[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-ford-announce-honda-ev-deal-1.7184495

So Honda announces a $15 billion dollar investment in electric vehicles and battery manufacturing.  This is being funded by a total of $5 billion in "incentives" from both Ontario and the Feds.  This will in turn create over 1,000 "well-paying manufacturing jobs".

Uh, guys - that's about $5 million per job.  They'd damn well better be well-paying.

[crazy canuck]

A Globe editorial about how childish our Federal political leaders have become

To accuse your political opponent of being a liar is so serious a charge that the word is banned in legislatures. And so when federal Health Minister Mark Holland last week told a reporter that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was lying about pharmacare, he levelled a grave accusation.

But was that accusation of lying itself true?

Mr. Poilievre had said he would not support the government's new pharmacare legislation because, he claimed, it would require people who had prescription plans through their workplace to move over to the government's plan.

Except the legislation as it currently exists does not do that. It offers contraceptive and diabetic medication through a government plan to those who have no plan of their own. But no one is required to abandon their existing arrangement. Mr. Holland said the Conservative Leader was "spreading what are out-and-out lies."

For some political observers, Mr. Poilievre's remarks were symptomatic of a dangerous new trend that is being spread by right-wing populists and personified by former U.S. president Donald Trump: peddling conspiratorial untruths to rally uninformed voters to their side. Like everything in politics, however, the reality is more complicated.

Mr. Holland left out a key fact, a bit of mendacity-by-omission. While the existing pharmacare legislation does not compel universal public access today, it aspires to that eventual end. Bill C-64 states that it seeks to improve "the accessibility and affordability of prescription drugs ... with the aim of continuing to work toward the implementation of national universal pharmacare."

So while covered workers will not lose their private plan tomorrow, they may lose it some day. Mr. Poilievre could and should have made that distinction. But his words were not the bald-faced lie that Mr. Holland said they were. They belonged, instead, to the everyday prevarication, obfuscation and distortion that is the stuff of political discourse.

Such as when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, last October, announced that home heating oil would be exempt from the carbon price. The move disproportionately benefited Atlantic Canada, which is far more dependent than other parts of the country on heating oil.

Mr. Trudeau denied the carve-out was aimed at saving the Liberals' political bacon in the Atlantic provinces. Suspending the tax, he said, was intended to help everyone who heats their homes with oil make the switch to cleaner alternatives.

But the truth is that the tax was deeply unpopular in Atlantic Canada, and MPs from the region had been lobbying hard for the exemption. As he made the announcement, a gaggle of them stood behind Mr. Trudeau, nodding happily.

Lest there be any doubt about the politics of the decision, Rural Economic Development Minister Gudie Hutchings offered a solution for those in the West who complained that natural gas had not also been exempted: "Atlantic caucus was vocal with what they've heard from their constituents, and perhaps they need to elect more Liberals in the Prairies so that we can have that conversation as well," she told CTV.

Nothing that Mr. Trudeau said about the home heating oil exemption could be described as a lie. And yet the political calculations behind the announcement clearly contradict the Prime Minister's own words.

Whether or not a statement is an outright lie, claims that play fast and loose with the truth degrade politics. Mr. Poilievre could have said that he would not support a pharmacare plan that could one day bring an end to private plans. Mr. Holland could have said those existing plans are safe for the foreseeable future. Those two statements would have laid the foundation for a proper political debate. Instead, each of them distorted and misled.

Mr. Poilievre took political rhetoric far past the breaking point recently when he visited anti-carbon tax protesters camped out beside a highway near the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia boundary. "People believed his lies," he told them, referring to Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Poilievre disagrees with his opponent and thinks his policies are wrong-headed and damaging; he should simply say that. Childish insults are, or should be, beneath his office.

There's a reason Parliament bans words such as "lie" and "liar": They coarsen and corrode discourse, and turn political debate into trash talk. That's true inside a legislature, and beyond its confines.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/76AEJW2KI5BW5OTCW3ESZEL4GY/

[viper37]

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.

Obviously.

But does he have enough support to make it happen?

The Libs are this point because theu collectively failed.  Some might fear a purge.

