[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

I just call him Dollar Store Milhouse.

[HVC]

BB finally like a franco politician and it's the evil one

[Barrister]

BB finally like a franco politician and it's the evil one

He's not really franco, he just has a French name.  He was adopted as a baby (and whose adopted father is Franco-Albertan) and raised in Calgary.

[HVC]

BB finally like a franco politician and it's the evil one

He's not really franco, he just has a French name.  He was adopted as a baby (and whose adopted father is Franco-Albertan) and raised in Calgary.

Teen mom whoopsie IIRC. Although I did think his adoptiveparents were quebecers who moved to Alberta

[Barrister]

BB finally like a franco politician and it's the evil one

He's not really franco, he just has a French name.  He was adopted as a baby (and whose adopted father is Franco-Albertan) and raised in Calgary.

Teen mom whoopsie IIRC. Although I did think his adoptiveparents were quebecers who moved to Alberta

Ah could be.

[Grey Fox]

His french is great, better than any other conservative leader since Mulroney, but that's probably because he married a Montreal girl.

[viper37]

BB finally like a franco politician and it's the evil one

He's not really franco, he just has a French name.  He was adopted as a baby (and whose adopted father is Franco-Albertan) and raised in Calgary.

Teen mom whoopsie IIRC. Although I did think his adoptiveparents were quebecers who moved to Alberta

.

[viper37]

His french is great, better than any other conservative leader since Mulroney, but that's probably because he married a Montreal girl.

He was raised by francophone parents.

[crazy canuck]

Hmmm... would there be an advantage to the NDP to have an election right now? Does Singh think the NDP is going to be a greater beneficiary of any Trudeau-fatigue than the Conservatives?

Alternately, does he think he can get sufficient concessions from the Liberals that he can credibly call off the threat?

I think they have realized that they made a strategic error by entering into the confidence agreement with the liberals.  They have become irrelevant as many of the critics of that deal thought would happen.

Much like the green party in British Columbia the NDP have not use their leverage to obtain meaningful concessions from the liberals in order to advance policies of the NDP that the liberals weren't going to enact anyway.

They see the disastrous results of what occurred to the greens in BC and they see those same results being replicated on the federal stage.

So now they have to try to make themselves relevant again and that is why we're hearing all the talk about Pharmacare and especially after the convention.

Are they bluffing in order to try to seem relevant? Only time will tell. But the political risk for them is that if they are only bluffing, if the liberals don't come through with the Pharma care that the NDP was promising, and the NDP doesn't trigger an election then the NDP will have truly become irrelevant, and perhaps, for a generation or two.

[Barrister]

https://twitter.com/kinsellawarren/status/1714624740176941533

This is the Pierre Poilievre I loved as an MP.  When asked a series of stupid questions by a journalist he brusquely but not rudely pushes back.  Favourite is when the journo says "you're taking a page out of Donald Trump's playbook" he goes "Page, what page.  Can you give me a page?"

Flustered journalist (who really should have been better prepared to try and ask such "gotcha" type questions) finally has to resort to an open-ended 'so why should Canadians vote for you' which Poilievre proceeds to give a pretty solid answer to.  He starts with an appeal to "common sense" which is fine as it is but can be a pretty empty slogan, but then does go on to specifics.

All while he's eating an apple.

[crazy canuck]

One could also observe he is being intellectually dishonest by asking what being a populist means when that is exactly what he is.

[Sheilbh]

This is the Pierre Poilievre I loved as an MP.  When asked a series of stupid questions by a journalist he brusquely but not rudely pushes back.  Favourite is when the journo says "you're taking a page out of Donald Trump's playbook" he goes "Page, what page.  Can you give me a page?"

Flustered journalist (who really should have been better prepared to try and ask such "gotcha" type questions) finally has to resort to an open-ended 'so why should Canadians vote for you' which Poilievre proceeds to give a pretty solid answer to.  He starts with an appeal to "common sense" which is fine as it is but can be a pretty empty slogan, but then does go on to specifics.

Yeah. Not the first time I've seen a journalist struggle when an interviewee just challenges the premise of the question. It normally indicates a "people are saying" type of question that I'm not sure is very helpful - if they've not got the research to back up the basis of their question.

I find the idea of simply referring to "left-wing"/"right-wing" things like that as evidence of a "very strong ideological language" on the "populist pathway" slightly mad.

[Barrister]

This is the Pierre Poilievre I loved as an MP.  When asked a series of stupid questions by a journalist he brusquely but not rudely pushes back.  Favourite is when the journo says "you're taking a page out of Donald Trump's playbook" he goes "Page, what page.  Can you give me a page?"

