There is one other aspect that I believe will play a role. Carney eluded to this in his speech today, the Liberals will be announcing some well known names to run in particular ridings. The Conservatives have very little to counter this, their well known candidates are, let’s say, well known in the Convoy circles. Another advantage for the Liberals.
Then there is the question of playing it safe or being more aggressive. Playing it safe would have been going back to parliament and governing for another 6 months (which the NDP would have supported). The Liberals need to play offensive and put (keep?) the Conservatives on the back foot. The challenge is to be assertive, without being arrogant. Humble, but confident at the same time. Positive while acknowledging some of the challenges and mistakes in the past years. I think it is totally doable. Let’s go.
But you never even mention the drip-drip-drip subliminal advertising effect of the conservatives' unprecedented vilification campaign online and everywhere at ALL fucking times, a campaign that lined up over time with their/his sheer time in power year after year.
Chrystia as unsung hero was echoed by Elizabeth May's speech. She met the moment more than Carney with her open emotionality about all this, but as usual did this within the confines of the male predominant system of gamesmanship, (Team Canada, Elbows Up, low-drama narrative at all times) WHILE also surpassing the call for coming together generally to simply encourage increasing voter turnout to ensure a better "Parliament," not just one leade or one party winning, including HER party.
She was a wonderful reminder of what women bring to everything important, and what happens with the current bunch of bros in the U.S. who are acting more and more like so many groups of men do when unmitigated. Lord of the Flies.
I watched the CBC coverage in its entirety for the 1st time in my life 🤪
I worry about minorities voting Con & will never understand it,
and I also worry about how much RW propaganda is informing the choices of a chunk of the electorate
While Ian Hanomansing was fielding calls from would-be voters, it was obvious to me some folks who say they will vote for Pierre, repeated verbatim all the talking points of RW influencers - when IH asked for examples of how exactly “Canada is broken”, or the polling is rigged”, they - of course - did not know what to say or got obfuscated.
As I’ve said here before, I am cautiously optimistic. I feel we are fighting a mammoth of election interference from several angles (Russian, Chinese, X, MAGA, Rebel/Proud, etc.).
And for my money, the Cons have been in bed with Trump from long before we got a whiff of Smith’s Breitbart interview. I don’t forget the government froze their accounts (convoy) because they knew GOP operatives were contributing funds.
Well written !! I hope you are right, I just do not trust the PC’ s to tell us the truth about their agenda. PP made the mistake of portraying himself as a “Maple MAGA” and now I believe him. We need a new Canadian direction and reality, but not the one PP’s been selling for the last year.
We need Carnie to be the leader we have been seeking , circumstance has clearly favoured him, now he needs to deliver!!!
I sooooo hope u are right!!!! My wife and I sent the second half of our Ford bucks to the Federal liberal party this afternoon and I hope others did as well.
What a great read on the current situation. I think the sham endorsement of Mark Carney by President Krasnov along with Danielle Smiths admissions to treason, just might shift the popular unpopular vote towards the liberals.
I am buoyed by Mark Carney’s leadership and what he’s been able to do so far. I plan to work for my local candidate (who is in a pretty safe Liberal riding), and to contribute to his campaign. I now think we have better than a 50/50 chance, and the possibility of a majority is exhilerating!
"... the entire lives of most if not all Canadians, have been lived under the basic principle that the Americans are an ally."
This generalization ignores the rise of Canadian economic (and other forms of) nationalism in the late 60s, which got a big push from revulsion at the American adventure in Vietnam and the resulting influx of war resisters seeking refuge here.
The economic nationalism of Walter Gordon and Mel Hurtig was a minority strain in the Liberal universe in those days; the heavy lifting was done by Red Tories (e.g. George Grant) and left factions in the NDP (e.g. Mel Watkins). Trudeau Sr. was generally bored with economic matters, and at best lukewarm on any kind of nationalism which he reflexively lumped in with the most retrograde elements of Quebec insularity that he'd made his life's mission to combat. So we had to wait for the later days of the 1st Trudeau era to see something like the NEP emerge, and that only happened because the international oil crises and resulting price escalation provided a pile of loot big enough to be worth fighting over.
I appreciate your take and I have to say your passion for the Liberal party and philosophy shines through.
