From a UK persepective - how do the Canadian Conservatives feel about the current direction of their southern neighbour? Are they just as irritated by Trump and his "51st state" jibes as their fellow-Canadians or are a good many of them MAGA-sympathetic?
The 51st State jibes are irritating but they make a certain Council of Canadians (aka Council of Kooks) set froth at the mouth in nationlist excitement.
From a UK persepective - how do the Canadian Conservatives feel about the current direction of their southern neighbour? Are they just as irritated by Trump and his "51st state" jibes as their fellow-Canadians or are a good many of them MAGA-sympathetic?
The 51st State jibes are irritating but they make a certain Council of Canadians (aka Council of Kooks) set froth at the mouth in nationlist excitement.
I wonder if the Laura Secord ice-cream chain could do a current events tie-in for some new flavours.
Just in time for Inauguration Week! Loyalist Lemondrop and Flaming 1600!
I've been meaning to say something more about the PR issue but I think it's complicated and may have to wait. In the meantime I've been thinking about the timing of JT's exit. Obviously, having messed up the Carney-Freeland issue so badly, he really had no choice but to head for the door, having lost the confidence of pretty much everyone inside his party and out. But some (e.g., Gary Mason in today's Globe) are scathing about Trudeau's decision not to leave much earlier in the game, comparing him unfavourably to Jacinda Ardern in NZ. And of course Ardern did leave much earlier in the game than JT, but at the end of the day it didn't lead to her party getting re-elected.
There seems to have been some assumption among many in the Liberal party when things started going sideways that whatever happens there must be something they could do to ensure another election win, and the question was just who needed to go (for Trudeau, Freeland; for many others, Trudeau himself). I must admit to serious doubt that there was any realistic path to the Liberals winning another election after 2021. It just doesn't normally happen that changing your leader when you're down in the polls after a long run gives you another shot at government (unless of course your opponent is Tim Hudak and runs a negative campaign against himself and his party). If everyone in the party could have gotten on the same page about this reality, Trudeau may well have been their best option for a graceful soft landing into opposition. But obviously everyone wasn't on the same page about this and we all know the results.
But at the moment this seems to be a minority viewpoint to say the least. So I'm curious what people think. Were the Liberals toast with or without Trudeau, and if not what would they have had to do differently when they could have done something differently? And if the Liberals were likely going to lose anyway, would their chances of a soft landing been better if Trudeau had stepped aside, and who should have stepped in to replace him?
Were the Liberals toast with or without Trudeau, and if not what would they have had to do differently when they could have done something differently?
I think that the Liberal brand right now is pretty much synonymous with the Justin brand, and any reaction against the latter was gonna tar the former. Had some known-quantity like Freeland etc taken over earlier, it woulda mattered little, because whatever differences existed between her and Trudeau, the public would just see her as his successor.
(In 1984, it was known that PET and John Turner weren't overly fond of one another, but that perception of distance didn't help Turner.)
I dunno. Maybe if a perceived outsider like Carney had gotten in earlier, he could run as a new broom, but even then, I think he'd still just be coded as sunny ways.
FWIW, I DO think this comic-opera performance in Trumpland justifies at least a theoretical reassessment of the whole Canada/US/NATO complex of alliances. Because even if it's all just a joke, it's giving the incoming administration, and by extension the whole military and foreign-policy establishment, a very strong odour of unseriousness and unreliability.
Just saw that Doug Ford is now joking(ha-ha, all in good fun), about Canada buying Minnesota and Alaska. Which I think can be a good tit-for-tat, depending.
More seriously, he's advising Trump to aim his fire at China instead of Canada. Tellingly, he also accuses MEXICO of being in alliance with China, thus rupturing whatever solidarity existed between the two NAFTA nations currently in Trump's crosshairs.
My political stance, as it relates to the US, is that I am pro-Republican. I believe that what they stand for on issues is best for the country. That being said, I wish they had a different leader.
My political stance, as it relates to the US, is that I am pro-Republican. I believe that what they stand for on issues is best for the country. That being said, I wish they had a different leader.
Is this in response to any particular post on this thread?
My political stance, as it relates to the US, is that I am pro-Republican. I believe that what they stand for on issues is best for the country. That being said, I wish they had a different leader.
Is this in response to any particular post on this thread?
From a UK persepective - how do the Canadian Conservatives feel about the current direction of their southern neighbour? Are they just as irritated by Trump and his "51st state" jibes as their fellow-Canadians or are a good many of them MAGA-sympathetic?