Flustered journalist (who really should have been better prepared to try and ask such "gotcha" type questions) finally has to resort to an open-ended 'so why should Canadians vote for you' which Poilievre proceeds to give a pretty solid answer to.  He starts with an appeal to "common sense" which is fine as it is but can be a pretty empty slogan, but then does go on to specifics.

Yeah. Not the first time I've seen a journalist struggle when an interviewee just challenges the premise of the question. It normally indicates a "people are saying" type of question that I'm not sure is very helpful - if they've not got the research to back up the basis of their question.

I find the idea of simply referring to "left-wing"/"right-wing" things like that as evidence of a "very strong ideological language" on the "populist pathway" slightly mad.

This kind of interviewing can be very effective if the reporter "has the receipts", as the kids like to say.  But this fellow didn't.

No idea who the reporter is.  As far as I can tell this was at some kind of photo op at an apple orchard.  I'm surmising the reporter was just some local reporter, maybe for a local newspaper or TV station (as few of those that still exist).  The video itself was released by the Conservatives, not the media outlet.

Being accused of being "populist" is an odd attack.  Populism can mean so many different things in different situations.  Both occupy wall street, and yes Donald Trump, can be labelled as populist.  And obviously any politician wants to be popular!

[crazy canuck]

This is the Pierre Poilievre I loved as an MP.  When asked a series of stupid questions by a journalist he brusquely but not rudely pushes back.  Favourite is when the journo says "you're taking a page out of Donald Trump's playbook" he goes "Page, what page.  Can you give me a page?"

Flustered journalist (who really should have been better prepared to try and ask such "gotcha" type questions) finally has to resort to an open-ended 'so why should Canadians vote for you' which Poilievre proceeds to give a pretty solid answer to.  He starts with an appeal to "common sense" which is fine as it is but can be a pretty empty slogan, but then does go on to specifics.

Yeah. Not the first time I've seen a journalist struggle when an interviewee just challenges the premise of the question. It normally indicates a "people are saying" type of question that I'm not sure is very helpful - if they've not got the research to back up the basis of their question.

I find the idea of simply referring to "left-wing"/"right-wing" things like that as evidence of a "very strong ideological language" on the "populist pathway" slightly mad.

This kind of interviewing can be very effective if the reporter "has the receipts", as the kids like to say.  But this fellow didn't.

No idea who the reporter is.  As far as I can tell this was at some kind of photo op at an apple orchard.  I'm surmising the reporter was just some local reporter, maybe for a local newspaper or TV station (as few of those that still exist).  The video itself was released by the Conservatives, not the media outlet.

Being accused of being "populist" is an odd attack.  Populism can mean so many different things in different situations.  Both occupy wall street, and yes Donald Trump, can be labelled as populist.  And obviously any politician wants to be popular!

The reporter seemed taken aback because the premise of the question was so painfully self evident.

Edit, one thing I didn't notice when I first read BB's post is that he is also playing dumb as to what populism is. I suppose we can expect that as the game plan for the conservatives leading up to the election. Populist? What's a populist? I just want to be popular. Can't make this shit up.

[Grey Fox]

This is the Pierre Poilievre I loved as an MP.  When asked a series of stupid questions by a journalist he brusquely but not rudely pushes back.  Favourite is when the journo says "you're taking a page out of Donald Trump's playbook" he goes "Page, what page.  Can you give me a page?"

Flustered journalist (who really should have been better prepared to try and ask such "gotcha" type questions) finally has to resort to an open-ended 'so why should Canadians vote for you' which Poilievre proceeds to give a pretty solid answer to.  He starts with an appeal to "common sense" which is fine as it is but can be a pretty empty slogan, but then does go on to specifics.

Yeah. Not the first time I've seen a journalist struggle when an interviewee just challenges the premise of the question. It normally indicates a "people are saying" type of question that I'm not sure is very helpful - if they've not got the research to back up the basis of their question.

I find the idea of simply referring to "left-wing"/"right-wing" things like that as evidence of a "very strong ideological language" on the "populist pathway" slightly mad.

This kind of interviewing can be very effective if the reporter "has the receipts", as the kids like to say.  But this fellow didn't.

No idea who the reporter is.  As far as I can tell this was at some kind of photo op at an apple orchard.  I'm surmising the reporter was just some local reporter, maybe for a local newspaper or TV station (as few of those that still exist).  The video itself was released by the Conservatives, not the media outlet.

Being accused of being "populist" is an odd attack.  Populism can mean so many different things in different situations.  Both occupy wall street, and yes Donald Trump, can be labelled as populist.  And obviously any politician wants to be popular!

Bold words for a professional.