[Josephus]

As I said many months ago, it makes no sense for Trudeau to step down now, or for a purge. Whoever leads the Liberal Party in the next election, with the exception of maybe Taylor Swift, will lose. They all know that, even if they are in denial. No newbleader is gonna wanna run and lose right away; that's political suicide. Best to let Trudeau take the fall next election, and then start from scratch and aim for 2029 or 30 or whenever.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Obviously.

But does he have enough support to make it happen?

The Libs are this point because theu collectively failed.  Some might fear a purge.

There was an article in the Globe quoting party insiders suggesting he does and his leadership of the party at the point is inevitable.  The only question now is before or after the election. 

[crazy canuck]

As I said many months ago, it makes no sense for Trudeau to step down now, or for a purge. Whoever leads the Liberal Party in the next election, with the exception of maybe Taylor Swift, will lose. They all know that, even if they are in denial. No newbleader is gonna wanna run and lose right away; that's political suicide. Best to let Trudeau take the fall next election, and then start from scratch and aim for 2029 or 30 or whenever.

The Conservatives are not popular, Trudeau is very unpopular.

There is an easy way to fix that quickly. But it has to be done quickly.

The real question is whether Trudeau will have the insight and humility to realize that he is the reason the Liberals are so unpopular.  That is the thing that is unlikely.  And it will be for that reason that the Liberal party goes down in one of the biggest defeats in Canadian history.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe.

I think the first question is how much is dissatisfaction at Trudeau and how much is an incumbent government that's been in office for 9 years? They've had stuff to deal with, not least cost of living like the rest of the world which I think are difficult for incumbents anywhere. But also 9 years is a point when often the public are starting to get tired of you and you, as a party and a government, are also getting tired.

Following on from that, renewing in office is dificult and what I've not seen anywhere here is the idea behind it beyond Carney isn't Trudeau and/or has good experience. I think you need a reason and a story to tell that is not just "more of the same but better". That might be clear for someone who took over but I don't think it's enough to just not be the other guy. The easiest way to do that is to draw a sharp contrast with your predecessor to signify change - Carney might be able to do that stylistically, but from my understanding of the numbers he'd struggle to do it substantively.

Similarly I know some countries like France have governments who don't sit as MPs and others have systems of seconding MPs if necessary, I'm not sure about Canada. But assuming Carney would have to first win a seat that means his first ever campaign in a riding will be national news and covered nationally. We don't know how good he'll be at actual retail politics and he will, inevitably, make mistakes as anyone running for their first seat will, but most do it with little attention. It will be magnified. Assuming he then gets the leadership he wouldn't have a majority to do something bold to signify change from Trudeau and they're on course to lose the next election (I assume he'd get a holiday period, so would probably have to go to the country early) - again, his first national campaign. I'd add to Jake and BB's points for much of the public that will be their first introduction to him - and you only get to make a first impression once.

I can see the attraction for Liberals wanting to roll the dice and at worst (hopefully) stem their losses - but from Carney's perspective that seems like there's an awful lot of risks. I feel like the safer option would be let Trudeau own the loss, win a safe seat as an interesting candidate getting some national attention but not the main story and then go for the leadership when you can be a clean slate from the failures of the Trudeau era.

Although all of that assumes he has a clean run at the leadership and, as with letting Trudeau just take the plane down with him, I find the lack of lean and hungry types in the Liberal Party very, very strange. It all seems very passive.

[crazy canuck]

Simple answer, The reason Carney is appealing to many people is it wouldn't simply be more of the same.

The reason why people are so dissatisfied with the liberals is because of incompetent leadership and incompetent public policy over the time they have been in government.

The only reason they have survived is because the conservatives have been equally incompetent, have at least demonstrated that they are more confident.

Over the last two years, Trudeau has blundered even more so that even the conservatives look more competent.

[Sheilbh]

So I watched the clip Carney posted, which is presumably the core of his message/where he thinks he's landing his argument:
https://x.com/MarkJCarney/status/1783959221396230605

Having watched that and understanding it's at a friendly think-tank, my instinct is he needs practice at politics. I actually checked the venue because my first thought was that he was delivering a message that was too political for the audience he was addressing, but that's not the case. Not that it's impossible and I could well believe he'd grow into the role, but I think especially jumping in now ahead of a national election with bad polls would be (from his perspective, at least) I think a big risk.