In my experience, quite a few of the Conservative base are in the general vicinity of MAGA. And, despite all the smug talk from Canadian progressives about how the entire American political spectrum is to the right of Canada's, I think alot of Conservative politicians would prefer Republicans to Democrats.
My political stance, as it relates to the US, is that I am pro-Republican. I believe that what they stand for on issues is best for the country. That being said, I wish they had a different leader.
Is this in response to any particular post on this thread?
From a UK persepective - how do the Canadian Conservatives feel about the current direction of their southern neighbour? Are they just as irritated by Trump and his "51st state" jibes as their fellow-Canadians or are a good many of them MAGA-sympathetic?
In my experience, quite a few of the Conservative base are in the general vicinity of MAGA. And, despite all the smug talk from Canadian progressives about how the entire American political spectrum is to the right of Canada's, I think alot of Conservative politicians would prefer Republicans to Democrats.
...
Thanks.
If you're not pro-Trump, then I wouldn't classify you as pro-MAGA. But, if I may ask, who did you want to win the 2024 presidential election?
If you're not pro-Trump, then I wouldn't classify you as pro-MAGA. But, if I may ask, who did you want to win the 2024 presidential election?
The Republican party.
Well, then I would, in fact, classify you as pro-Trump and hence pro-MAGA. Because voting for Trump gets you Trump, not some hypothetical better Republican.
I have several friends who wish that they could vote or contribute to various candidates in a US general election; we can wish all we want, but if one wants to have a real impact, then taking up that country's citizenship is the way to go. (I note that my mother was very strong on this and I twice had to dissuade her, in strong terms, to not write cheques for Democratic candidates-- partly because it was an offense against US law to do so, and denial of possible consequences is not a shield against them taking place).
In general terms, there is no harm to wishing our southern neighbours' politics to take a different turn. I have just finished reading Robin Winks' great Canada and the United States: The Civil War Years, where Canadians were all over the map on every possible side in the civil war.
My Connecticut and New York ancestors voted with their feet in the 1780s and I am entirely happy with their costly decision of conscience.
In other news, Dominic LeBlanc has announced he’s not running.
The Globe has an interesting opinion piece by Stephen Azzi (whom I’ve never heard of but is professor of political science and other things at Carleton U). Unfortunately it’s paywalled, but it’s on succession management and how King and Pearson got it right. I suspect there was lot of luck involved in both cases but worth a read in light of where we got to with JT.
In other news, Dominic LeBlanc has announced he’s not running.
The Globe has an interesting opinion piece by Stephen Azzi (whom I’ve never heard of but is professor of political science and other things at Carleton U). Unfortunately it’s paywalled, but it’s on succession management and how King and Pearson got it right. I suspect there was lot of luck involved in both cases but worth a read in light of where we got to with JT.
When I ended up being the president of an obscure NGO I had lunch with my old boss, who had served in the 1980-84 cabinet, and his advice was that my first job was to find and recruit my replacement. As my term went on and on, I realized that he was dead right, and I succeeded, much to my delight-- as he further advised, I was to make sure that my replacement was an improvement on me-- and she was!
The Globe has an interesting opinion piece by Stephen Azzi...on succession management and how King and Pearson got it right.
Apart from a vaguely-based guess that King wanted St. Laurent and Pearson wanted Trudeau as their respective successors, I really don't know much about either of those handovers. Would you be interested in nutshelling Azzi's argument?
The Globe has an interesting opinion piece by Stephen Azzi...on succession management and how King and Pearson got it right.
Apart from a vaguely-based guess that King wanted St. Laurent and Pearson wanted Trudeau as their respective successors, I really don't know much about either of those handovers. Would you be interested in nutshelling Azzi's argument?
Basically that they actively identified and developed potential successors, and knew well enough to leave when their time was up. Though as SPK mentions age may have been a factor in the second part of that equation.
In general terms, there is no harm to wishing our southern neighbours' politics to take a different turn. I have just finished reading Robin Winks' great Canada and the United States: The Civil War Years, where Canadians were all over the map on every possible side in the civil war.
Tangential, but this brings to mind the life history of Calixa Lavallee: Union soldier, Boston choir-master, and star-spangled wackjob.
"In days of yore, from Britain's shore, Wolfe the dauntless hero came and planted firm Britannia's flag on Canada's fair domain."
