— Feature, Musings —09.17.2024 07:50 AM
My latest: about those byelections
By-elections don’t count, except when they count. Do last night’s count? Well, not really. By-elections are mostly symbolic.
But, given that politics is all about symbols, they still matter. They tell a story.
The story ends badly for Justin Trudeau.
Some observations. Five of them.
1. Does Trudeau need to go? Well, duh. Obviously. But until the Liberal caucus get up on their hind legs and start demanding it, he’ll get away with losing a Grit fortress.
I’ve been saying they’re a cult for years. They’ll continue to behave like a cult.
In years past, Liberal MPs would have been wielding torches and pitchforks and storming up Bank Street towards Parliament Hill by now. The fact that they haven’t is testament to their core belief that the Liberal Party is Justin Trudeau, and Justin Trudeau is the Liberal Party.
Pundits think that the Trudeau Liberal Party’s demise is the fault of Trudeau alone. But it isn’t. It is also the fault of his enablers in the Liberal caucus. Their fingerprints are on the murder weapon, too.
2. Lost in all the obituary-writing about Trudeau will be the fact that Poilievre did not have a great night last night, either.
The Tories were not even a factor in the Quebec by-election. For someone hoping to lead a national government, as Pierre Poilievre hopes to, is not helpful. It is particularly not helpful when one considers that the Parti Quebecois is favored to handily win the next Quebec election – and that the Bloc has a pretty good shot at forming the Official Opposition again in Ottawa.
I’ve long said that Poilievre’s biggest challenge is going to be the return of separatism. To
fight it, he needs a better showing in Quebec than he had last night.
3. Last night was a disaster for Trudeau, a disappointment for Poilievre, a relief for Singh and a clear signal that the Bloc will soon be back to annoy us all.
Singh tore up his pre-nup with Trudeau prior to the Winnipeg by-election, and I believe he did that to save his bacon in Elmwood-Transcona. So, it worked. But he remains deeply unpopular. The Dippers I know don’t like him.
The long-term objective, for New Democrats, is that they replace the Liberals. They want a two-party system, like the Americans do.
But they’ve always wanted that, and they’ve never gotten it. And they never will. The Liberal Party is heading towards one of its worst showings in history. But it isn’t going to disappear, notwithstanding what the commentariat are saying up in Ottawa.
4. The biggest challenge Prime Minister Poilievre is going to have is not just cleaning up Justin Trudeau’s messes. It’s going to be a revived separatist movement.
The Bloc’s surge in LaSalle-Emard-Verdun – a seat that has been a Liberal hold, pretty much, since its creation – is not good for Canada. I periodically hear from conservative knuckle draggers that we should just let Quebec go, who cares, and so on.
But they’re idiots. Pierre does not want to be remembered as the Prime Minister who presided over the breakup of Canada. I’ve been critical of him in the past for different things, but I have no doubt that he is deeply committed to keeping Canada together.
Justin Trudeau (about whom I’ve been really, really critical) doesn’t have many achievements. But one achievement that can’t be taken from him is this: separatism has remained a distant memory during his time in power.
For the sake of all of us, Pierre Poilievre needs to continue that tradition.
5. I still believe that Justin Trudeau is going to go.
He is not an idiot. He knows what the polls say better than you and I do; he polls more than anyone else in Canada. (And you pay for it.)
He has been between 15 and 20 points behind his main opponent for more than a year. That is a death sentence, politically.
I maintain my prediction that he is waiting to see the outcome of the US presidential campaign. If Kamala Harris wins, he will leave.
If Donald Trump wins – and that remains a strong possibility – he will say: do you really want Donald Trump in the White House, and Pierre Poilievre at 24 Sussex? Canada needs a progressive voice to offset what is coming from the United States, etc. etc.
Trust me: lots of Canadian voters will agree with that. They will agree with him. That, more than last night by-elections, is what Trudeau is waiting for.
Anyway, those are my five morning after observations. Yours are welcome, too, in comments below!
Somewhere, Lametti is likely laughing.
Not for nothing, but in the Quebec byelection, Poilievre’s 11-12% of the vote is a substantial improvement over recent CPC results in that riding. Not that it matters.
