I think you're correct, but plenty of Liberals think that the main problem was Trudeau and that the party will have the best chance of bouncing back -- or at least not be in danger of extinction -- if it elects a smart, bilingual guy with an international reputation who presents well and has nothing to do with the current government. Checking all those boxes pretty much means Carney, especially if those party members calculate that running a Trudeau acolyte would leave nothing to revive.
And what political mover and shaker, say Pitfield or Butts, would sit out an election for their party's leader? Surely that's the place to start. Organizers organize. And party organizers want to organize for someone who they think is the best candidate for their party. In this case, it's Carney and he's the best shot now, which is really what counts most because the future is impossible to game out.
Like you, I expected that Carney would wait until more optimal conditions; i.e., after the election to "rescue" Canada after Poilievre does some damage.
However, it's not hard to imagine that Carney and his team now see a different calculus: that the risk of a Poilievre government, in the face of the Trump challenge to our economy, is too high. The time to step in is now, not later.
Trump's return has made Carney's commitment more urgent.
And Carney sounds genuinely troubled by Poilievre's lack of economic depth and experience.
His motivation is clear, his vision is long term, and his opportunity is now.
Of course, it's a huge gamble.
We shall see soon if he's got a better poker hand than you and the Conservatives think.
I’d like to see Carney do the work..run in a riding…learn the ropes.. anyone who wants to step into the biggest job in the land and hasn’t done those steps appears like an arrogant so and so to me. And we have enough of those already.
I admire Carbey- always have. He’s got the smarts, and I’ll bet the vision, but he doesn’t want to do the work. Warning bells there. Warning bells
Not sure the virtue of "time in the trenches" resonates like it used to though.
Social media insanity has truly scooped everything for the sheer joy of it, and who knew GUYS could be such toxic gossips? I guess it's like everything female; they've decided they want to OWN that now too.
It's a protracted backlash to feminism that's been fomenting since the sixties, especially among the millions righteous American Christians. True and patient martyrs, they finally got control of the Supreme Court, so got Project 2025 out there for the full frontal assault on secularism in society.
The arrogance of first being to slow to recognize the moment and leave for Trudeau, and then being too slow to recognize the moment and start for Carney... it's the same sense of entitlement that you get to choose the timing the works for you, when it's the needs and mood of the country that decides it. (And I like Trudeau.) Carney as leader will be another Ignatieff. And frankly, how embarrassing a loss to be parachuted in and fail badly; it would likely finish him in politics.
I mean heck, Justin Trudeau could have tried to parachute in as leader too, and that would have likely ended badly for him because no one likes a sense of entitlement in politicians. But instead, he ran in Papineau, at least showed some tacit acknowledgement of needing to show himself as paying his political dues before running for the top spot.
Let Carney take a seat elsewhere and let the next leader take a beating in this election. Then he can stage a coup from the inside, claim he didn't run for leader in 2025 because he wanted so more political experience first, and give him an air of being humble and wanting to serve instead of entitled and wanting only to lead.
There’s exactly two types of candidates where it makes sense to run right now. The first is the sort that thinks they have such a strong, broad, personal vision that they can stage a voter reset. The second is someone devoted to the good of the party who would be proud to be a sacrificial caretaker.
I don’t think Carney has shown signs of being either
The most obvious answer is he isn't sure he'll get another chance. The most obvious candidate for "take the hit and go away" (Leblanc) says he isn't running. If Freeland wins, I wouldn't count on her opening the path for him to take over later, esp given recent history.
Plus he has shown zero interest in joining caucus up to now, so the "take a seat and wait" approach may not even be on the table. Had he ran in St Paul and won, for example, the whole situation in the LPC would already look a lot different.
I believe that the criteria for success for the Liberal leadership race and eventual federal election will not be about who can distance him or herself the most from Trudeau. Or who can credibly offer radical ideas for change. Or who can save the most furniture.
The only thing that will matter is “who can best deal with Trump”. Nothing else will matter. This issue will be dominating everything else. Trump will not stop his 51st state nonsense. GOP senators, house representatives and governors will be reluctant to push back. We will have very little support in the US for the next two years at least.
Assuming that the Liberals will be able to stop “ratfucking” in the leadership race, registered Liberals will pick the leader who they think has the best answer against Trump. They will pick the leader who is the best in being “not American”.
I don’t know who that is in the group of potential candidates. I think you are looking for a Liberal version of Doug Ford.
I think you're correct, but plenty of Liberals think that the main problem was Trudeau and that the party will have the best chance of bouncing back -- or at least not be in danger of extinction -- if it elects a smart, bilingual guy with an international reputation who presents well and has nothing to do with the current government. Checking all those boxes pretty much means Carney, especially if those party members calculate that running a Trudeau acolyte would leave nothing to revive.
