[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

I know Mark Carney is a smart guy, and very capable, but he really strikes me as Michael Ignatieff v 2.0 as a federal politician.

I mean you can pretty much just copy and paste the opposition ads from Ignatieff's era.

[viper37]

I know Mark Carney is a smart guy, and very capable, but he really strikes me as Michael Ignatieff v 2.0 as a federal politician.

I mean you can pretty much just copy and paste the opposition ads from Ignatieff's era.

I know the Cons are going to try that, especially with Poilièvre.

But I don't think it's going to stick with Carney, he seems harder to destabilize than Ignatieff was.

It's still the Libs, mind you.

I don't think he'll run right now anyway, he'll wait for Trudeau to get defeated first.

[crazy canuck]

I know Mark Carney is a smart guy, and very capable, but he really strikes me as Michael Ignatieff v 2.0 as a federal politician.

I mean you can pretty much just copy and paste the opposition ads from Ignatieff's era.

That might work for people who don't remember that he was the governor of the bank of Canada.

edit: I did not have time this morning to explain why that fact is important.  The smear campaign against Ignatieff worked because Canadians had no idea who he was (outside of academics in his area of expertise).  Carney is in a very different position.  He was a long serving and well respected personality within Canada and he became a household name during his time  at the bank of Canada.  Not to mention the further exposure he got when he went on to perform that role in England. 

As a result there is no blank slate on which the Conservatives can create their own characterization.  His reputation is already well established.

[Barrister]

I know Mark Carney is a smart guy, and very capable, but he really strikes me as Michael Ignatieff v 2.0 as a federal politician.

I mean you can pretty much just copy and paste the opposition ads from Ignatieff's era.

That might work for people who don't remember that he was the governor of the bank of Canada.

edit: I did not have time this morning to explain why that fact is important.  The smear campaign against Ignatieff worked because Canadians had no idea who he was (outside of academics in his area of expertise).  Carney is in a very different position.  He was a long serving and well respected personality within Canada and he became a household name during his time  at the bank of Canada.  Not to mention the further exposure he got when he went on to perform that role in England. 

As a result there is no blank slate on which the Conservatives can create their own characterization.  His reputation is already well established.

What the hell, I'll engage against my better judgment.

The average Canadian has no idea who the governor of the Bank of Canada is, or what that person does.  Hell I had to google who the existing governor is (Tiff Macklem), and I do know what the Bank of Canada does.

Even beyond that though, he was last Governor in 2013 - over a decade ago.  Even putting aside his time as Governor of the Bank of England a lot of his career has been spent outside of Canada, with studying at Harvard and Oxford, his time with Goldman Sachs.  Even since stepping down from the Bank of England it's not clear to me where Carney spends most of his time - as he has roles with the UN, with Canadian companies, and also roles in the UK.

Look - he's very clearly a very smart man (as is Ignatieff).  He's very clearly much smarter than both Trudeau or Poilievre.  It's maybe unfortunate that someone with as powerful a resume as Carney's would be so easy to attack - but I think history shows it would be very easy to attack him using the same lines as Ignatieff.

[crazy canuck]

What the hell, I'll engage against my better judgment.

I stopped reading after this.

If you want to have a civil discussion.  Don't start it by being uncivil.

[Jacob]

Time will tell. Maybe. If Carney gets into that position.

My thoughts are:

• While Carney may be easy to attack, the operative question is whether he'll be easier to attack than Trudeau.
• If voters care about the economy, someone with significant economic credibility may be an asset; especially since Poilievre still comes across as mostly fluff and little substance on that topic.
• While the Conservative line of attack on Carney might be similar to the line of attack on Ignatieff, the key issue is how well Carney responds to it - and I don't think we have any real evidence there yet.
• There are differences both in the political moment and in the resumes. Ignatieff is an academic and public intellectual, Carney is from the world of finance. That has very different vibes, even if it happened outside of Canada. "Harvard Academic" and "Head of the Bank of England while it weathered a significant crisis" sound very different to my ears (not to mention "Head of the Bank of Canada while it weathered a significant crisis").
• Poilievre's main advantage in my eyes is Trudeau-fatigue, and his main strategy is vibes based attacks and "everything sucks, right? We'll do things differently!" Seems to me that the most useful Conservative line of attack would be attempts to link Carney with Trudeau and claim "more of the same", rather than "this guy is an outsider", which would play right into Carney's likely play of depicting himself as a hard reset for the current Liberal establishment.