The bigger disappointment for him – and concern for his tactics – is Elmwood-Transcona – a seat that the CPC has challenged for (and even won) in the past, but didn’t come particularly close after a full court press of “Sellout Singh” banners all over the neighborhood, and other puerile nonsense. This is the tactic to be expected, because it’s what Poilievre’s fans adore about him. A competent NDP leader would mop the floor with him. Sadly, none are available.
Oh please. The conservatives have won it once since 1988. And this year, they got their highest share of the vote except for the ONE year they one. What you have seen is a preview of what will happen if the Liberal vote totally collapses and the NDP barely pulled off in a win. And pro tip, when you say folks like me “adore” Pierre, it takes away from the rest of what appears to be a semi decent analysis. And I certainly don’t discourage you from taking solace from this result.
The Liberals are a complete non-factor in Elmwood-Transcona. The demographics of the neighborhood are not favourable to that party. Trudeaumania II in 2015 was good enough for a 3rd place finish, and that’s as good as it gets there.
And I’ll continue to bash Poilievre freely, because he’s a petulant jackass who will be inheriting a leadership by default rather than any merit of his own. Clever, sure. Opportunistic, absolutely. Visionary? Hell no. A quarter century in office, and he has one bill drafted to his name from 2014, roundly criticized as the most undemocratic piece of legislation ever drafted in Canada. The rest of his career? Bitch, bitch, bitch. There’s never any policy, anything to get excited about, just empty catchphrases, which I’ve had more than my fill of over the last decade of Trudeau. So in kind, he will be #PissantPoilievre until the day he’s unelected.
If that’s enough for you to get excited, power to you. It was enough for me to throw my CPC membership in a fire pit.
Again, it is very difficult to fit all those words in my mouth. Excited? The choice is binary. It is just math. Everything you said there could be said about Justin. You sound like a bitter supporter of one of the other leadership contestants. Many of you cost us seats in the last couple of elections by sitting on your hands and/or staying home while licking your wounds. Boo hoo. Get over it. You lost, move on. I even had to have this sort of conversation with a couple of MP friends who, by the way, have finally moved on. You clearly haven’t. I am going to continue to add to the million or so I have helped raise for the Tories in my riding through various and sundry leaders since 2005 and doing what I can do to help make Larry Brock get appointed as the next AG and Justice Minister.
Boomer, I assume? Talk to anyone under 40 or even under 50?
I assume the boomer comment was directed at Jason. I am one and a lot of them are entitled whiners and are embarrassing, particularly in Toronto. I have grown up with them.
Poilievre caught onto affordability as an issue far in advance of other federal politicans. That alone makes him visionary.
I doubt Poilievre will be a great PM, but Canada hasn’t had many of those. The course of action is relatively obvious: austerity, retreat of the federal government from provincial jurisdiction, deregulation of protected industries and more targeted immigration. Poilievre may or may not have the courage or stamina to make unpopular but unavoidable decisions.
That doesn’t make him visionary. It just means the other two aren’t listening.
All he has to do is cut the public service to pre covid levels and get rid of all those “temporary” hires no one(not even the conservatives) seems to be talking about anymore. Let’s hope that is the actual secret agenda this time. And as far as the visionary comment goes, yes, he was visionary RELATIVE to the others. Again, a binary choice. It is just math.
Martin, Tristin Hopper shared an interesting theory on Twitter.
In the past, terrified middle class normies voted Liberal because they were scared of a mythical Conservative hidden agenda.
This time, Tristin suggested, the middle class and working class will vote Conservative *hoping* they actually do have a hidden agenda of sorts and will be more Thatcherite (greater reward for hard work, fewer handouts for merely existing) than the party and Poilievre let on. And that we saw the first evidence of this in Toronto St Paul’s.
Not sure I completely agree, but it’s a thought-provoking possibility.
Pedant(not sure where this reply will end up), I was all in for part of Harper’s secret agenda particularly getting rid of the CBC so we can only hope Pierre has a secret agenda and this time it actually gets implemented. When he says we have to cut government waste, the media will spin that as public service job cuts. 1. let’s hope they are right this time. 2. let’s hope it gets implemented and 3. the middle and working class know that is what he is saying and be all in
They sure aren’t helping themselves with the three days a week and boycotting downtown nonsense.
have you seen peepee’s shrapples? half apple half grenade. stay tuned.