I never think of this without remembering one of Margaret Laurence's characters -- probably Morag from The Diviners thinking as a child that the lyric was "Wolfe the donkless hero came."
Re @sharkshooter's comment above about being a Republican if they were in the US (and thus presumably would have voted for Trump), I often do wonder how fellow Canadians would place themselves on the US political map. I would be well to the left of the Democratic party, would have been all in for Bernie in 2016 and 2020 and would see AOC as one of the few hopeful signs for the party's future. But I would have voted for Clinton 2016, Biden 2020, and Harris 2024, despite disagreeing with all three on many issues, because I believe in using your vote to get as close as possible to the government you want, not holding out for an ideal world that doesn't exist. And while I didn't agree with Harris on many things I loved her from a style/charisma point of view and would have been happy to see her as the first woman president.
Likewise I think a lot of conservative Canadians would have voted Republican in all three of the last US elections despite not personally liking Trump -- as, indeed, did many of the actual Republicans in the US.
Actually in 2020 I likely would have supported Elizabeth Warren over either Bernie or Biden for the Democratic nominee -- she's one of my favourite US politicians, and would have been a great president.
"In days of yore, from Britain's shore, Wolfe the dauntless hero came and planted firm Britannia's flag on Canada's fair domain."
I never think of this without remembering one of Margaret Laurence's characters -- probably Morag from The Diviners thinking as a child that the lyric was "Wolfe the donkless hero came."
Re @sharkshooter's comment above about being a Republican if they were in the US (and thus presumably would have voted for Trump), I often do wonder how fellow Canadians would place themselves on the US political map. I would be well to the left of the Democratic party, would have been all in for Bernie in 2016 and 2020 and would see AOC as one of the few hopeful signs for the party's future. But I would have voted for Clinton 2016, Biden 2020, and Harris 2024, despite disagreeing with all three on many issues, because I believe in using your vote to get as close as possible to the government you want, not holding out for an ideal world that doesn't exist. And while I didn't agree with Harris on many things I loved her from a style/charisma point of view and would have been happy to see her as the first woman president.
Likewise I think a lot of conservative Canadians would have voted Republican in all three of the last US elections despite not personally liking Trump -- as, indeed, did many of the actual Republicans in the US.
Thank you, Trudy. You have expressed it so much better that I could have.
Just heard Christy Clark is running for the Liberal leadership. Pretty sure there's never been a federal Liberal leader from that old party which needed a lengthy explication to illuminate its ideological-nomenclatural connection(*), but here we are.
My impression from several degrees removal is that Clark isn't very popular in BC anymore, and wouldn't have much of a following elsewhere in the country. But obviously she thinks she could get somewhere.
(*) Basically: "They're not really Liberals, just Socreds regrouped behind a more urbane facade, but there are some who actually are federal Liberals.
Just heard Christy Clark is running for the Liberal leadership. Pretty sure there's never been a federal Liberal leader from that old party which needed a lengthy explication to illuminate its ideological-nomenclatural connection(*), but here we are.
My impression from several degrees removal is that Clark isn't very popular in BC anymore, and wouldn't have much of a following elsewhere in the country. But obviously she thinks she could get somewhere.
(*) Basically: "They're not really Liberals, just Socreds regrouped behind a more urbane facade, but there are some who actually are federal Liberals.
I lived in BC when Clark was premier. I don't see any signss that she is currently popular in this province. I can't imagine why she's letting her name stand.
Just heard Christy Clark is running for the Liberal leadership. Pretty sure there's never been a federal Liberal leader from that old party which needed a lengthy explication to illuminate its ideological-nomenclatural connection(*), but here we are.
My impression from several degrees removal is that Clark isn't very popular in BC anymore, and wouldn't have much of a following elsewhere in the country. But obviously she thinks she could get somewhere.
(*) Basically: "They're not really Liberals, just Socreds regrouped behind a more urbane facade, but there are some who actually are federal Liberals.
I lived in BC when Clark was premier. I don't see any signss that she is currently popular in this province. I can't imagine why she's letting her name stand.
I can understand why she's letting her name stand. I have met her in political circles several times since she first appeared on the scene; she is extraordinarily ambitious with a high sense of self, quite unjustified by her knowledge and skills.
Mercifully her ignorance of French-- an absolutely essential skill if one wants to lead a national party (ask Kevin O'Leary how that went) --will prevent her from even figuring out where first base might be. She certainly won't get endorsements from any BC First Nations, and would likely fail the Eugene Forsey test on the powers of Lieutenant Governors. I have always been astonished at how far her high-school students' council skillset has carried her.