That said... isn't it kind of academic at this point? Is there any real chance that Trudeau is going to step down?

[Sheilbh]

Time will tell. Maybe. If Carney gets into that position.

I agree with those points.

I think they point to a wider issue/point which is that it's really difficult to tell how an outsider to politics (as opposed to policy or administration) will do when they move into politics. In Presidential systems you at least have electoral stages where they as an individual are sort of tested on that. I think it's more difficult in a parliamentary system.

I would also slightly add that I cannot of many jobs in government that are more different than central banker and Prime Minister (far less Leader of the Opposition).

One other slight thing aside from Canada, is I wouldn't say I'm anti-Carney but I'm aware I'll come across at least as starchily conservative on this. He endorsed Labour in a video message at their conference last year - and I think it's absolutely inappropriate for a former head of the BofE. It's a bit like the recent trend of BBC journalists leaving to set up their own podcasts, or senior civil servants publishing books after retirement giving their views on policy and politicians they worked for.

I think it's really corrosive both to public trust in the independence and impartiality of independent, impartial institutions, but also within the institutions themselves. Will (elected) politicians be able to be open, rely on and trust senior civil servants and central bankers if the expectation is they're either going to publish a tell-all (with themselves as hero) or get involved in politics. I think if you're at the top of those institutions you need to have a little bit of a self-denying ordinance about it - or I think there's a risk where you end up with an American system of perceived politicisation of institutions, without American patronage powers.

[viper37]

Hell I had to google who the existing governor is (Tiff Macklem), and I do know what the Bank of Canada does.

You've already made the decision to vote PP, but you don't know who Tiff Macklem is?

C'mon BB.  I like you, but you have to be serious here.

PP has been drumming that the BoC has been managed by an incompetent.  That BitCoin would save us from inflation.  And politicized man like you does not know Tiff Macklem?



Why do you even support Poilièvre?

Even beyond that though, he was last Governor in 2013 - over a decade ago.  Even putting aside his time as Governor of the Bank of England a lot of his career has been spent outside of Canada, with studying at Harvard and Oxford, his time with Goldman Sachs.  Even since stepping down from the Bank of England it's not clear to me where Carney spends most of his time - as he has roles with the UN, with Canadian companies, and also roles in the UK.

I like our Universities.  I won't snob them.

But nobody gets to be governor of the Bank of Canada with a Master of Finance from the University of Sherbrooke or by studying economics at University of Ottawa.


Look at the resume of all of these governors.  All of them, since the beginning.  Look at the top executives from GS.  Which one studies in a US Community College?  US CC are apparently very good and provide good career opportunities.  But they don't lead to a path at one of the top banks in the US.

And I don't think he could have worked at the Bank of England if he hadn't studied at Oxford.  Simple as that.  British and Americans tend to be much more elitists than we are about universities for these top jobs.  

Only our first governor was a graduate of McGill, I think.  All of them studied abroad and worked abroad.

I would invite you to look again more closely at Mark Carney's career, the part where he worked for GS' Toronto office, and then for the Government of Canada.

When it comes to economics and finance, this is the man I put my Faith on.  Not the man who says Tiff Macklem is incompetent and the CA$ should be replaced by BitCoins.

Now, there are other issues too.  Like I said, it's the Liberal Party.

[viper37]

That said... isn't it kind of academic at this point? Is there any real chance that Trudeau is going to step down?

Not a chance.

He will be pushed out or he will lose the election.

According to Liberal insiders, what they're aiming at is going into the election with Trudeau, let him lose, then replace him with their favorite candidate. 

Could be Carney, could be someone else too.

[Barrister]

What the hell, I'll engage against my better judgment.

I stopped reading after this.

If you want to have a civil discussion.  Don't start it by being uncivil.

Thanks for confirming my instincts.

[Barrister]

Time will tell. Maybe. If Carney gets into that position.