Can anyone translate whatever this guy is saying into something coherent?
PP is dominating Canadian politics more than any other figure in history. Cry more China bot.
Everything’s coming up Milhouse, for sure.
Guy took a cabinet Minister down at age 25(barely). It is amazing that the harder he works, the luckier he gets.
Pierre isn’t likeable, but we’ve gone through inflation triggered by a supply chain issue that resulted from a pandemic – that’s why Pierre Poison will likely be the next PM – It aint his charm
Curious V – the Liberal deliberately putting two generations of Canadians into chronic shelter insecurity and suppressing their wages due to irresponsible immigration policies has nothing to do with ‘supply chain issues’.
More straw man nonsense. Who is claiming he is likeable or he is winning because of his charm. Whether he is or he isn’t isn’t relevant. You haters are hilarious. And you voted someone in because of his name and in some cases his looks. So, please, get off that ridiculous high horse and spare me.
Pedant, don’t confuse Curious V with facts.
The separatist movement tends to wane under Liberal governments because…. pardon the crudeness… the Liberals have tended to get on their knees to, uh, “service” the Quebec-centric interests. So why should the province detach itself when they are getting everything they want?
I, for one, am in the camp of letting Quebec do whatever Quebec does – but not treating them in any different way than any other province. If they think being independent is such a great thing, then go for it. Don’t let the door hit you, etc… But they’ll get a cold dose of reality when they no longer have another level of government to treat as their b**ch, and/or blame for everything.
And yes, I feel the same way about Alberta separatists – and that’s a province that really has been shafted by the feds. But again, if you don’t like being part of Canada, then get lost. We don’t need ya.
They always seem to leave Washington out of the equation. Or it’s ’Quebec City will tell Washington how things are going to be’……….yeah sure.
Really. Liberal governments seem prone to “breaking” national unity to position themselves as the saviours of national unity.
Separatism reached a nadir under Harper, likely be cause his government played fewer regional favorites and largely stayed out of provincial jurisdiction. These approaches are the anti-thesis of Liberal governments.
It would be in many ways very sad to have our country split…the political division not just felt but set in stone. The problem, though, is just that–political division. I’ll make a bit of a generalization that much of western Canada simply has a different set of political values, objectives, and priorities than those in the east, particularly Quebec. When we have a government that seems to serve to one side in particular or themselves (as in the case with the current government), not just currently but historically, how do we bridge that divide? From a voter representation standpoint, and as much as I hate to say it, I cannot completely dismiss the pragmatism of an Eastern and Western Canada.
1- they won’t revolt, they will just take their bat and ball and go home, unfortunately this time there isn’t a safe house provincially to bide their time until it’s safe to return to Ottawa
2- the CPC didn’t lose a seat, the NDP didn’t lose a seat, the Bloc gained a seat. So who lost?
3- the Bloc is not about separation it’s about leveraging the laurentian Elite’s obsession with holding on to seats in urban Quebec. It’s why official Ottawa will concede whenever Quebec demands something while the west is told to pound sand and be thankful.
Which brings us to point 4
Remember how when Harper was PM the bloc was teetering on unofficial status? Now after 9 years of liberal government they are resurrected.
The way to deal with the separatist (in name only) is the plan B approach. A method brought forth by Stephen Harper as a private member bill that got co-opted by Stephane Dion and released as the Clarity Act.
The sentiment may sound like “don’t let the door hit you” but what’s intended is, if you can’t be in for the long haul please stop holding Ottawa hostage.
But I digress, Poilievre is of the same school of thought as Stephen Harper on dealing with the “separatists” so likely make short shrift of them.
5- Trudeau may be smart but he’s also conceited and ignorant.
If it’s a matter of who wins the US election, perhaps, but only what he would campaign on.
If Trump presidency- need a progressive to keep him at bay (not credible as Trudeau is seen as a weakling and unable to do anything but upset Trump and make relations worse than if we had a PM the US feels they can trust like Regan-Mulroney)
If Harris- then he will campaign as the PM most like minded with the IS administration and best suited to have a friendly reception with the US.
