Respectfully this column is fantasy based politics. Carney is not like Trump or Ford. He doesn’t come across as an authentic person who relates to the average Joe. He looks and speaks like an AI program was asked to design a Laurentian elite snob.
Will he explain how much money he has, invested in what industries, and what conflicts of interest he has accordingly?
He will be asked if he is willing to relinquish his British citizenship and if he commits to running for a seat in the commons and staying in that role even if he’s the leader of the third party. Will he say yes? Would you believe him if he did?
Why has he waited this long to come out publicly in support of the party? What cynical positioning lies behind that?
Etc.
This will be Ignatieff 2.0. It completely misreads the mood of the country and fails to understand why PP is nearing 50% in opinion polls.
I agree. It’s theoretically possible for someone in Carney’s position to run the necessary campaign. I’ve seen exactly zero evidence that Carney is capable of running that campaign. On a personal or strategic level.
If he had any inclination or talents towards being a win-at-all-costs chameleon, it would have left a mark somewhere in his career
I actually think Trudeau’s 2015 campaign was a great example of a successful elitist campaign. He struck a good message of “we need to reinvest”. A system that needed to be built up, not torn down
I think that would be a much harder message to sell right now. Hard to “build up” without doubling down on policies that are explicitly unpopular
Evan you know a lot more about liberal internal politics than I do and I defer to your judgment. I just mean that the mood of the country is very hostile to someone like Carney and I fear he is everything the liberals DON’T want. Maybe I’m wrong. Time will tell.
You argue that Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage should not be considered populists. Given their education and work background I agree but I offer just one rejoinder: Perhaps they are viewed that way because they listened to the populace and designed their respective policies based on what they learned through that listening.
Certainly, the Face Painter did not and still does not listen to the populace. Whatever you think of him (and I know your thoughts are negative), PP has been reflecting the issues of the populace. You can agree or disagree on his prescriptions but he is considered by many to be reflecting their concerns. Again, you can agree or disagree with that superficial analysis but that is a common perception.
Which brings me to Carney. He is certainly a smart guy but I have to ask whether he is likely to be able to convey the idea that he understands or feels the concerns of the general populace. When thinking about that issue I am reminded of a smart aleck remark about Carney: "If you look in the dictionary to get a definition of the 'Laurentian elite' you see Carney's high school year book picture."
That quote is perhaps cruel but it does convey the image that he presents to many of us. Put differently, does he truly understand me or you or other "average" Canadians? I suggest that that is his Achilles heel. A fatal thing? I don't know but it should be considered by supporters.
The difference is that Trump/Ford/Johnson lean into their wealth/privilege to varying degrees. It makes them authentic vs Carney who will be trying to be “everyman”. He is simply inauthentic.
I hope it is clear to all the commentators who were demanding Trudeau’s head (and Freeland and Carney who refused to step up when Trudeau asked them) that they own what happens next.
A competition between a limited set of uninspiring candidates? You asked for it. Not enough time to introduce a new leader to the public? You asked for it. A failure to save the furniture? You cannot complain about this anymore should this happen.
You don’t get to do Trudeau propaganda without accepting that had I been listened to from the start we’d have had months to do this race and have a full contest
It is a minority government and it does not control the date for the next election. The opposition could always trigger an election faster than the Liberals could organize a full leadership race.
Trudeau had to go because it had been clear for a while now that he was no longer capable of doing the job. It’s now up to the party to replace the leader as many times as is necessary until they find someone who can
That’s fine. It is perfectly reasonable to have the opinion that dumping Trudeau and a rushed leadership campaign is a better (less bad) option than supporting Trudeau into an election and let the chips fall where they may fall.
But it is a choice between two scenarios. When you pick your preferred scenario (dump Trudeau vs. keep Trudeau), it comes with both positives and negatives.
Elizabeth, you ask, "Will he be enough for Quebec?"
Perhaps you can ask instead if he will be enough for Alberta or British Columbia or Saskatchewan or Manitoba. Personally, I think that we in the West should get every bit as much attention as la belle province. Or more, perhaps, given that our combined population is almost fifty per cent greater than that of Quebec.
Or, perhaps, is it that in your mind Quebec is the only province that matters?