Sounds like both Carney and Freeland will be in the running. Risky for them, but that said Ms. Marsupial who is not really a political junkie said this morning that if Freeland was the candidate she might actively get involved come election time. Just a data point but I thought an interesting one.
Sounds like both Carney and Freeland will be in the running. Risky for them, but that said Ms. Marsupial who is not really a political junkie said this morning that if Freeland was the candidate she might actively get involved come election time. Just a data point but I thought an interesting one.
A few (anecdotes do not equal a scientific poll) of my women friends have made supportive if uncommitted noises in favour of Ms Freeland. Given that the majority of political activists in Canada are women, her voting total might well be geater than polls would suggest.
Given that the NDP has had two female federal leaders and the Tories had Kim Campbell, none of whose gender made a discernable effect on their dismal electoral results, I would say that is a spurious conclusion.
At this point the Liberals are holding a contest for captain of a sinking ship and the Captain gets to be either Kim Czmpbell or Kathleen Wynne.
Given that the NDP has had two female federal leaders and the Tories had Kim Campbell, none of whose gender made a discernable effect on their dismal electoral results, I would say that is a spurious conclusion.
At this point the Liberals are holding a contest for captain of a sinking ship and the Captain gets to be either Kim Czmpbell or Kathleen Wynne.
Alas, there was no conclusion in my post, only an anecdote and a line in the subjunctive mode. In any case I was focussing on the nomination process, which is where politically active people find themselves, rather than the electoral finish where gender places a lesser role on the result (unless you are Kamala Harris). John Ibbotson of the Globe would agree with the sinking ship metaphor, but I recall on my return from overseas in 1979 I read a series of articles on the dying Liberal party, and every decade or so, the articles make their way on to the pages again. I find obituaries much more interesting, but they happen much more rarely with parties than some writers would suggest.
Still, we have a date for the leadership contest, falling at a time which might divert notice from my annual birthday celebration. I still prefer the old caucus-alone vote, but I have been told that the practice died over a century ago, and I should get a life. Cynics....
Just heard Christy Clark is running for the Liberal leadership. Pretty sure there's never been a federal Liberal leader from that old party which needed a lengthy explication to illuminate its ideological-nomenclatural connection(*), but here we are.
My impression from several degrees removal is that Clark isn't very popular in BC anymore, and wouldn't have much of a following elsewhere in the country. But obviously she thinks she could get somewhere.
(*) Basically: "They're not really Liberals, just Socreds regrouped behind a more urbane facade, but there are some who actually are federal Liberals.
And this taxonomical ambiguity has now re-asserted its relevance, with Christy Clark having to deny that her comments from 2022 about joining the Conservative Party to support Charest for the leadership meant something other than what they appear to mean.
Of course, Charest himself is another example of a premier from an ideologically ambiguous provincial Liberal party(*) who was also a federal Conservative. But he never tried to run for leadership of the federal Liberals.
The federal Conservatives say they have Clark's membership on file, and Clark has challenged them to produce it. Stay tuned.
(*) My understanding is that any politician in Quebec who opposes the sovereignty movement joins the provincial Liberals, regardless of whatever affiliations they may have otherwise. Of course the party is chockful of federal Libs, but also Conservatives like Charest, and I've even heard of a few New Democrats in the ranks.
Unrelated to the Liberal leadership, but in reading some local opinions about the eventual election I realized I had completely forgotten about the re-drawing of electoral boundaries that occurred in 2022. I was absolutely shocked to learn that after spending my entire life in St. John's West, I have been unceremoniously dumped into St. John's East, which was previously across the street from me. It's surprisingly jarring.
Just saw a Poilievre video trashing Christy Clark's support for a BC carbon-tax, with the self-explanatory title "Carbon Tax Christy" and the catchphrase "Just Like Justin".
Yeah, if the pro-business "free enterpriser" with no federal job on her resume is vulnerable on that issue, I'm gonna wager every other leadership candidate is.
Re. Pierre P. Someone posted this joke on a New Brunswick FB page.
Pierre Poilievre finally breaks down and visits a remote northern rez. With news crews following him around as they tour the place, he asks the chief if there was anything the people need.
"Well," says the chief, "We have three very important needs. First, we have a medical clinic, but no doctor."