His conceit will convince him it’s not his fault
His ignorance will convince him the polls are wrong
Here’s a point you missed
Time
How long to organize a leadership contest
How long for new leader to pick his cabinet
How long till new ministers familiarize themselves with new portfolio (assuming the goal is to distance their team to be a change from the last team the new team will be back bench MP’s with no cabinet experience totally at the mercy of the bureaucrats)
How soon till the opposition gets its chance to vote no confidence- easy the budget, which brings us to next spring.
6 months
They don’t have the luxury of time.
They are stuck with Trudeau
I’m with you on point #2. Dippers have held that Manitoba seat for eons. Libs held the Montreal seat for eons. PP still has a massive lead in national polls which every pollster out there says would result in a majority government. That’s pretty much any party’s wet dream.
The Conservatives won Elmwood-Transcona in 2011.
Ah, was not aware of that. I think I heard a faulty news report on that.
Interesting observations. I think the best thing right now for Canada is an election. Let the people decide. I feel like the Liberals deem the people as “bothersome”. They work for us, it is about time they start to act that way. I feel like they don’t care about the average working stiff.
If asymmetrical federalism is the only way to keep the separatists at bay then I guess that makes me one of those knuckle dragger idiots. I would prefer to keep Canada together but if the only way to do that is to keep giving Quebec influence greater than other provinces, powers that aren’t extended to other provinces or funding at the expense or other provinces then it won’t be just knuckle dragging idiots saying “Fuck Quebec.” The separatist movement in Quebec will be joined by the “Good riddance” movement outside Quebec.
Harper proved you can form a majority government without Quebec and I suspect that Poilievre’s polling numbers are more than enough to do that this time around.
To me, the trick isn’t just to let them go but to make the cost of separation prohibitively punitive. Quebec votes to separate, fine. Immediately cap equalization payments to contribution levels, start moving military bases out, cancel the Churchill Falls agreement and tell First Nations n Quebec that all federal support and obligations will end when Quebec separates. For starters.
Election soon, if the Opposition wants to face off against Justin Trudeau.
Election in 2025, if the Opposition feels comfortable battling a different Liberal leader.
Perhaps you can explain why Canada should care about Quebec leaving. There are many in this county who are tired of dealing with Quebec, and wish they would go away. Does not make them knuckle draggers, makes they realize that Quebec gets special treatment, and that special treatment should come to an end
Of course, we all know that Quebec will never leave. They live in a parasetic economy, and in order for that to work, you have to have a host
“Parasetic.”
Actually laughed.
The NDP won in Winnipeg in Transcona which is no surprise. The fact the Conservatives were close behind is interesting. The Conservatives lost in Montreal but their numbers were better then normal. (who cares they lost) yup but another election is coming ad it should be interesting. IMHO.
The Conservatives have won that Manitoba seat before, as recently as 2011. They very much smelled blood in the water. It’s a neighborhood notable for 2 primary demographics, historically: white people with high school or less formal education, and blue collar unionized workers. They will stick to the NDP if it keeps up it’s traditional values around workers’ rights, but they can be convinced to go Conservative if “woke” politics are the NDP priority of the day.
“The Conservatives have won that Manitoba seat before, as recently as 2011.”
The Conservatives have ONLY won that seat once in 36 years. Fixed it for you. Keep grasping at those straws.
What straws? I stated only facts. NDP generally wins the riding, but never in a landslide. It’s winnable for Conservatives if they play it right.
Oh plesse. You are spinning it as a fail. Nonsense.
It is a fail. The Conservatives could have, and should have won that seat. When they get a do-over next year, perhaps they’ll ditch the childish placards and finish the job.
Sure thing. You have already indicated you are still bitter about some long past leadership fight so forgive me if I discount your political analysts on that by-election. Get over it.