I was speaking in terms of retaining Liberal seats. Alberta has always been a lost cause and Saskatchewan as well. I live in Alberta but I’ve never felt represented federally, even when Conservatives were in power. Harper talked a good game but never did anything for Alberta, unless you think that selling off the wheat board was a good idea. If you aren’t a Liberal, what do you care who becomes leader, as the media has already crowned our next PM?
Elizabeth, I also am an Albertan; in fact, an Albertan and a Canadian only by accident of birth.
I agree, I am not and have never been (well except a few particular years in the past) represented federally.
As for the Liberals, at one time the did reasonably well in Alberta and Saskatchewan (Mackenzie King represented Prince Alberta from 1928 to 1945; Margaret Sinclair's - she of T1, mother of T2 - father was a big time Liberal from Saskatchewan). Ancient history, I know, but it indicates how far they have moved from being a federal party to being a Central Canada party.
And, as for the LPC leadership race, I pay attention simply because those are the dogs with their foot on out necks. [Sorry for the mixed metaphor] Therefore we have to worry about their actions until they can be taken out and shot. [Not metaphorical, I hope!]
The unfortunate reality of current life online is that "letting your dislike get ahead of you," even if it's been mostly "algorithmed" (maybe especially then), is where most people ARE now.
That was what Trudeau rightly said in his recent interview with Jake Tapper, that people's oddly avid opinions of him were based more on emotion than facts.
I heard this from the interviewer on "West Block" who also added smugly that THAT was a matter of opinion, i.e. like ALL the main media journalists do now, including those on CBC (AND Jagmeet Singh, WTF?!) who have open contempt for Trudeau. And even now that he's finally been driven out, it's like he can't even do THAT right! It's truly irrational, like everyoneNat is completely brainwashed and despite the various crises, they still have to keep slagging him. (Rosemary Barton has been relentless in this for years, and yet today on her show, she also pointed out that in the context of all the crises, despite being asked, NO CONSERVATIVE was willing to come on.)
Speaking of "flipping the script," what I find very interesting as a woman is noting how vicious gossip used to be our exclusive domain.
Turns out that it's men who are THE WORST.
Nate Erskine-Smith did a good interview on Barton's show today though, pointing out in a very competent if understated fashion just how undervalued "competence" is in government now, particularly when contrasted with the braying intransigence preferred by those "across the aisle."
He used that phrase several times instead of calling them out by name, my only quibble because we all know now that repetition is gold.
Carney's an Alberta boy too don't forget. Sheila Copps was on West Block and declared Karina Gould to be HER favorite over Chrystia, interesting but also made sense; the latter being simply too condescending, a finger-wagging slow-talker. Haven't heard much about Gould but she does have two very young kids....
If Carney promises to "fix it" cause he knows how, he'll be lying and should be disbelieved. Canada has never stood alone and can't, especially in this day and age. If he says he thinks he can do a bit of buffering and insulating of Canadians then maybe I'd listen but with great skepticism given the rarified world from which he comes.
I think one argument in favor of Mark Carney can be summed up in two words Keir Starmer. The difference is Starmer became leader of his party when it was heading out of the wilderness whereas the Canadian Liberals and Carney are walking in not out. On the other hand going into the wilderness if often a choice not a necessity. UK Labour would have not gone into the wilderness in the same way if David Milliband was chosen instead of Ed and if anyone was choosen over Corbyn. Canadian Liberals face a similar choice right now.
I still believe the Liberals are going to get slaughtered. And, I'm a lifelong Liberal. Realistically, I think we need to focus on limiting the size of the loss in order to protect some of the progress that has been made. Cut off the arm to save the body.
None of the current cabinet can survive the attacks that will be launched due to their participation in the current government. I think an outsider or someone outsider-ish enough with no taint is needed. Someone who really changes the channel.
I was thinking about someone like Tobias Lütke... a younger, successful business person whose achievements (Shopify) could be compared dramatically with Poilievre's entire career as a taxpayer supported pol with a gold-plated, lifetime pension. No idea if he would want to run but...
When Frank Baylis announced I thought he might fit the bill. Successful billionaire business person. He can ask PP what he was doing all the years I was creating a successful Canadian business. He can ask PP what he knows about creating growth, jobs and wealth. One-time Liberal elected in Quebec who speaks French.