I voted Liberal in 2015 mainly because of Trudeau's electoral reform promise (I didn't like him and felt his surname took him to completely undeserved political heights), and have never voted for the Liberals since, for obvious reasons. I wasn't intending to vote for them this time either but the Trump effect may or may not change the calculus for me this time.
Re: "Chrystia Freeland is many things, and I know I’ve certainly said a lot of them on this site and on the Scrimshaw Show over the course of months and years, but she did what many Liberal politicians wanted to do but didn’t - she stood for party and country over loyalty to Trudeau. She saved the Liberal Party." This is very much not true. Freeland quit after Trudeau fired her from her role and offered her something more junior. She was perfectly willing to present the budget, political gimmicks and all, as long as she was minister of Finance. Only when she was demoted did she seemingly find her principles. Way too many people are overlooking this.
Iris, I can’t say I disagree with your opinion. But it is an opinion, not fact. Whether Freeland did as she did because she finally put Country over Party or because she had been so unceremoniously booted from Finance is a question where only she knows for sure….. my opinion has moved more to believing she did it primarily because she finally put Country over Party. The factors tipping the scale for me was the way in which she conducted herself in the Leadership race but also her so very public takedown of Trudeau in her telling Canadians not only that she had been fired but was told over an online meeting, not in person, and told by PMO staffers.
One additional point: if Trudeau hadn't already announced his resignation, I believe his January warnings about Trump might have been interpreted as desperation and disregarded by a significant proportion of Canadians. But because he was no longer "in play", we could listen to him seriously and not think his concerns were self-serving.
"So let’s cool our nerves and maintain our common goal of showing the outside world that our country is not a commodity, and that we have sovereignty over the country, which must be respected and no one can take it away from us.” Greenland's leader, March 24 in The Guardian
There is one other aspect that I believe will play a role. Carney eluded to this in his speech today, the Liberals will be announcing some well known names to run in particular ridings. The Conservatives have very little to counter this, their well known candidates are, let’s say, well known in the Convoy circles. Another advantage for the Liberals.
Then there is the question of playing it safe or being more aggressive. Playing it safe would have been going back to parliament and governing for another 6 months (which the NDP would have supported). The Liberals need to play offensive and put (keep?) the Conservatives on the back foot. The challenge is to be assertive, without being arrogant. Humble, but confident at the same time. Positive while acknowledging some of the challenges and mistakes in the past years. I think it is totally doable. Let’s go.
But you never even mention the drip-drip-drip subliminal advertising effect of the conservatives' unprecedented vilification campaign online and everywhere at ALL fucking times, a campaign that lined up over time with their/his sheer time in power year after year.
Chrystia as unsung hero was echoed by Elizabeth May's speech. She met the moment more than Carney with her open emotionality about all this, but as usual did this within the confines of the male predominant system of gamesmanship, (Team Canada, Elbows Up, low-drama narrative at all times) WHILE also surpassing the call for coming together generally to simply encourage increasing voter turnout to ensure a better "Parliament," not just one leade or one party winning, including HER party.
She was a wonderful reminder of what women bring to everything important, and what happens with the current bunch of bros in the U.S. who are acting more and more like so many groups of men do when unmitigated. Lord of the Flies.
How would you characterize Danielle Smith? Bro or not bro?
Cheerleader to the bros.
I watched the CBC coverage in its entirety for the 1st time in my life 🤪
I worry about minorities voting Con & will never understand it,
and I also worry about how much RW propaganda is informing the choices of a chunk of the electorate
While Ian Hanomansing was fielding calls from would-be voters, it was obvious to me some folks who say they will vote for Pierre, repeated verbatim all the talking points of RW influencers - when IH asked for examples of how exactly “Canada is broken”, or the polling is rigged”, they - of course - did not know what to say or got obfuscated.
As I’ve said here before, I am cautiously optimistic. I feel we are fighting a mammoth of election interference from several angles (Russian, Chinese, X, MAGA, Rebel/Proud, etc.).
And for my money, the Cons have been in bed with Trump from long before we got a whiff of Smith’s Breitbart interview. I don’t forget the government froze their accounts (convoy) because they knew GOP operatives were contributing funds.