The Cons have been making slow and steady inroads in the Elmwood-Transcona riding for a number of years now, as lots of new suburban housing developments have been built in that area in the last 10 or so years, and bought up by folks with the bucks to buy a fancy new suburban home. And affluent folks tend not to be all that socialist/left-leaning, so the demographics of the riding are definitely changing. The NDP better step up their game in that riding (and others). For starters, maybe ditch their increasingly unpopular leader? On that note, Justin ought to emulate his dad and take that (metaphorical or literal) “walk in the snow”, that is, if the Liberal Party wants to avoid mass destruction, and/or worse, i.e. PeePee Boy then takes over (shudder!) Justin can’t possibly be that big an idiot and/or egomaniac to not see the writing on the wall. Personally, I like the “Kamala wins, JT steps down” theory. Or any theory involving JT taking a hike, for that matter.
Lots to talk about here.
I’m going to toss a wild card out here. Justin Trudeau calls a snap election.
Bizarre? Yes but it’s also dramatic as all hell and a chance for the clown prince to perform.
You mentioned dippers wanting to replace the Liberals wouldn’t the Liberals want to bury that notion? The libs may not be election ready but the dips are rarely election ready. Say they lose half their seats (AGAIN) what’s left if that happens? If Trudeau only falls as far away as stornoway he can step aside quite gracefully and help anoint his successor as leader of official opposition.
He could even play a role in formally uniting the left/centre.
Second topic Separation. I love Canada and would not welcome its demise. By the same token I’d argue in some ways it’s already happening. There are distinct regions that in some cases are more easily aligned north and south.
A nation from Calgary to Dallas taking in a lot of prairie in both current countries likely have a lot more homogeneous grouping than Alberta and PEI for example and that neighbour of ours is lining up for a civil war on a more rural-redneck vs elite-urbanite that just so happens to fit a “central-north” America.
It’s been written that these north south alignments could happen work wide and Canada and the USA are a lot of area for two countries.
It’s pretty radical thinking but I don’t think we should discount it.
I would also offer that It’s pretty good spin to suggest conservatives were big losers here.
By-elections are not about the upcoming change in governance but a chance to send the governors a message. Wishful thinking at best to say anything different without let’s say even two examples no better yet ONE example where bye-byes were ever about sending the opposition a message.
“I would also offer that It’s pretty good spin to suggest conservatives were big losers here.”
No shit but don’t discourage the delusion.
Re Quebec separating: are they willing to give up equalization payments?
Well, count me among the knuckle draggers who couldn’t give a shit whether Quebec stays or goes. So long as it is forced to pay back its portion of the national debt, it can do as it likes. Its blackmail strategy will bear far less fruit in a federal political landscape in which the Conservatives can plausibly win a huge majority without a single Quebec seat. Very different power balance compared to 1980 or 1995.
Conservative knuckle dragger chiming in here. My mother was a Marceau and an eighth generation descendant of François Marceau who emigrated from Poitou, France, to the Île d’Orléans, Quebec, in 1665. If my math is right, that would make me a 9th generation Marceau. Île d’Orléans is literally where the province of Quebec got its start. I don’t want Quebec to go but I am well beyond caring.
I want Quebec to stay in Canada. If Pierre Poilievre prioritizes Quebec, he might be able to win a few more seats there. Vive le Québec et vive le Canada!
Why should he prioritize Quebec at the expense of the rest of the country, particularly the most productive and contributory parts?
Liberals are going to “unleash Trudeau”?
Please do.
Perhaps we can call it The VST (virtue signalling tour).
Trudeau flying from coast to coast, eating sumptuous meals, staying in expensive hotel rooms, while telling Canadians they have to make do with less.
Did the fucking prime minster (I have never used those three words in that order in my life) actually say voters are too stupid to vote liberal? I realize he said voter weren’t engaged but it’s kind of the same thing???
Pretty much.
Oh and further to the comments about baby boomers and those about Quebec, I note that the Bloc’s price to keep Justin in power is to increase OAS payments for those aged 65-74 to the same levels as those 75 and over. That is the literal definition of insanity without reforms. Now, no doubt, folks will say that of course people who “adore” and are so “excited” about Pierre would be against something like that. It sounds kind of reasonable. NO IT ISN’T.