A guy like Baylis can take a Blue Liberal stance without being tied to the current government. For example, he can make the case to eliminate the deficit in two years (yes, that means spending cuts), pay down the debt, immediately introduce growth policies for business, immediately cut income taxes for lower income people (carbon tax offset for those who really need it), freeze the carbon tax until we get the economy sorted, invest in our military, etc. He can even put the brakes on immigration until we absorb what we have.
Cutting off the arm to save the body (dental, daycare, healthcare, etc.)
Let the Conservatives vote against a Blue Liberal budget, trigger an election, and run against that Blue Liberal budget.
My working definition for “Elite” in the modern political age is: Someone who is invested in the current political and economic establishment, and believes it is working as intended.
It has nothing to do with education, wealth, or social status. If the most blue-collar working politician goes out there and says the system is performing well, they’re going to come across as elitist. If a highly educated, wealthy politician says the system is failing most people and needs radical changes, they’re going to come across as anti-establishment, regardless of how much they’ve benefited from it.
It’s going to be very, very difficult for Carney to make a credible case that he doesn’t support the basic structure of the current system. Partly because, even if he wants to, the very premise is going to cause a huge amount of the Liberal insider base to freak out. But the Liberals aren’t going to leave the wilderness until they internalize the idea that most people don’t feel like the system is working for most people. Maybe that leader is Carney, maybe it isn’t
Singh’s inability to sell that is a big reason the NDP is floundering.
Why does everyone automatically blame the government for everything in this capitalist system instead of the outsized influence of never-bigger and never-greedier corporations in the context of affordability, OR the game-changing societal effects of big tech in particular?
Respectfully this column is fantasy based politics. Carney is not like Trump or Ford. He doesn’t come across as an authentic person who relates to the average Joe. He looks and speaks like an AI program was asked to design a Laurentian elite snob.
Will he explain how much money he has, invested in what industries, and what conflicts of interest he has accordingly?
He will be asked if he is willing to relinquish his British citizenship and if he commits to running for a seat in the commons and staying in that role even if he’s the leader of the third party. Will he say yes? Would you believe him if he did?
Why has he waited this long to come out publicly in support of the party? What cynical positioning lies behind that?
Etc.
This will be Ignatieff 2.0. It completely misreads the mood of the country and fails to understand why PP is nearing 50% in opinion polls.
Absolute disaster.
I agree. It’s theoretically possible for someone in Carney’s position to run the necessary campaign. I’ve seen exactly zero evidence that Carney is capable of running that campaign. On a personal or strategic level.
If he had any inclination or talents towards being a win-at-all-costs chameleon, it would have left a mark somewhere in his career
How many people expected the 2015 campaign from Trudeau to be as successful as it was? (Not a guarantee, but)
I actually think Trudeau’s 2015 campaign was a great example of a successful elitist campaign. He struck a good message of “we need to reinvest”. A system that needed to be built up, not torn down
I think that would be a much harder message to sell right now. Hard to “build up” without doubling down on policies that are explicitly unpopular
Evan you know a lot more about liberal internal politics than I do and I defer to your judgment. I just mean that the mood of the country is very hostile to someone like Carney and I fear he is everything the liberals DON’T want. Maybe I’m wrong. Time will tell.
You argue that Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage should not be considered populists. Given their education and work background I agree but I offer just one rejoinder: Perhaps they are viewed that way because they listened to the populace and designed their respective policies based on what they learned through that listening.
Certainly, the Face Painter did not and still does not listen to the populace. Whatever you think of him (and I know your thoughts are negative), PP has been reflecting the issues of the populace. You can agree or disagree on his prescriptions but he is considered by many to be reflecting their concerns. Again, you can agree or disagree with that superficial analysis but that is a common perception.
Which brings me to Carney. He is certainly a smart guy but I have to ask whether he is likely to be able to convey the idea that he understands or feels the concerns of the general populace. When thinking about that issue I am reminded of a smart aleck remark about Carney: "If you look in the dictionary to get a definition of the 'Laurentian elite' you see Carney's high school year book picture."
