Yep. Carney is the consummate technocrat that you want to see a competent leader surround themselves with. I’d go so far as to say that the ability to surround themselves with people like Carney is a major indicator of a good leader.
Doesn’t mean they are good candidates to be leaders themselves
Carney needs to run for MP, ideally in a riding that is not necessarily Liberal friendly (just like Trudeau had to run in a Bloc stronghold). And when he is successful, and the Liberals form government, he can become a minister. And if the Liberals do not form government, he can run for the leadership while he is an MP. That’s the path.
In the meantime, I am really wondering why Trudeau is not putting up a fight. The past 4-5 days the CPC have been spreading one lie after the other about the government’s response. Trudeau should go on one of the political shows or hold a press conference and call them out. One by one. Instead he is touring the Northwest Territories to see the wildfire damage. That can wait, assuming you want to stop giving a pass to Poilievre’s bullshit parade.
Can you name any issues in the last eight years where Trudeau *has* put up a fight? I mean a public adversarial fight with a specific opponent? A premiere? Any of the various CPC leaders?
The guy is terminally conflict adverse. It’s not how he does business. He’ll react to broad public pressure but he’s walked away from every policy that would have required engaging a specific opposition
Right, but who would you list as the specific targets of those? You said he should go on the news and call people out. He doesn’t do that.
He’ll sometimes push through an issue, but he never engages specific opponents. Never makes a “they’re wrong because…” argument, just “I’m right because…” statements.
You are not wrong. And it is a shame, because Trudeau can easily convince people he makes reasonable decisions based on the information that he is confronted with. And at the same time he can easily swat away the barrage of lies we are getting from the CPC.
Sometimes parties solve that by appointing a designated attack dog. The Liberals don’t seem to like this. Don’t know why.
I keep returning to the observation that replacing Trudeau represents a fundamental misread by the Liberals.
Their problems have nothing to do with Trudeau per se. It’s policy, or lack thereof, rather than personalities.
Replacing Trudeau without an accompanying sharp change in focus and priorities would be worse than useless and signal that the party fundamentally doesn’t get why their poll numbers are cratering.
And if you’re going to have a sharp change in policy, why not give that a try before replacing the leader?
Unless they frame it as needing to replace Trudeau in order to change policy? But that’s absolutely not the tone or messaging that’s currently surrounding the leadership discussion
Do you think that any of the constitutional or political changes that have happened since then, like the recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness in Canada, have had anything to do with it? If anything, it suggests that Pierre Trudeau's approach to Quebec (treating it exactly like all the other provinces) has by and large been a failure, particularly since Trudeau senior utterly failed to get his fellow Franco-Quebecois to abandon their nationalism.
Meanwhile, leaning towards the approach advocated by the André Laurendeaus, the Claude Ryans and even the Léons and Stéphane Dions (who wrote that the failure of Meech Lake was probably the worst constitutional error in Canadian history, and who said that we now have Meech's practical benefits without its symbolic benefits) of actually accepting the National Question to some extent has actually strengthened national unity. Pity most of the rest of Canada doesn't seem to recognize that (and I suspect the same would apply about a zillion times more to the Indigenous nations, but that's a rant for another day...)
You are intimating that any future leader needs to legislate, Quebecs interests first, the rest of the country later. That how we end up with the C-21 legislation unchallenged. Slippery slope that we are already well down.
Quebec, for better or worse, is the biggest jurisdiction in Canada that reliably votes based on who is paying attention them. That gives them an immense amount of power.
If Alberta had a Quebec voting culture, Trudeau buying the TMX pipeline would have turned the province red. The fact that the Liberals actually lost seats guaranteed that no party is going to care about Alberta for at least 20 years.
Leaders from all parties put Quebec interests first, because that reliably translates into seats. Leaders from all parties pay zero attention to Alberta and Saskatchewan interests because whether they do or not isn’t going to change any votes.
A couple of points. First, at the federal level, the Conservatives are not the Liberals' rivals, and haven't been for over a century. The opposition has shifted over time. When I was young, it was Real Caouette and the Creditistes. A fling with Jack Layton. And now for the last two decades, the Bloc. If the Liberals lose seats in Quebec, it won't be to the CPC. It will be to M. Blanchette. My guess is that the odds of that happening are high.
Just listen to Radio Canada and the way they make fun of Mr. Trudeau. It isn't the friendly kidding of one of their own. Rather, it is going after an Anglophone who happens to speak really good (but not perfect) French.
My second point is that Quebec Independence/Separation/whatever is off the table because Quebec has already, in effect, separated. They haven't separated legally, and there still is a monetary union and a free trade zone. But the people do not think of themselves as Canadians at all, not even as a second place. They are gone.
I'm betting on a minority government, of whatever stripe, with the Bloc holding the balance of power.
Carney while very intelligent, doesn’t have enough charisma for the job.
Yep. Carney is the consummate technocrat that you want to see a competent leader surround themselves with. I’d go so far as to say that the ability to surround themselves with people like Carney is a major indicator of a good leader.