I can easily see the contrast he'd be able to draw stylistically with Trudeau - a sort of no time for dilettantes, I'm serious, "not flash, just Gordon" style message. In terms of the what is he in it for - what's the vision - I'm not sure "mission-oriented capitalism grounded in values" is there yet. Also if you're going to try to triangulate and do a third way style politics, you need two points to run against - in more recent years Obama was brilliant at setting up a false choice and then presenting himself as the middle, Macron does similar in his "en meme temps" politics. But in this I only see him talking about Poilievre so that point of "another way" doesn't quite land.

[Grey Fox]

I don't think Carney has what it takes to pull a Harper and become PM without any previous ties to Quebec.

[viper37]

with the exception of maybe Taylor Swift

It would sure make an interesting Languish poll.

[viper37]

I don't think Carney has what it takes to pull a Harper and become PM without any previous ties to Quebec.

As it is now, with Pablo Rodriguez as his Lieutenant, no.

He could probably win without Quebec though.  There's still a solid base of Anglo-ridings he's going to get no matter what.

[viper37]

The Conservatives are not popular, Trudeau is very unpopular.

The anger is channeled toward Trudeau, but it's the entire leadership of the Liberal Party that is responsible.

They had no plan, no vision other than to drastically increase immigration.

I like Carney, but I'm not sure he can do something before the election without replacing everyone and everything, and that's not a lot of time.

[crazy canuck]

So I watched the clip Carney posted, which is presumably the core of his message/where he thinks he's landing his argument:
https://x.com/MarkJCarney/status/1783959221396230605

Having watched that and understanding it's at a friendly think-tank, my instinct is he needs practice at politics. I actually checked the venue because my first thought was that he was delivering a message that was too political for the audience he was addressing, but that's not the case. Not that it's impossible and I could well believe he'd grow into the role, but I think especially jumping in now ahead of a national election with bad polls would be (from his perspective, at least) I think a big risk.

I can easily see the contrast he'd be able to draw stylistically with Trudeau - a sort of no time for dilettantes, I'm serious, "not flash, just Gordon" style message. In terms of the what is he in it for - what's the vision - I'm not sure "mission-oriented capitalism grounded in values" is there yet. Also if you're going to try to triangulate and do a third way style politics, you need two points to run against - in more recent years Obama was brilliant at setting up a false choice and then presenting himself as the middle, Macron does similar in his "en meme temps" politics. But in this I only see him talking about Poilievre so that point of "another way" doesn't quite land.

I am a bit confused by your post. You said you understand the audience he was addressing but then are critical for speaking to that audience.  I don't get it.

I don't think Carney has what it takes to pull a Harper and become PM without any previous ties to Quebec.

Interesting, I had not thought of it that way. What did Harper do that made Quebecers warm to him?

The Conservatives are not popular, Trudeau is very unpopular.

The anger is channeled toward Trudeau, but it's the entire leadership of the Liberal Party that is responsible.

They had no plan, no vision other than to drastically increase immigration.

I like Carney, but I'm not sure he can do something before the election without replacing everyone and everything, and that's not a lot of time.

I agree that everyone is fed up with the current government as a whole.  But it is important to note that many of the MPs with some talent, who reasonably anticipated that Justin would do the honourable thing for the party and step aside, started making plans for their bid for leadership and were sidelined.

We are looking at a cabinet of mainly second stringers and old pals of the PM.

[Grey Fox]

@CC I don't think he did. I was more pointing out the exceptionalism of what Harper achieved. Harper was helped, in 2006, by Quebec's anger & disgust at Paul Martin & the sponsorship scandal. We voted for the BQ and there was the Orange wave before voting for the LPC & the CPC.

In 2025, the LPC has few path to victory without a good showing of support from Quebec. Trudeau leaving the LPC before the election might open the path to an even bigger CPC victory if the new LPC leader is an unknown frigid economist.