[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Finally, the article just comes across as just as conspiratorial as any right-winger complaining about Davos and the "globalists".  So right-wingers from around the world talk and share notes.  Big whoop.

I disagree.

The radical and populist right in the US has seen great success from focused campaigns to get representatives on (or take over) school boards and all sorts of other low level democratic institutions. That their Canadian fellow travellers would attempt a similar move is not far fetched at all - even less so since there seems to be clear plans to follow that exact strategy. To those of us who disagree with that point of view, that's a legitimate thing to be concerned about I'd think.

So I was off-line for the weekend, just looking again at this now.  I think I mostly want to focus on this final point.

I HATE HATE HATE this trend in politics - of ignoring what someone actually says, and instead attacking what people "on that side" are saying.  And this goes both ways.

You can't attack Trudeau for being a communist, because for whatever his flaws, he's never expressed the slightest sympathy for communism.  You can't attack Joe Biden for saying "defund the police" because he's never said any such thing.

And you can't attack Pierre Poilievre for being a Trumpist, because he's never expressed any sympathy for Donald J Trump.

[Jacob]

When you look at the polls, you have young people, people you would expect to vote left, and people who are usually voting left deserting the NPD for the Cons.  That is a bad sign for Singh.

That is very true, that's a bad sign. If only the BQ ran candidates in the rest of Canada

[Jacob]

Yeah at some point PP has to stop just playing to his cheerleading base. He already has them.

My concern is that he's a true believe in the tunes he plays for the base, and that he'll deliver things primarily for the sake of "owning the libs" and being spiteful to folks outside of his immediate base.

But from his perspective is polling results are rewarding him for this sort of behavior.  So why change?

Hopefully, he has some advisors, who are not simply true believers, and will point out to him that his popularity is in direct proportion to Trudeau's collapse of popularity.

At some point the liberals might just decide to get rid of Trudeau and then where does that leave PP?  If at that point he is just a right wing attack dog, I don't think he will have much electoral success.

I keep hearing that there are no reasonable candidates to replace Trudeau - Mark Carney's shine is gone by now, and Freedland is too close to the current Trudeau administration. That said a leadership race could help identify someone.

I guess the risk is that the NDP pulls the rug before the leadership race is completed, leaving the Libs in disarray.

[Barrister]

I keep hearing that there are no reasonable candidates to replace Trudeau - Mark Carney's shine is gone by now, and Freedland is too close to the current Trudeau administration. That said a leadership race could help identify someone.

I guess the risk is that the NDP pulls the rug before the leadership race is completed, leaving the Libs in disarray.

I do feel like under Trudeau (and Harper before him) there are no real "stars" other than the PM.  I mean maybe Kenney under Harper, but we know what happened there.  It is hard to imagine any of the current cabinet members as party leader (and provincial Liberal parties have been almost completely hollowed out).

I think there is a tradition of not triggering an election while a party is undergoing a leadership campaign, although with two caveats.  First, the only exception I can think of is 1980, but I think it's generally understood Joe Clark's government did not expect to lose that vote.  Second, the exception only lasts during the campaign itself, as Stockwell Day promptly found out after being made CA Leader in 2001.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah at some point PP has to stop just playing to his cheerleading base. He already has them.

My concern is that he's a true believe in the tunes he plays for the base, and that he'll deliver things primarily for the sake of "owning the libs" and being spiteful to folks outside of his immediate base.

But from his perspective is polling results are rewarding him for this sort of behavior.  So why change?

Hopefully, he has some advisors, who are not simply true believers, and will point out to him that his popularity is in direct proportion to Trudeau's collapse of popularity.

At some point the liberals might just decide to get rid of Trudeau and then where does that leave PP?  If at that point he is just a right wing attack dog, I don't think he will have much electoral success.

I keep hearing that there are no reasonable candidates to replace Trudeau - Mark Carney's shine is gone by now, and Freedland is too close to the current Trudeau administration. That said a leadership race could help identify someone.

I guess the risk is that the NDP pulls the rug before the leadership race is completed, leaving the Libs in disarray.

Why do you think that about Carney?

[viper37]

Let's take the principle promise extracted by the NDP to enter into the agreement - a national dental program.  I mean - I haven't noticed it yet.  Looking at it, it covers 1. kids under 12 2. families earning under $90k 3. who aren't otherwise covered for dental programs and 4. you have to apply and are granted a rebate afterwards.  This is to say - it doesn't actually affect most people in Canada (most people don't have kids under 12, many of those who do have dental coverage, and if you're really poor you don't have the money to pay and then get a rebate anyways).

And if you do benefit from the dental program you're going to go "great!  Thank you Justin Trudeau!"  You have to be deeply invested in politics to go "oh wait - they only did this because of the NDP".

The worst part is that every single Canadian province had a dental program for kids.  Every single one.  What changed was the age and the revenue threshold.

And that is something the Federal government could very well have decided to implement by sitting down with the provinces to fund adequately: "We will give you X million$ in exchange for coverage of everyone under 12 for every family making below 90k$ at least".  For provinces that already covered children up to 17, that was a no brainer, it was already there.  For provinces like Quebec were only children up to 10 are covered, it would have required adjustments.  

But it was workable, without a costly Federal bureaucracy, without the payments made without justifications.

The current system is bollocks.  It is only for show.