For those in the back, what that means is that a 70 year old couple that arranges their affairs properly will keep some of their OAS even if they make 350k a year. Read that again slowly. Whenever I post that on X and actually engage with the people that say I am wrong, I will walk them through the calculations and they will still say I am wrong and usually block me. They think they are experts on OAS because they collect it. That is like thinking you are a proctologist because you have an asshole.
“even if they make 350k a year”…and that doesn’t take into account their $3 million McMansion for which they paid seven peanuts with a highschool diploma.
Seems like generational warfare to heavily tax the hard earned labour income of FAR poorer younger cohorts to transfer even more cash to the richest generation in history. When/where does it end? Politically, I can’t see the longterm strategy of completely alienating under-40/45 voters. Yes, I know, those voters will eventually be 65+ too. But, these benefits won’t be anywhere near as generous for them, certainly not inflated-adjusted. Additionally, they’ll always remember which party (or coalition of parties) financially destroyed their housing security in their youth and middle age (either theirs directly, or a large portion of friends and family).
With proper planning, they can actually make way more than that and even keep some GIS ffs. Those are the things Justin should have gone after instead of his ongoing war on small business. He made this problem worse by reversing the petfectly sensible idea of increasing the OAS level to 67 which formerly serious person Morneau was in favour of.
Old age security is only available to seniors who satisfy financial underwriting – they have to be poor to get it – so how is this transferring wealth to……..poor people such a bad thing?
You’re confusing OAS with GIC. And as noted by Martin Dixon, it is very easy for wealthy Boomers to game the system. To what extent do you expect young relatively poor workers to lavish the richest generation in history with even more unearned wealth and further indebting the country? Where does this end?
Pedant, you are actually giving Curious V the benefit of the doubt there. He likley actually believes what he said. I have argued with folks like him on X before. It usually results in a block.
By the way Pedant, you don’t even really need to game the system to keep some of your OAS even if you are a couple making 350k a year. If you want to really game the system, you can make much more than that.
I meant GIS in my prior comment, not GIC.
More straw man nonsense. Who said transferring wealth to the poor is a bad thing? Show me where I said that. I’ll wait. And did you read my post? Did you actually read it? You sound like the Tru-anons I joust with on X. No it isn’t ONLY available to folks who have to be poor to get it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Unless of course you think that a Toronto baby boomer couple with a 3 million dollar McMansion and a place in Muskoka that makes upwards of 350k a year are poor. And further to Pedant’s point, you likely do.
Here is my profile;
https://millards.com/martin-dixon/
Go ahead, let’s engage and you better bring receipts. It will be fun.
I hope you do because folks need to understand how some of this is such a scam and the Bloc is trying extort even more money for it.
And before you get into the usual stuff about how I am a typical conservative who wants to throw the poor on to the street as soon as we get in power, I said SOME. We need to continue with the reforms Harper started but go much further and some of that reform should likely include giving MORE to the actual poor by expanding GIS(but include reforms that get into wealth tests-you would be shocked at the games people can play to get it-I hope someone somewhere is taking notes). Should they be subsidizing that Toronto baby boomer couple?
Curious?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS6f1MKpLGM&t
Ronald responds to some of the above:
https://ronaldodowd.blogspot.com/2024/09/quebec-stay-or-go.html
Replying to Ronald here. My point was mostly that if Quebec votes to separate, we don’t have to make it easier. Also, as someone else said long ago “If Canada is divisible, so too is Quebec”. As for Churchill Falls, it is an interprovincial agreement, do you not think the agreement could be challenged if one of the parties is no longer a Canadian province?
I see the first year results of the UHT initiative are in. They collected 74 million. 98 per cent of the 670,000 returns that were filed had nothing owing. Let’s say it cost 500.00 per return to file. That is a cost of 335 million. It also cost the government 59 million to implement it. So they were ahead of the game only 15 million and it cost 335 million to file the forms. And this was all very predictable to anyone out in the real world with half a brain. If Pierre wins, he needs to see if he can persuade some actual tax experts to take a pay cut and supervise everything Finance comes up with.
Mark Carney, the new advisor to PMJT, has been hired by the Liberal Party of Canada and not the Government. This will have the effect of insulating Carney from the usual ethical disclosures and conflict-of-interest rules that would follow a senior government staffer on the public payroll., thus shielding him from conflict of interest requirements.