Doesn’t mean they are good candidates to be leaders themselves
Definitely. I think Sean Fraser, while not ready yet, may be great. It would be nice to have n Easterner.
Carney needs to run for MP, ideally in a riding that is not necessarily Liberal friendly (just like Trudeau had to run in a Bloc stronghold). And when he is successful, and the Liberals form government, he can become a minister. And if the Liberals do not form government, he can run for the leadership while he is an MP. That’s the path.
In the meantime, I am really wondering why Trudeau is not putting up a fight. The past 4-5 days the CPC have been spreading one lie after the other about the government’s response. Trudeau should go on one of the political shows or hold a press conference and call them out. One by one. Instead he is touring the Northwest Territories to see the wildfire damage. That can wait, assuming you want to stop giving a pass to Poilievre’s bullshit parade.
Can you name any issues in the last eight years where Trudeau *has* put up a fight? I mean a public adversarial fight with a specific opponent? A premiere? Any of the various CPC leaders?
The guy is terminally conflict adverse. It’s not how he does business. He’ll react to broad public pressure but he’s walked away from every policy that would have required engaging a specific opposition
Vaccine mandates. He did not take the easy path that some other politicians took.
Carbon tax. It would be so easy say “let’s pause it while inflation is high”.
Buying a pipeline when it was easier to walk away.
Appoint independent senators that actually in some cases were unhelpful to his government’s agenda.
But I agree he appears to be avoiding picking a fight. And the current times are calling for it.
Right, but who would you list as the specific targets of those? You said he should go on the news and call people out. He doesn’t do that.
He’ll sometimes push through an issue, but he never engages specific opponents. Never makes a “they’re wrong because…” argument, just “I’m right because…” statements.
You are not wrong. And it is a shame, because Trudeau can easily convince people he makes reasonable decisions based on the information that he is confronted with. And at the same time he can easily swat away the barrage of lies we are getting from the CPC.
Sometimes parties solve that by appointing a designated attack dog. The Liberals don’t seem to like this. Don’t know why.
Good piece. As a former Montrealer this resonates quite well.
I keep returning to the observation that replacing Trudeau represents a fundamental misread by the Liberals.
Their problems have nothing to do with Trudeau per se. It’s policy, or lack thereof, rather than personalities.
Replacing Trudeau without an accompanying sharp change in focus and priorities would be worse than useless and signal that the party fundamentally doesn’t get why their poll numbers are cratering.
And if you’re going to have a sharp change in policy, why not give that a try before replacing the leader?
Unless they frame it as needing to replace Trudeau in order to change policy? But that’s absolutely not the tone or messaging that’s currently surrounding the leadership discussion
Do you think that any of the constitutional or political changes that have happened since then, like the recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness in Canada, have had anything to do with it? If anything, it suggests that Pierre Trudeau's approach to Quebec (treating it exactly like all the other provinces) has by and large been a failure, particularly since Trudeau senior utterly failed to get his fellow Franco-Quebecois to abandon their nationalism.
Meanwhile, leaning towards the approach advocated by the André Laurendeaus, the Claude Ryans and even the Léons and Stéphane Dions (who wrote that the failure of Meech Lake was probably the worst constitutional error in Canadian history, and who said that we now have Meech's practical benefits without its symbolic benefits) of actually accepting the National Question to some extent has actually strengthened national unity. Pity most of the rest of Canada doesn't seem to recognize that (and I suspect the same would apply about a zillion times more to the Indigenous nations, but that's a rant for another day...)
You are intimating that any future leader needs to legislate, Quebecs interests first, the rest of the country later. That how we end up with the C-21 legislation unchallenged. Slippery slope that we are already well down.
Quebec, for better or worse, is the biggest jurisdiction in Canada that reliably votes based on who is paying attention them. That gives them an immense amount of power.
If Alberta had a Quebec voting culture, Trudeau buying the TMX pipeline would have turned the province red. The fact that the Liberals actually lost seats guaranteed that no party is going to care about Alberta for at least 20 years.
Leaders from all parties put Quebec interests first, because that reliably translates into seats. Leaders from all parties pay zero attention to Alberta and Saskatchewan interests because whether they do or not isn’t going to change any votes.
Just a reality of Canadian politics
Thank you for the comments.
A couple of points. First, at the federal level, the Conservatives are not the Liberals' rivals, and haven't been for over a century. The opposition has shifted over time. When I was young, it was Real Caouette and the Creditistes. A fling with Jack Layton. And now for the last two decades, the Bloc. If the Liberals lose seats in Quebec, it won't be to the CPC. It will be to M. Blanchette. My guess is that the odds of that happening are high.
Just listen to Radio Canada and the way they make fun of Mr. Trudeau. It isn't the friendly kidding of one of their own. Rather, it is going after an Anglophone who happens to speak really good (but not perfect) French.
My second point is that Quebec Independence/Separation/whatever is off the table because Quebec has already, in effect, separated. They haven't separated legally, and there still is a monetary union and a free trade zone. But the people do not think of themselves as Canadians at all, not even as a second place. They are gone.
I'm betting on a minority government, of whatever stripe, with the Bloc holding the balance of power.