[viper37]

I think there is a tradition of not triggering an election while a party is undergoing a leadership campaign

Traditions are only good if the other parties agree to it.
It would require the NDP's support on every single vote of confidence until the new leader is elected.  And then what?  Trigger an election immediately once he's elected because the truce is over?

I feel the Libs have to go one with Trudeau at this point.  A leadership race would take a year to organize and it's too risky in a minority government.
If they want to keep power, they have to address the important issues of the country though, not just talk about it.  Inflation can only be controlled two ways: limit government spending and raise interest rates.  Trudeau's spending is not helping with the efforts of the Bank of Canada.  That's a major failure, and when the President of your central bank and raising his voice - more than once - about the level of your spending, as a government head, you should listen.

The housing crisis has been amplified by the immigration policies of this government.  Something we did discuss before: we do not have the infrastructure necessary for so many people in such a short time.  Doesn't matter where they come from, unless a country is able to acquire cheap lands like in colonization times, it can not sustain such levels of immigration without creating a strain on its resources.

Refugees need food and shelter, at the most basic level.  They need clothing, they need help to find a job. You can't just send them to build a railroad in the prairies and dig a tunnel in the Rockies.  This is a huge strain on the resources of charities and provincial governments welfare programs.

And all immigration, refugees or economic immigrants have an impact on housing.  We don't put people in tent park anymore - well, we're not supposed to I mean.  But it's what seems to be happening even in Montreal.  There's not only an affordability crisis, there's often a lack of apartments or houses on the market.  With interest rates so high, it's not an incentive to build.  But rates have to remain high to control the inflation. And the government is keeping the inflation high by over spending...

[Jacob]

Why do you think that about Carney?

Carney used to get regular positive press as governor of the Bank of Canada, and later as Governor of the Bank of England. He hasn't been much in the public eye for a while so I think this is likely to be filed as "the ancient past" in most people's minds.

Presently his main paycheque comes from being VP at an asset management company, I believe. Even though his role is ESG focused, I think he might come across as a little too elite and removed from "everyday Canadians".

Mainly my concern is that he's out of the public eye. But if he ran, my initial reaction would be positive. In the end, though, that's what a good leadership race can prove or disprove. Assuming he's interested.

[Jacob]

Oh... seems like Carney was name Chair of the Board for Bloomberg L.P. this August.

[Sheilbh]

I keep hearing that there are no reasonable candidates to replace Trudeau - Mark Carney's shine is gone by now, and Freedland is too close to the current Trudeau administration. That said a leadership race could help identify someone.

Yeah I think leadership races can bring forward surprising contenders. But, a bit like with the Dems, is there a reason there's not really many obvious alternative candidates? Just been in office for 8 years so all the likely candidates are a little bit tarnished? Politics from Trudeau to prevent an alternative emerging?

On Carney - has there been any pushback on someone like him getting involved in politics? He did a video endorsing Rachel Reeves (Labour Shadow Chancellor, who used to work at the BofE) ahead of her conference speech. And I didn't like it. It's an area where I get very starchily conservative and feel like if you lead an institutions that benefits from the legitimacy of being beyond politics or politically neutral, then you owe it to your successors and that institution not to get involved in party politics. Whether that's civil service (not particularly comfortable with Starmer getting a senior civil servant to join his team), central banking (also wasn't keen on Carney's predecessor seeming to endorse Brexit and, in 2010, Cameron) or the military. But I am aware that I think I'm very much a minority view on this and that it is is very Maggie Smith in Downton Abbey.

Mainly my concern is that he's out of the public eye. But if he ran, my initial reaction would be positive. In the end, though, that's what a good leadership race can prove or disprove. Assuming he's interested.

Is there also a bit of a Michael Ignatieff fear? I mean what is there in a career at the elite of the most technocratic (and globally connected) bit of public policy that indicates he'd be good at democratic politics?

I HATE HATE HATE this trend in politics - of ignoring what someone actually says, and instead attacking what people "on that side" are saying.  And this goes both ways.

I have to be honest I tend to ignore any article that has "rooted in" in the title - at best you'll get some interesting analysis of discourse. And I feel like we're already overburdened with commentary on the discourse

Edit: I actually think it's possibly a dangerous sign - you look at Russia as an extreme example where everything is about de-code and explaining discourse for the real meaning underneath. It's not healthy, especially in a democracy.

[Grey Fox]

Carney's strategy is sound. Don't be out there auditioning for a job that isn't available yet.

[Barrister]

Mainly my concern is that he's out of the public eye. But if he ran, my initial reaction would be positive. In the end, though, that's what a good leadership race can prove or disprove. Assuming he's interested.

Is there also a bit of a Michael Ignatieff fear? I mean what is there in a career at the elite of the most technocratic (and globally connected) bit of public policy that indicates he'd be good at democratic politics?

I feel like the Conservatives would absolutely just re-run the Ignatieff "He's not in it for you" ads with doing a find-and-replace if Mark Carney ran.  Which isn't 100% fair - Carney spent much more of his professional lfie in Canada than Ignatieff did.  But it would probably stick.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah and you could slightly adjust it. I get GF's point - but, to Jake's point, not sure asset management is a great immediate background for someone planning a political run.

[Josephus]

Trudeau won't step down until he loses the next election.

[crazy canuck]

Trudeau won't step down until he loses the next election.

I think that is correct, and why people who would be competent leaders are sitting on the sidelines