Poilievre whips out his phone, dials a number, talks to somebody for two minutes and then hangs up. "I've pulled some strings. Your doctor will arrive in a few days. Now what was the second problem?"
"We have no way to get clean water. The local mining operation has poisoned the water our people been drinking for thousands of years. We've been flying bottled water in, and it's terribly expensive."
Once again, Poilievre dials a number, yells into the phone for a few minutes, and then hangs up. "The mine has been shut down, and the owner is being billed for setting up a purification plant for your people. Now what was that third problem?"
"We have no cellphone reception up here," the chief says.
That story was told in England about Boris Johnson in Cornwall.
It's a good one, and could be used for most politicians. Though Liberal supporters would probably wanna find a different motif than poisoned water on the rez, because they've been in power for over 9 years now, and have been promising to eliminate that problem since Trudeau's first campaign.
It’s increasingly looking like a race between Freeland and Carney for the leadership. My gut says Freeland with her profile and political experience. It’s a risk for either of them, given the party’s obvious issues, but I suppose if they’re serious about leadership in the long term they probably need to step up now.
I did a bit of digging in response to the question raised by @TurquoiseTastic upthread. It turns out the Environics (a Canadian polling firm) actually did a poll on Canadian support for Trump vs. Harris (which obviously is not quite the same thing as R vs D, for reasons discussed upthread). It was back in October and was reported in the Globe. The article is behind a paywall but not too difficult to summarize.
Broad numbers in Canada were 60% for Harris vs. 21% for Trump; Trump did better in 2024 than in 2020, when he was polling 15% to Biden’s 67%. Most of the increase appears to come from young (18-34) men, with people over 55 least likely to support him.
For Canadian Conservative Party supporters you get 36% Harris vs 44% Trump. This represents an 11% increase for Trump over 2020 (the only party with a significant change), with 48% support from men and 36% support from women.
For the other three major parties (Liberals, Bloc, and NDP) you get over 80% support for Harris and 6% to 8% for Trump. The NDP has the lowest numbers for both Harris and Trump, but even 6% support for Trump from NDP voters is surprising.
There’s a lot of artificiality built into asking people about their voting preferences in a country where they don’t live or vote. Also, some of the Trump support seems to be situational rather than an indicator of long-term commitment to the Republican Party. But it seems to give some sense of where people’s heads are at.
Yeah. I know there's been progress. But, still, to the extent that whatever degree of non-completion is a stain on any party's image, it's the Liberals.
Plus, stuff like "Thank you for your donation", snarked at the pro-clean water protestors at the fundraising dinner. Probably not widely remembered, but that's arguably because the overall issue is kept relatively low-profile.
Last night Joel Harden was nominated by the Ottawa Centre NDP to run federally in this riding. The nomination meeting was held ain thr sanctuary of Dominion-Chalmers United Church. The reception was held in the basement of Centretown United Church.
I am beginning to think that therl United Church in Ottawa Centre is simply a cover for NDP activities....
While you could probably find a mathematical formula for determining "the best country in the world", pretty sure that Chretien here is using the phrase with the same precision as Trump would use it for the USA. And for the same emotional purposes.
Comments
The 51st State jibes are irritating but they make a certain Council of Canadians (aka Council of Kooks) set froth at the mouth in nationlist excitement.
I wonder if the Laura Secord ice-cream chain could do a current events tie-in for some new flavours.
Just in time for Inauguration Week! Loyalist Lemondrop and Flaming 1600!
There seems to have been some assumption among many in the Liberal party when things started going sideways that whatever happens there must be something they could do to ensure another election win, and the question was just who needed to go (for Trudeau, Freeland; for many others, Trudeau himself). I must admit to serious doubt that there was any realistic path to the Liberals winning another election after 2021. It just doesn't normally happen that changing your leader when you're down in the polls after a long run gives you another shot at government (unless of course your opponent is Tim Hudak and runs a negative campaign against himself and his party). If everyone in the party could have gotten on the same page about this reality, Trudeau may well have been their best option for a graceful soft landing into opposition. But obviously everyone wasn't on the same page about this and we all know the results.
But at the moment this seems to be a minority viewpoint to say the least. So I'm curious what people think. Were the Liberals toast with or without Trudeau, and if not what would they have had to do differently when they could have done something differently? And if the Liberals were likely going to lose anyway, would their chances of a soft landing been better if Trudeau had stepped aside, and who should have stepped in to replace him?