That quote is perhaps cruel but it does convey the image that he presents to many of us. Put differently, does he truly understand me or you or other "average" Canadians? I suggest that that is his Achilles heel. A fatal thing? I don't know but it should be considered by supporters.
The difference is that Trump/Ford/Johnson lean into their wealth/privilege to varying degrees. It makes them authentic vs Carney who will be trying to be “everyman”. He is simply inauthentic.
I hope it is clear to all the commentators who were demanding Trudeau’s head (and Freeland and Carney who refused to step up when Trudeau asked them) that they own what happens next.
A competition between a limited set of uninspiring candidates? You asked for it. Not enough time to introduce a new leader to the public? You asked for it. A failure to save the furniture? You cannot complain about this anymore should this happen.
You don’t get to do Trudeau propaganda without accepting that had I been listened to from the start we’d have had months to do this race and have a full contest
It is a minority government and it does not control the date for the next election. The opposition could always trigger an election faster than the Liberals could organize a full leadership race.
Trudeau had to go because it had been clear for a while now that he was no longer capable of doing the job. It’s now up to the party to replace the leader as many times as is necessary until they find someone who can
That’s fine. It is perfectly reasonable to have the opinion that dumping Trudeau and a rushed leadership campaign is a better (less bad) option than supporting Trudeau into an election and let the chips fall where they may fall.
But it is a choice between two scenarios. When you pick your preferred scenario (dump Trudeau vs. keep Trudeau), it comes with both positives and negatives.
I think that at this point, we have to be open to believing what he is saying. Will it be enough? Will he be enough for Quebec? I don’t know.
Elizabeth, you ask, "Will he be enough for Quebec?"
Perhaps you can ask instead if he will be enough for Alberta or British Columbia or Saskatchewan or Manitoba. Personally, I think that we in the West should get every bit as much attention as la belle province. Or more, perhaps, given that our combined population is almost fifty per cent greater than that of Quebec.
Or, perhaps, is it that in your mind Quebec is the only province that matters?
I was speaking in terms of retaining Liberal seats. Alberta has always been a lost cause and Saskatchewan as well. I live in Alberta but I’ve never felt represented federally, even when Conservatives were in power. Harper talked a good game but never did anything for Alberta, unless you think that selling off the wheat board was a good idea. If you aren’t a Liberal, what do you care who becomes leader, as the media has already crowned our next PM?
Elizabeth, I also am an Albertan; in fact, an Albertan and a Canadian only by accident of birth.
I agree, I am not and have never been (well except a few particular years in the past) represented federally.
As for the Liberals, at one time the did reasonably well in Alberta and Saskatchewan (Mackenzie King represented Prince Alberta from 1928 to 1945; Margaret Sinclair's - she of T1, mother of T2 - father was a big time Liberal from Saskatchewan). Ancient history, I know, but it indicates how far they have moved from being a federal party to being a Central Canada party.
And, as for the LPC leadership race, I pay attention simply because those are the dogs with their foot on out necks. [Sorry for the mixed metaphor] Therefore we have to worry about their actions until they can be taken out and shot. [Not metaphorical, I hope!]
The unfortunate reality of current life online is that "letting your dislike get ahead of you," even if it's been mostly "algorithmed" (maybe especially then), is where most people ARE now.
That was what Trudeau rightly said in his recent interview with Jake Tapper, that people's oddly avid opinions of him were based more on emotion than facts.
I heard this from the interviewer on "West Block" who also added smugly that THAT was a matter of opinion, i.e. like ALL the main media journalists do now, including those on CBC (AND Jagmeet Singh, WTF?!) who have open contempt for Trudeau. And even now that he's finally been driven out, it's like he can't even do THAT right! It's truly irrational, like everyoneNat is completely brainwashed and despite the various crises, they still have to keep slagging him. (Rosemary Barton has been relentless in this for years, and yet today on her show, she also pointed out that in the context of all the crises, despite being asked, NO CONSERVATIVE was willing to come on.)
Speaking of "flipping the script," what I find very interesting as a woman is noting how vicious gossip used to be our exclusive domain.
Turns out that it's men who are THE WORST.
Nate Erskine-Smith did a good interview on Barton's show today though, pointing out in a very competent if understated fashion just how undervalued "competence" is in government now, particularly when contrasted with the braying intransigence preferred by those "across the aisle."