And what political mover and shaker, say Pitfield or Butts, would sit out an election for their party's leader? Surely that's the place to start. Organizers organize. And party organizers want to organize for someone who they think is the best candidate for their party. In this case, it's Carney and he's the best shot now, which is really what counts most because the future is impossible to game out.
Like you, I expected that Carney would wait until more optimal conditions; i.e., after the election to "rescue" Canada after Poilievre does some damage.
However, it's not hard to imagine that Carney and his team now see a different calculus: that the risk of a Poilievre government, in the face of the Trump challenge to our economy, is too high. The time to step in is now, not later.
Trump's return has made Carney's commitment more urgent.
And Carney sounds genuinely troubled by Poilievre's lack of economic depth and experience.
His motivation is clear, his vision is long term, and his opportunity is now.
Of course, it's a huge gamble.
We shall see soon if he's got a better poker hand than you and the Conservatives think.
I’d like to see Carney do the work..run in a riding…learn the ropes.. anyone who wants to step into the biggest job in the land and hasn’t done those steps appears like an arrogant so and so to me. And we have enough of those already.
I admire Carbey- always have. He’s got the smarts, and I’ll bet the vision, but he doesn’t want to do the work. Warning bells there. Warning bells
I’ve watched a couple of Mark Carneys interviews - and I’m going to say I have changed my mind.
Carney is eminently experienced and looks like he can hold his own anytime and anywhere.
He has done the work and the some.
He’d bring quality to any job he pursues.
He definitely has my vote.
Warning bells have been silenced.
🔕
Not sure the virtue of "time in the trenches" resonates like it used to though.
Social media insanity has truly scooped everything for the sheer joy of it, and who knew GUYS could be such toxic gossips? I guess it's like everything female; they've decided they want to OWN that now too.
It's a protracted backlash to feminism that's been fomenting since the sixties, especially among the millions righteous American Christians. True and patient martyrs, they finally got control of the Supreme Court, so got Project 2025 out there for the full frontal assault on secularism in society.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/02/new-apostolic-reformation-christian-movement-trump/681092/?utm_campaign=one-story-to-read-today&utm_content=20250109&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&lctg=6050e3134c8a1e4095ed3a52&utm_term=One%20Story%20to%20Read%20Today
Will people please stop suggesting a female version of Harper ever be a candidate for the Liberal leadership? Christy Clark is NOT a Liberal.
The arrogance of first being to slow to recognize the moment and leave for Trudeau, and then being too slow to recognize the moment and start for Carney... it's the same sense of entitlement that you get to choose the timing the works for you, when it's the needs and mood of the country that decides it. (And I like Trudeau.) Carney as leader will be another Ignatieff. And frankly, how embarrassing a loss to be parachuted in and fail badly; it would likely finish him in politics.
I mean heck, Justin Trudeau could have tried to parachute in as leader too, and that would have likely ended badly for him because no one likes a sense of entitlement in politicians. But instead, he ran in Papineau, at least showed some tacit acknowledgement of needing to show himself as paying his political dues before running for the top spot.
Let Carney take a seat elsewhere and let the next leader take a beating in this election. Then he can stage a coup from the inside, claim he didn't run for leader in 2025 because he wanted so more political experience first, and give him an air of being humble and wanting to serve instead of entitled and wanting only to lead.
There’s exactly two types of candidates where it makes sense to run right now. The first is the sort that thinks they have such a strong, broad, personal vision that they can stage a voter reset. The second is someone devoted to the good of the party who would be proud to be a sacrificial caretaker.
I don’t think Carney has shown signs of being either
The most obvious answer is he isn't sure he'll get another chance. The most obvious candidate for "take the hit and go away" (Leblanc) says he isn't running. If Freeland wins, I wouldn't count on her opening the path for him to take over later, esp given recent history.
Plus he has shown zero interest in joining caucus up to now, so the "take a seat and wait" approach may not even be on the table. Had he ran in St Paul and won, for example, the whole situation in the LPC would already look a lot different.
I believe that the criteria for success for the Liberal leadership race and eventual federal election will not be about who can distance him or herself the most from Trudeau. Or who can credibly offer radical ideas for change. Or who can save the most furniture.
The only thing that will matter is “who can best deal with Trump”. Nothing else will matter. This issue will be dominating everything else. Trump will not stop his 51st state nonsense. GOP senators, house representatives and governors will be reluctant to push back. We will have very little support in the US for the next two years at least.
Assuming that the Liberals will be able to stop “ratfucking” in the leadership race, registered Liberals will pick the leader who they think has the best answer against Trump. They will pick the leader who is the best in being “not American”.
I don’t know who that is in the group of potential candidates. I think you are looking for a Liberal version of Doug Ford.
Only America(or Walmart,(as Brittlestar calls it), considers the top job as being an entry level position.
"Chicks?"
You're right.... Carney at this time is a loser....big time...