, is smart. So was JWR. So was Jane Philpott - all of them very capable in their assigned ministry/role. And so were many others in both parties. Capable people.
But Trudeau made it about himself - and of ALL of the people elected for his Liberals, he was ironically the dumbest and least capable by an appreciable margin - CN-Tower Stephen being a particular exception.
I'd argue, person-for-person, the Conservatives had and have more "smart, capable" candidates for cabinet than do the Liberals, and both have far more than the NDP.
Which is why I'm beside myself wondering *why* Carney is in the lead with basically the same candidates running with him as Trudeau would have. So. Strange. That.
I agree Tom. What really bugs me is the Liberals blindly vote for this guy when they don't even know him, but they'll poke holes in Polievre because he's put himself out there. Polievre who has no skeletons in his closet (because they've had 20 years to find them). Carney on the other hand probably has many more yet to be discovered! What about the fact Carney picked the shortest time for an election? Again to not give voters time to get to know him!! Nope I don't trust the guy and would never vote for him! Hopefully we'll get to see him as the Opposition Leader!!
Hi Deb, Sadly, if Poilievre wins, we will probably NOT get to see Carney as the opposition leader. My bet (and I'm not much of a betting man) is that he returns to Europe and maybe takes over the WEF since Klaus Schwab just resigned. Or maybe that's already Justin's job to lose?
Of course he wouldn't take the lowly position of the Opposition Leader!! He wants the PM role for the prestige and of course the exposure to circles he might not have had access to before! He's not in this for Canadians. Which is why he wouldn't take the Opposition Leader role. If little old me could figure this out why oh why can't these Liberals?
The talent pool to choose cabinet ministers from has changed over time and perhaps with negative consequences.
The really talented people who were attracted to politics in years past were often businessmen/professionals who knew a thing or two about running complex businesses but very little about politics. (Carney exemplifies this perhaps?) Today’s talent pool are raised in politics, often staffers and activists who understand how the game is played but have no real world experience to run complex government departments.
Politics has turned into a very nasty game, with ugliness spilling over from personalities to their families. Many competent people are not enticed to get involved for the abuse and loss of privacy that comes with the territory.
Excellent points. Which, ironically, makes one wonder why Carney is running for PM if the best external candidates are repulsed by the machinery of government.
The Steve Paikin comment at the end that included a Connery nod to Never Say Never Again made me smile. And made me think, this is TRULY a campaign where the Liberals are hoping Canadians never say never again. Lord help us all.
That is understood Mr Wells. It is hard to get honest or candid exchanges at times as you likely know, especially a week before an election. Well calculated comments. Not a criticism as much as a limitation from my perspective. Please keep being Mr. Wells.
I think most voters decide based on 2 things: policy and feeling. The first is (mostly) rational and the second is pretty well all emotional. On policy individual voters typically have a couple of key hot buttons, with the rest sitting somewhere in the background. The challenge for the campaigns is to cover as broad a swath of hot button policies as possible without losing focus, while closing the gap in areas where the competition might be leading. For example if CPC leads on fighting crime how does LPC close that gap even just a little. In this campaign, the dominant question has actually been more about feeling: who can fight Trump. This is an emotional question, not a policy driven one. The reason Carney has been leading on that question is because his backstory lends itself to concluding that he might just be the right person at this point. All of a sudden the Davos guy is the guy! He knows Christine Lagarde, Macron et al on a first name basis, whereas Poilièvre is known as hating Davos and committing to boycotting it. Also to the extent that fear and hatred can be a factor, this is the first election in my lifetime going back to 1974 where fear/hate are directed at a foreigner rather than at one of us. That all being said, I’m puzzled by Carney’s Go Big or Go Home $129 B platform. I’d say it’s high risk, low reward, totally not necessary. We can’t even run a passport office or CRA effectively, so who is going to execute on all these wonderful “investments”?? Carney should have coasted on the emotional question. As for Poilièvre, his image of an attack dog Trump-lite guy is far etched in to be moved substantially. But kudos to him for trying, he actually came across as quite likeable. Too little, too late, I’m afraid.