Well written !! I hope you are right, I just do not trust the PC’ s to tell us the truth about their agenda. PP made the mistake of portraying himself as a “Maple MAGA” and now I believe him. We need a new Canadian direction and reality, but not the one PP’s been selling for the last year.
We need Carnie to be the leader we have been seeking , circumstance has clearly favoured him, now he needs to deliver!!!
I am a believer!!
I sooooo hope u are right!!!! My wife and I sent the second half of our Ford bucks to the Federal liberal party this afternoon and I hope others did as well.
Loved this article. Very balanced and informative.
Here is Mike Myers and PM Mark Carney's ad: https://youtu.be/al9yWA4TUII
Interested to see if Canadians decide to make this a “message to Trump” election by giving Carney an overwhelming mandate.
Wow
What a great read on the current situation. I think the sham endorsement of Mark Carney by President Krasnov along with Danielle Smiths admissions to treason, just might shift the popular unpopular vote towards the liberals.
I feel calm about this . I think Carney will win . A lot of conservatives I know don’t like Pierre and like Carney🤞
I am buoyed by Mark Carney’s leadership and what he’s been able to do so far. I plan to work for my local candidate (who is in a pretty safe Liberal riding), and to contribute to his campaign. I now think we have better than a 50/50 chance, and the possibility of a majority is exhilerating!
"... the entire lives of most if not all Canadians, have been lived under the basic principle that the Americans are an ally."
This generalization ignores the rise of Canadian economic (and other forms of) nationalism in the late 60s, which got a big push from revulsion at the American adventure in Vietnam and the resulting influx of war resisters seeking refuge here.
As a sample from that era, take a look at the diverse list of contributors on the back cover of "The New Romans" published by Hurtig in 1968: https://archive.org/details/newromanscandidc0000purd/page/178/mode/2up.
The economic nationalism of Walter Gordon and Mel Hurtig was a minority strain in the Liberal universe in those days; the heavy lifting was done by Red Tories (e.g. George Grant) and left factions in the NDP (e.g. Mel Watkins). Trudeau Sr. was generally bored with economic matters, and at best lukewarm on any kind of nationalism which he reflexively lumped in with the most retrograde elements of Quebec insularity that he'd made his life's mission to combat. So we had to wait for the later days of the 1st Trudeau era to see something like the NEP emerge, and that only happened because the international oil crises and resulting price escalation provided a pile of loot big enough to be worth fighting over.
I appreciate your take and I have to say your passion for the Liberal party and philosophy shines through.
I voted Liberal in 2015 mainly because of Trudeau's electoral reform promise (I didn't like him and felt his surname took him to completely undeserved political heights), and have never voted for the Liberals since, for obvious reasons. I wasn't intending to vote for them this time either but the Trump effect may or may not change the calculus for me this time.
Re: "Chrystia Freeland is many things, and I know I’ve certainly said a lot of them on this site and on the Scrimshaw Show over the course of months and years, but she did what many Liberal politicians wanted to do but didn’t - she stood for party and country over loyalty to Trudeau. She saved the Liberal Party." This is very much not true. Freeland quit after Trudeau fired her from her role and offered her something more junior. She was perfectly willing to present the budget, political gimmicks and all, as long as she was minister of Finance. Only when she was demoted did she seemingly find her principles. Way too many people are overlooking this.
Iris, I can’t say I disagree with your opinion. But it is an opinion, not fact. Whether Freeland did as she did because she finally put Country over Party or because she had been so unceremoniously booted from Finance is a question where only she knows for sure….. my opinion has moved more to believing she did it primarily because she finally put Country over Party. The factors tipping the scale for me was the way in which she conducted herself in the Leadership race but also her so very public takedown of Trudeau in her telling Canadians not only that she had been fired but was told over an online meeting, not in person, and told by PMO staffers.
One additional point: if Trudeau hadn't already announced his resignation, I believe his January warnings about Trump might have been interpreted as desperation and disregarded by a significant proportion of Canadians. But because he was no longer "in play", we could listen to him seriously and not think his concerns were self-serving.
"So let’s cool our nerves and maintain our common goal of showing the outside world that our country is not a commodity, and that we have sovereignty over the country, which must be respected and no one can take it away from us.” Greenland's leader, March 24 in The Guardian
This election should be about the failed policies of climate change and the gobs of money that has been wasted!