I think that the Liberal brand right now is pretty much synonymous with the Justin brand, and any reaction against the latter was gonna tar the former. Had some known-quantity like Freeland etc taken over earlier, it woulda mattered little, because whatever differences existed between her and Trudeau, the public would just see her as his successor.
(In 1984, it was known that PET and John Turner weren't overly fond of one another, but that perception of distance didn't help Turner.)
I dunno. Maybe if a perceived outsider like Carney had gotten in earlier, he could run as a new broom, but even then, I think he'd still just be coded as sunny ways.
FWIW, I DO think this comic-opera performance in Trumpland justifies at least a theoretical reassessment of the whole Canada/US/NATO complex of alliances. Because even if it's all just a joke, it's giving the incoming administration, and by extension the whole military and foreign-policy establishment, a very strong odour of unseriousness and unreliability.
More seriously, he's advising Trump to aim his fire at China instead of Canada. Tellingly, he also accuses MEXICO of being in alliance with China, thus rupturing whatever solidarity existed between the two NAFTA nations currently in Trump's crosshairs.
Is this in response to any particular post on this thread?
This one ...
Thanks.
If you're not pro-Trump, then I wouldn't classify you as pro-MAGA. But, if I may ask, who did you want to win the 2024 presidential election?
The Republican party.
Well, then I would, in fact, classify you as pro-Trump and hence pro-MAGA. Because voting for Trump gets you Trump, not some hypothetical better Republican.
In general terms, there is no harm to wishing our southern neighbours' politics to take a different turn. I have just finished reading Robin Winks' great Canada and the United States: The Civil War Years, where Canadians were all over the map on every possible side in the civil war.
My Connecticut and New York ancestors voted with their feet in the 1780s and I am entirely happy with their costly decision of conscience.
The Globe has an interesting opinion piece by Stephen Azzi (whom I’ve never heard of but is professor of political science and other things at Carleton U). Unfortunately it’s paywalled, but it’s on succession management and how King and Pearson got it right. I suspect there was lot of luck involved in both cases but worth a read in light of where we got to with JT.
When I ended up being the president of an obscure NGO I had lunch with my old boss, who had served in the 1980-84 cabinet, and his advice was that my first job was to find and recruit my replacement. As my term went on and on, I realized that he was dead right, and I succeeded, much to my delight-- as he further advised, I was to make sure that my replacement was an improvement on me-- and she was!
Apart from a vaguely-based guess that King wanted St. Laurent and Pearson wanted Trudeau as their respective successors, I really don't know much about either of those handovers. Would you be interested in nutshelling Azzi's argument?
Basically that they actively identified and developed potential successors, and knew well enough to leave when their time was up. Though as SPK mentions age may have been a factor in the second part of that equation.
Tangential, but this brings to mind the life history of Calixa Lavallee: Union soldier, Boston choir-master, and star-spangled wackjob.
"In days of yore, from Britain's shore, Wolfe the dauntless hero came and planted firm Britannia's flag on Canada's fair domain."
We may have to work on the lyrics a bit. Was there ever a French-language version?
The CBC ran a rewrite competition for the (very dated) lyrics 20 years ago and the results are on YouTube.
I never think of this without remembering one of Margaret Laurence's characters -- probably Morag from The Diviners thinking as a child that the lyric was "Wolfe the donkless hero came."
Re @sharkshooter's comment above about being a Republican if they were in the US (and thus presumably would have voted for Trump), I often do wonder how fellow Canadians would place themselves on the US political map. I would be well to the left of the Democratic party, would have been all in for Bernie in 2016 and 2020 and would see AOC as one of the few hopeful signs for the party's future. But I would have voted for Clinton 2016, Biden 2020, and Harris 2024, despite disagreeing with all three on many issues, because I believe in using your vote to get as close as possible to the government you want, not holding out for an ideal world that doesn't exist. And while I didn't agree with Harris on many things I loved her from a style/charisma point of view and would have been happy to see her as the first woman president.
Likewise I think a lot of conservative Canadians would have voted Republican in all three of the last US elections despite not personally liking Trump -- as, indeed, did many of the actual Republicans in the US.
In days now gone
From Albion
Wolfe the rostbif bastard came
And slaughtered brave young habitants
On Abraham's bloody plain
Sold for Caribbean sugar!
Thank you, Trudy. You have expressed it so much better that I could have.
My impression from several degrees removal is that Clark isn't very popular in BC anymore, and wouldn't have much of a following elsewhere in the country. But obviously she thinks she could get somewhere.