However most Canadians didn't tune into this or if they did they didn't think it was that important. Emotion and the "new guy in town' is sadly driving this campaign.
Really good panel this week. I love the insight into the war room and number checking on the campaign.
Still really struggle with the con panelist. Feels like he is practicing Carney take downs half the time. Still good to get that exposure to the other perspective, but I do miss the last con panelists. Found him a much better match with the panels energy.
I kinda' thought representing one's party is the point of that weekly roundtable? That way we get all three perspectives (though the NDP perspective is a bit pointless, given the party's likely demise in this upcoming election).
Interesting to hear that Tara. An expectiont that proves the rule? I cannot see anyone interested in politics enough to read a party platform to not have already made their mind up a year before the election was called. It is not like platforms offer surprises. But you prove me wrong.
To be fair, I've been working pretty hard to become a more responsible voter over the last 5 to 6 years. Something about reaching the mid-point of my life made me want to do better for the generations coming behind me.
But how did you decide Tara when you didn't have all of the platforms to compare? Just checking it sounds like you made up your mind yesterday? The PCs only delivered theirs today? Hmmmm. Thats not very objective is it?
$130 billion over the existing deficit spending JT signed the taxpayer up to, and somehow the 'Emperor with no clothes' is still the legit CV everyone has painted him as? Its not serious. There seems to be a crowd of insulated voters who are willing to give the liberals a pass no matter what they do, and apply the bar 10 feet higher for the conservatives. There's no consistency. Just admit you're not interested in the long-term viability of what could be a serious country and let the rest of us work it out.
Allison: “…vote in the national interest ‘or’ whether the Conservative base is as strong…”. WTH? So, if you vote Conservative, according to Allison, it’s NOT in the national interest. WOW!
I agree with Jason L. this is not a policy election. It's all about leadership. Platforms do not necessarily translate into what one does if you win and govern. The mandate will dictate something different now. Also the costing of a platform is not the same as your family's budget, so that does not influence me as a voter. After the Election, Carney can be his own man and do what he believes needs doing, forget Justin.
Agreed, Laurent. I always find it funny when someone says, "Politicians never keep their promises!" and then, in the next breath, "I have to vote against this guy because of what he's promising!" Like, which is it, fellas?
For whatever reason, Mr Carney seems to have solidified his vote. There doesn't seem to be any serious discussion about why the Liberals should, considering their decade of mismanagement, be shown the door.
Indeed. It’s been remarkable how easily switching leaders has given Liberals a free pass in this election on having to defend their past decade in power.
I didn’t see that coming to the degree it has occurred.
If it's a minority gov, I could absolutely see a confidence vote in less than a year and another election. Carney's spending promises will be the death of this country if put into action. I will lose faith in Canada even more than I lost faith in Ontario when Wynne was elected after so many disastrous years under McGuinty.
" He [Poilievre] was competing against the specter of Mr. Carney's resume."
I agree with that. For the Conservatives to win this election, they had to dismantle the legend of Mark Carney. There was enough material.
Mark Carney put out that abomination of another Trudeau platform, while the the Canadian public service, Policy Horizons Canada, handed him this report. https://horizons.service.canada.ca/en/2025/01/10/future-lives-social-mobility/index.shtml Policy Horizons Canada is the Government of Canada’s centre of excellence in foresight. We empower the Government of Canada with a future-oriented mindset and outlook to strengthen decision making.
Carney and the Laurentian establishment election machine (which includes the mainstream media) choose gaslighting as a campaign strategy rather than the truth. As Jean-Claude Juncker said (Ursula’s predecessor) “When it becomes serious, you have to lie.” So who is Carney listening to? The public service, or his closest advisor Mark (open the borders) Wiseman of the Century Initiative, which is what the Laurentian business establishment wan.t
Credit where it's due: Jason was on fire here.