My thoughts are:

• While Carney may be easy to attack, the operative question is whether he'll be easier to attack than Trudeau.
• If voters care about the economy, someone with significant economic credibility may be an asset; especially since Poilievre still comes across as mostly fluff and little substance on that topic.
• While the Conservative line of attack on Carney might be similar to the line of attack on Ignatieff, the key issue is how well Carney responds to it - and I don't think we have any real evidence there yet.
• There are differences both in the political moment and in the resumes. Ignatieff is an academic and public intellectual, Carney is from the world of finance. That has very different vibes, even if it happened outside of Canada. "Harvard Academic" and "Head of the Bank of England while it weathered a significant crisis" sound very different to my ears (not to mention "Head of the Bank of Canada while it weathered a significant crisis").
• Poilievre's main advantage in my eyes is Trudeau-fatigue, and his main strategy is vibes based attacks and "everything sucks, right? We'll do things differently!" Seems to me that the most useful Conservative line of attack would be attempts to link Carney with Trudeau and claim "more of the same", rather than "this guy is an outsider", which would play right into Carney's likely play of depicting himself as a hard reset for the current Liberal establishment.

That said... isn't it kind of academic at this point? Is there any real chance that Trudeau is going to step down?

Starting with the last point:

https://338canada.com/federal.htm

Current projections are 41% Conservative, 25% Liberal, 17% NDP.  Polls since the budget have not been helpful for the Liberals.  The Projections is 98% chance of a Conservative majority, <2% of a Conservative minority, <1% of a Liberal government.  So yes it's certainly possible Trudeau steps down - his father did after all (twice!).

As for your specific questions:

1. Would Carney be easier to attack than Trudeau?  Potentially so - he'd not only be tied to the past government, but also attacked personally.  Trudeau certainly has his record to defend, but Canadians have seemed to accept his personal foibles (drama teacher, blackface, etc).

2. the economy.  I think this is somewhat sad, but I see little evidence voters value a resume.  Voting has always been as much or more an emotional decision.

3. One of the tag lines against Ignatieff was "he didn't come back for you".  So I mean fair enough that we don't know how Carney would respond to that kind of criticism - but how do you respond to that kind of criticism?  Is there a good response to that kind of attack?

4. Difference in resumes.  As I mentioned, I don't think most people could really name what the Bank of Canada (or Bank of England) even does.  I think most voters would look at both Ignatieff and Carney and just see "egghead".

5. I absolutely agree that Poilievre's main appeal is just not being Trudeau - there's no Poilevre-mania sweeping the country.  But I think Mark Carney would have a really hard time portraying himself as a "hard reset" of Liberal government since he's hardly an outside to the corridors of power.


Fundamentally though - the problem with Mark Carney is he isn't a politician.  He hasn't done the rubber chicken circuit for years.  He hasn't shaken hands and kissed babies.  He's like the last two leaders - he's seen as a new face who can save the Liberal party.  And to be fair it worked one time - Justin Trudeau.  And it failed the other time - Ignatieff.  I just think a Mark Carney leadership would be much more like Ignatieff and a lot less like Trudeau.

[Jacob]

I don't think Carney would be slam dunk, that's for sure. He'd have an uphill battle for all the reasons you say. He seems the best option for the Liberals right now, but it might take them from a <1% for a Liberal government to a 5% chance.

[Barrister]

I don't think Carney would be slam dunk, that's for sure. He'd have an uphill battle for all the reasons you say. He seems the best option for the Liberals right now, but it might take them from a <1% for a Liberal government to a 5% chance.

See, I think for the Liberals the best option would be to quit looking for a savior figure.  Elect Freeland, or whomever, and dedicate yourself to making sure the next Conservative government is a one-and-done.  Promote yourself as being a distinct ideology and distinct party.  Freely acknowledging this is the advice of a Conservative partisan, but advice that is nonetheless genuinely given.

Edit:  Not that  expect the Liberals to actually concede the next election.  In a democratic system they certainly shouldn't!  Just that they should, if Trudeau steps down, keep more of an eye to who can win in 2030, and not as much who can win in 2025, given the long odds they face next year.

[crazy canuck]

What the hell, I'll engage against my better judgment.

I stopped reading after this.

If you want to have a civil discussion.  Don't start it by being uncivil.

Thanks for confirming my instincts.

When your instincts change and you want to have a discussion that does not start by insulting me, let me know.

Time will tell. Maybe. If Carney gets into that position.