He used that phrase several times instead of calling them out by name, my only quibble because we all know now that repetition is gold.
Carney's an Alberta boy too don't forget. Sheila Copps was on West Block and declared Karina Gould to be HER favorite over Chrystia, interesting but also made sense; the latter being simply too condescending, a finger-wagging slow-talker. Haven't heard much about Gould but she does have two very young kids....
Let's dig into "elites."
When, exactly, have Canadians NOT been deferential to elites?
Covid may have cracked this trust in our system, but are we really poised to overturn the richest 20 families who own Canada?
Raised in the NWT and Edmonton, Carney studied and worked his way up into wealthy circles.
How is this a bad story?
Was Chretien an elitist?
Harper, too, rose on merit. He was a rather nerdy, zero charisma guy. He was in there for 9 years. He won because people trusted his competence.
And please do look up Carney's high school yearbook photo - from St Francis Xavier -- a public Edmonton Catholic high school.
If Carney promises to "fix it" cause he knows how, he'll be lying and should be disbelieved. Canada has never stood alone and can't, especially in this day and age. If he says he thinks he can do a bit of buffering and insulating of Canadians then maybe I'd listen but with great skepticism given the rarified world from which he comes.
I think one argument in favor of Mark Carney can be summed up in two words Keir Starmer. The difference is Starmer became leader of his party when it was heading out of the wilderness whereas the Canadian Liberals and Carney are walking in not out. On the other hand going into the wilderness if often a choice not a necessity. UK Labour would have not gone into the wilderness in the same way if David Milliband was chosen instead of Ed and if anyone was choosen over Corbyn. Canadian Liberals face a similar choice right now.
I still believe the Liberals are going to get slaughtered. And, I'm a lifelong Liberal. Realistically, I think we need to focus on limiting the size of the loss in order to protect some of the progress that has been made. Cut off the arm to save the body.
None of the current cabinet can survive the attacks that will be launched due to their participation in the current government. I think an outsider or someone outsider-ish enough with no taint is needed. Someone who really changes the channel.
I was thinking about someone like Tobias Lütke... a younger, successful business person whose achievements (Shopify) could be compared dramatically with Poilievre's entire career as a taxpayer supported pol with a gold-plated, lifetime pension. No idea if he would want to run but...
When Frank Baylis announced I thought he might fit the bill. Successful billionaire business person. He can ask PP what he was doing all the years I was creating a successful Canadian business. He can ask PP what he knows about creating growth, jobs and wealth. One-time Liberal elected in Quebec who speaks French.
A guy like Baylis can take a Blue Liberal stance without being tied to the current government. For example, he can make the case to eliminate the deficit in two years (yes, that means spending cuts), pay down the debt, immediately introduce growth policies for business, immediately cut income taxes for lower income people (carbon tax offset for those who really need it), freeze the carbon tax until we get the economy sorted, invest in our military, etc. He can even put the brakes on immigration until we absorb what we have.
Cutting off the arm to save the body (dental, daycare, healthcare, etc.)
Let the Conservatives vote against a Blue Liberal budget, trigger an election, and run against that Blue Liberal budget.
My working definition for “Elite” in the modern political age is: Someone who is invested in the current political and economic establishment, and believes it is working as intended.
It has nothing to do with education, wealth, or social status. If the most blue-collar working politician goes out there and says the system is performing well, they’re going to come across as elitist. If a highly educated, wealthy politician says the system is failing most people and needs radical changes, they’re going to come across as anti-establishment, regardless of how much they’ve benefited from it.
It’s going to be very, very difficult for Carney to make a credible case that he doesn’t support the basic structure of the current system. Partly because, even if he wants to, the very premise is going to cause a huge amount of the Liberal insider base to freak out. But the Liberals aren’t going to leave the wilderness until they internalize the idea that most people don’t feel like the system is working for most people. Maybe that leader is Carney, maybe it isn’t
Singh’s inability to sell that is a big reason the NDP is floundering.
Why does everyone automatically blame the government for everything in this capitalist system instead of the outsized influence of never-bigger and never-greedier corporations in the context of affordability, OR the game-changing societal effects of big tech in particular?