1. I love the point about how most ministers don't know much about their portfolios, especially at first. I see so many paeans to government by cabinet, but with the way our system works, I can't think of a single time when a given cabinet minister has been the country's subject-matter expert in their portfolio, or, indeed, *a* subject matter expert in *any* portfolio. An exception in the current Liberal fold may be Anita Anand, who has exceptional credentials to be attorney general, and so, of course, is not attorney general. The name that comes most readily to mind when I think of a rookie minister who hit the ground running is Jim Flaherty, and even he had never served as an MP before becoming finance minister. Would he have been ready to write his own mandate letter while he was still learning where the bathrooms were on the Hill?
A U.S. president gets to pick their cabinet out of three hundred million people from varying walks of life. A Canadian prime minister picks theirs out of a hundred and eighty people, all of them politicians. The odds of thirty out of those one hundred and eighty people also being really excellent administrators and exceptionally knowledgeable about a given policy area are fairly slim.
2. Poilievre is so self-assured, always - I haven't seen anyone until now make the point that he seemed incredibly nervous in that debate. It humanized him. And, yes, if I'd seen that side of him more over the past twenty years, I might have seriously considered throwing my vote to a smaller party this time rather than voting strategically to keep Poilievre out of the PMO.
Poilievre's emotional slip near the end of the English debate was endearing, humanizing, and yet seemed particularly well-timed - though I do think it was genuine. As leadership goes, looking at Carney's performance as the UK's bank governor and what is being said about that performance by those across the pond, one wonders why we're not being bombarded with anti-Carneyisms by the MSM. Oh yeah... never mind. I guess I should tell myself to look inside myself after that one.
;-)
Your last two or three sentences indicate you and I don't agree on whom to vote for. Fair 'nuff. However, we do agree that most of those who'll end up in cabinet may be incompetent at the outset due to a lack of domain knowledge, regardless of the party. And that said, if we're going to have cabinets, let's bring in SMART people, even if their performance isn't strong off the bat due to that lack of DK.
Scheer, whatever *feeling* one has about him, is smart. So was JWR. So was Jane Philpott - all of them very capable in their assigned ministry/role. And so were many others in both parties. Capable people.
But Trudeau made it about himself - and of ALL of the people elected for his Liberals, he was ironically the dumbest and least capable by an appreciable margin - CN-Tower Stephen being a particular exception.
I'd argue, person-for-person, the Conservatives had and have more "smart, capable" candidates for cabinet than do the Liberals, and both have far more than the NDP.
Which is why I'm beside myself wondering *why* Carney is in the lead with basically the same candidates running with him as Trudeau would have. So. Strange. That.
I agree Tom. What really bugs me is the Liberals blindly vote for this guy when they don't even know him, but they'll poke holes in Polievre because he's put himself out there. Polievre who has no skeletons in his closet (because they've had 20 years to find them). Carney on the other hand probably has many more yet to be discovered! What about the fact Carney picked the shortest time for an election? Again to not give voters time to get to know him!! Nope I don't trust the guy and would never vote for him! Hopefully we'll get to see him as the Opposition Leader!!
Hi Deb, Sadly, if Poilievre wins, we will probably NOT get to see Carney as the opposition leader. My bet (and I'm not much of a betting man) is that he returns to Europe and maybe takes over the WEF since Klaus Schwab just resigned. Or maybe that's already Justin's job to lose?
Of course he wouldn't take the lowly position of the Opposition Leader!! He wants the PM role for the prestige and of course the exposure to circles he might not have had access to before! He's not in this for Canadians. Which is why he wouldn't take the Opposition Leader role. If little old me could figure this out why oh why can't these Liberals?
The talent pool to choose cabinet ministers from has changed over time and perhaps with negative consequences.
The really talented people who were attracted to politics in years past were often businessmen/professionals who knew a thing or two about running complex businesses but very little about politics. (Carney exemplifies this perhaps?) Today’s talent pool are raised in politics, often staffers and activists who understand how the game is played but have no real world experience to run complex government departments.
Politics has turned into a very nasty game, with ugliness spilling over from personalities to their families. Many competent people are not enticed to get involved for the abuse and loss of privacy that comes with the territory.