My thoughts are:

• While Carney may be easy to attack, the operative question is whether he'll be easier to attack than Trudeau.
• If voters care about the economy, someone with significant economic credibility may be an asset; especially since Poilievre still comes across as mostly fluff and little substance on that topic.
• While the Conservative line of attack on Carney might be similar to the line of attack on Ignatieff, the key issue is how well Carney responds to it - and I don't think we have any real evidence there yet.
• There are differences both in the political moment and in the resumes. Ignatieff is an academic and public intellectual, Carney is from the world of finance. That has very different vibes, even if it happened outside of Canada. "Harvard Academic" and "Head of the Bank of England while it weathered a significant crisis" sound very different to my ears (not to mention "Head of the Bank of Canada while it weathered a significant crisis").
• Poilievre's main advantage in my eyes is Trudeau-fatigue, and his main strategy is vibes based attacks and "everything sucks, right? We'll do things differently!" Seems to me that the most useful Conservative line of attack would be attempts to link Carney with Trudeau and claim "more of the same", rather than "this guy is an outsider", which would play right into Carney's likely play of depicting himself as a hard reset for the current Liberal establishment.

That said... isn't it kind of academic at this point? Is there any real chance that Trudeau is going to step down?

I don't understand how Carney could be easy to attack.  A person would have to have complete amnesia about the time he was a popular figure in Canada.  That might be the case for some, but for the vast majority of the electorate he already has favourable name recognition.

Your second point is why Carney would be hard to attack.  He has credibility when it comes to understanding economic matters.  And compared to PP, who once said that bitcoin was the way to go, there will be no competition.

Your fourth point is correct, but I would put more emphasis on the "not to mention" the time he was in Canada.

And I agree that PP's main attraction now is that he looks good compared to Trudeau.  A very low bar.  But compared to a person of substance like Carney, not so much.  The competition will be between someone who has been a politician since university - and still shows that level of maturity vs. someone who has done substantial things prior to politics.

That said... isn't it kind of academic at this point? Is there any real chance that Trudeau is going to step down?

Not a chance.

He will be pushed out or he will lose the election.

According to Liberal insiders, what they're aiming at is going into the election with Trudeau, let him lose, then replace him with their favorite candidate. 

Could be Carney, could be someone else too.

I agree that is the most likely scenario.  The wildcard is that I doubt Carney would want to wait till the following election given his age and stage.  It would be much better for him if Trudeau stepped down now.  And we have already discussed the grumbling within the party that many want that to happen.

[Barrister]

Here's an interesting article from the fairly left-leaning Vox:

https://www.vox.com/politics/24140480/canada-pierre-poilievre-conservative-party-populism-democracy

The headline is "Canada's polite populism".


The first few paragraphs:

"Are we a country that looks out for each other ... or do you go down a path of amplifying anger, division and fear?"

That's how Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau described the stakes in his country's upcoming election in an interview with Vox's Today, Explained this week — outlining the 2025 contest as no ordinary election but a referendum on the very soul of Canada.

This existential framing is an unsubtle shot at Trudeau's rival, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, a populist firebrand who is currently outpolling the prime minister by a wide margin. Poilievre rose to party leadership as a champion of the extremist trucker convoy that occupied Ottawa in January 2022, and since then has regularly pandered to far-right voters. He has proposed defunding the CBC (Canada's widely respected public broadcaster) and repeatedly promoted a conspiracy theory in which Trudeau is in league with the World Economic Forum.

There's a reason that Trudeau and many others have directly linked Poilievre to Trump: His political style practically invites it. But how accurate is the comparison? Is Canada really poised to be the next Western country to fall to the far-right populist global wave?

The answer, as best as I can tell, is mixed.

It's true that, by Canadian standards, Poilievre is an especially hard-nosed figure, one far more willing to use extreme rhetoric and attack political opponents in harsh terms.

But on policy substance, he's actually considerably more moderate than Trump or European radicals. Mostly eschewing the demagogic focus on culture and immigration that defines the new global far right, Poilievre is primarily concerned with classic conservative themes of limited government. His biggest campaign promises at present aren't slashing immigration rates or cracking down on crime, but building more housing and repealing Canada's carbon tax.

It really reads not as an endorsement of Poilievre, but more like a "why couldn't we have right-wing opponents like this in the US".  I'm not familiar with the author, but his Vox bio does say that before working at Vox he worked at Think Progress, a pretty explicitly left-leaning site, so I think it's fair to call him a left-winger or a progressive.