Carney’s company is soliciting $10 billion from the Trudeau government!
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-as-mark-carney-takes-up-pm-advisor-job-his-company-solicits-ottawa-for-10-billion
Blanchet? Singh? You guys okay with this?
Let’s see, ethics fine (if it is actually applicable) of $100.
Management fees for administering $10 billion = how much? Assume they are 0.5%, that would be $50 million. Looks like lots of bonuses will be handed out!
“I maintain my prediction that he is waiting to see the outcome of the US presidential campaign. If Kamala Harris wins, he will leave.
If Donald Trump wins – and that remains a strong possibility – he will say: do you really want Donald Trump in the White House, and Pierre Poilievre at 24 Sussex? Canada needs a progressive voice to offset what is coming from the United States, etc. etc.”
True. Unlike the other centre right parties in the western world, the CPC rely on the votes of visible minorities and immigrants to win power. And unlike our neighbours to the south, Canadian conservatism allows for historically/traditional disadvantage people to identify with the movement while also not having to downplay or deny the existence of things like homophobia, racism, misogyny, etc. (hell, look at the Deputy leaders of the current party: an Jewish lesbian woman and a turban wearing Sikh).
If Trump wins, and either starts doing any of the crazy stuff people think he will do and/or his follows start doing crazy stuff (and some of those hard to make fall into line backbench Tory MPs cheer on) those female and minority voters will hold their noses and vote for Trudeau on that alone.
It is also worth noting that Liberal parties (famously the one in the UK) have traditionally been relegated to the dustbins of history. You could argue one half of that party, the old Progressive Conservatives, was the first part to die off.
If you gave Melanie Joly the gravitas and competence of a Freeland and Anand, she’d wipe the floor with Poilievre (those two other Liberal ministers are too much policy wonkiness not enough personality in the vein of Ms. Clinton).
Pretty good analysis until the last sentence. If pigs had wings they would fly.
He has to go, and he shouldn’t wait for the American results, he should just resign and let somebody else go to battle with Pierre Poison.
I don’t think Junior is ready to quit.
He has no job prospects for one thing. I bet if Heenan Blaikie(retirement job for Chretien and PET) was still around, they wouldn’t even hire him. Must ask Norm.
I certainly don’t see why you would want that clown on a serious corporate board, other than for ornamentation.
At least his father in retirement could write books and live the life of a retired public intellectual, because PET was a bona fide public intellectual before turning to politics.
Yep…calling him Pierre Poison is about all folks like you have. Carry on.
Referring to “Junior”, I don’t think he’ll leave.
His hubris is greater than his logic regarding what the polls will be telling him. As noted above, he recently stated to the effect, “if he speaks a little slower, perhaps we Canadians will understand…”. Further, it’s the best job he’ll ever have. There will be no prestigious international role waiting for him. Why give it up? There may even be money – we are aware of very large federal contracts given without tendering to 2 or 3 person companies. Where has the money gone?
Everyone who gets too close to him ends up soiled. The most recent is former Governor General David Johnston. Mark Carney risks the same.
I doubt there will be an election until next fall, ’25. The NDP & Bloc don’t have the courage to vote him out & “Junior” will continue running out the clock, enjoying the perks of power, appointing his people & trying to make his “legacy” last.
And hire more supporters. Look at the July jobs report. He is basically trolling us.
More on the OAS issues referred to above. Sorry to keep harping about it but it is literally what everyone should be talking about right now given the Bloc’s extortion attempt. And people have no clue how the rules work. You know who does know intimately how the rules work? The people writing the rules. And guess what, they will benefit the most and get even more on top of their gold plated pensions if the Bloc succeeds. They knew all of this when Justin made the simplistic decision to bring the age back to 65 from 67. That was the perfect opportunity for reform but those Finance folks were too busy writing legislation and starting their ongoing Justin requested attack on small businesses which on the first run did not even allow a self employed incorporated 65 year old to split his or her income just like they get to do with the aforementioned gold plated pensions.
The Bloc formalized their extortion attempt this morning. If the Liberals go along with this to stay in power, they will lose every voter under 50. Deadline is 25/10.