Excellent points. Which, ironically, makes one wonder why Carney is running for PM if the best external candidates are repulsed by the machinery of government.
I agree about the disappointment of having ministers being fully informed in their porfolio and where we pick our cabinet from.
The Steve Paikin comment at the end that included a Connery nod to Never Say Never Again made me smile. And made me think, this is TRULY a campaign where the Liberals are hoping Canadians never say never again. Lord help us all.
That is understood Mr Wells. It is hard to get honest or candid exchanges at times as you likely know, especially a week before an election. Well calculated comments. Not a criticism as much as a limitation from my perspective. Please keep being Mr. Wells.
I think most voters decide based on 2 things: policy and feeling. The first is (mostly) rational and the second is pretty well all emotional. On policy individual voters typically have a couple of key hot buttons, with the rest sitting somewhere in the background. The challenge for the campaigns is to cover as broad a swath of hot button policies as possible without losing focus, while closing the gap in areas where the competition might be leading. For example if CPC leads on fighting crime how does LPC close that gap even just a little. In this campaign, the dominant question has actually been more about feeling: who can fight Trump. This is an emotional question, not a policy driven one. The reason Carney has been leading on that question is because his backstory lends itself to concluding that he might just be the right person at this point. All of a sudden the Davos guy is the guy! He knows Christine Lagarde, Macron et al on a first name basis, whereas Poilièvre is known as hating Davos and committing to boycotting it. Also to the extent that fear and hatred can be a factor, this is the first election in my lifetime going back to 1974 where fear/hate are directed at a foreigner rather than at one of us. That all being said, I’m puzzled by Carney’s Go Big or Go Home $129 B platform. I’d say it’s high risk, low reward, totally not necessary. We can’t even run a passport office or CRA effectively, so who is going to execute on all these wonderful “investments”?? Carney should have coasted on the emotional question. As for Poilièvre, his image of an attack dog Trump-lite guy is far etched in to be moved substantially. But kudos to him for trying, he actually came across as quite likeable. Too little, too late, I’m afraid.
Carney met Macron and got no commitment from Macron to ratify CETA. Knowing the guy doesn’t seem to help. Over 5 years since CETA was signed.
However most Canadians didn't tune into this or if they did they didn't think it was that important. Emotion and the "new guy in town' is sadly driving this campaign.
Patience is a virtue!!
Really good panel this week. I love the insight into the war room and number checking on the campaign.
Still really struggle with the con panelist. Feels like he is practicing Carney take downs half the time. Still good to get that exposure to the other perspective, but I do miss the last con panelists. Found him a much better match with the panels energy.
Love these panels. Smart, knowledgeable people. My longer comment: https://substack.com/@kevynnightingale/note/p-161679875?r=7ephl
The partisan leanings of Ms. Surkes and Mr. Lietaer are apparent.
Behind the curtains discussion this truly is……to what end one might ask…
Glad I got them to represent their parties then!
I kinda' thought representing one's party is the point of that weekly roundtable? That way we get all three perspectives (though the NDP perspective is a bit pointless, given the party's likely demise in this upcoming election).
We don't see the ministerial mandate letters and their supposed connection to a platform.
Interesting. The Curse of Politics podcast was also arguing that platforms didn't matter to voters. The comments over there might indicate otherwise.
For my part, I've completely switched my vote because of a well written platform.
Interesting to hear that Tara. An expectiont that proves the rule? I cannot see anyone interested in politics enough to read a party platform to not have already made their mind up a year before the election was called. It is not like platforms offer surprises. But you prove me wrong.
To be fair, I've been working pretty hard to become a more responsible voter over the last 5 to 6 years. Something about reaching the mid-point of my life made me want to do better for the generations coming behind me.
But how did you decide Tara when you didn't have all of the platforms to compare? Just checking it sounds like you made up your mind yesterday? The PCs only delivered theirs today? Hmmmm. Thats not very objective is it?
Most impressive!