(*) Basically: "They're not really Liberals, just Socreds regrouped behind a more urbane facade, but there are some who actually are federal Liberals.
I lived in BC when Clark was premier. I don't see any signss that she is currently popular in this province. I can't imagine why she's letting her name stand.
I can understand why she's letting her name stand. I have met her in political circles several times since she first appeared on the scene; she is extraordinarily ambitious with a high sense of self, quite unjustified by her knowledge and skills.
Mercifully her ignorance of French-- an absolutely essential skill if one wants to lead a national party (ask Kevin O'Leary how that went) --will prevent her from even figuring out where first base might be. She certainly won't get endorsements from any BC First Nations, and would likely fail the Eugene Forsey test on the powers of Lieutenant Governors. I have always been astonished at how far her high-school students' council skillset has carried her.
ETA: Melanie Joly not running.
A few (anecdotes do not equal a scientific poll) of my women friends have made supportive if uncommitted noises in favour of Ms Freeland. Given that the majority of political activists in Canada are women, her voting total might well be geater than polls would suggest.
At this point the Liberals are holding a contest for captain of a sinking ship and the Captain gets to be either Kim Czmpbell or Kathleen Wynne.
Alas, there was no conclusion in my post, only an anecdote and a line in the subjunctive mode. In any case I was focussing on the nomination process, which is where politically active people find themselves, rather than the electoral finish where gender places a lesser role on the result (unless you are Kamala Harris). John Ibbotson of the Globe would agree with the sinking ship metaphor, but I recall on my return from overseas in 1979 I read a series of articles on the dying Liberal party, and every decade or so, the articles make their way on to the pages again. I find obituaries much more interesting, but they happen much more rarely with parties than some writers would suggest.
Still, we have a date for the leadership contest, falling at a time which might divert notice from my annual birthday celebration. I still prefer the old caucus-alone vote, but I have been told that the practice died over a century ago, and I should get a life. Cynics....
And this taxonomical ambiguity has now re-asserted its relevance, with Christy Clark having to deny that her comments from 2022 about joining the Conservative Party to support Charest for the leadership meant something other than what they appear to mean.
Of course, Charest himself is another example of a premier from an ideologically ambiguous provincial Liberal party(*) who was also a federal Conservative. But he never tried to run for leadership of the federal Liberals.
The federal Conservatives say they have Clark's membership on file, and Clark has challenged them to produce it. Stay tuned.
(*) My understanding is that any politician in Quebec who opposes the sovereignty movement joins the provincial Liberals, regardless of whatever affiliations they may have otherwise. Of course the party is chockful of federal Libs, but also Conservatives like Charest, and I've even heard of a few New Democrats in the ranks.
Yeah, if the pro-business "free enterpriser" with no federal job on her resume is vulnerable on that issue, I'm gonna wager every other leadership candidate is.
Pierre Poilievre finally breaks down and visits a remote northern rez. With news crews following him around as they tour the place, he asks the chief if there was anything the people need.
"Well," says the chief, "We have three very important needs. First, we have a medical clinic, but no doctor."
Poilievre whips out his phone, dials a number, talks to somebody for two minutes and then hangs up. "I've pulled some strings. Your doctor will arrive in a few days. Now what was the second problem?"
"We have no way to get clean water. The local mining operation has poisoned the water our people been drinking for thousands of years. We've been flying bottled water in, and it's terribly expensive."
Once again, Poilievre dials a number, yells into the phone for a few minutes, and then hangs up. "The mine has been shut down, and the owner is being billed for setting up a purification plant for your people. Now what was that third problem?"
"We have no cellphone reception up here," the chief says.
It's a good one, and could be used for most politicians. Though Liberal supporters would probably wanna find a different motif than poisoned water on the rez, because they've been in power for over 9 years now, and have been promising to eliminate that problem since Trudeau's first campaign.
https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1506514143353/1533317130660
It’s increasingly looking like a race between Freeland and Carney for the leadership. My gut says Freeland with her profile and political experience. It’s a risk for either of them, given the party’s obvious issues, but I suppose if they’re serious about leadership in the long term they probably need to step up now.
I did a bit of digging in response to the question raised by @TurquoiseTastic upthread. It turns out the Environics (a Canadian polling firm) actually did a poll on Canadian support for Trump vs. Harris (which obviously is not quite the same thing as R vs D, for reasons discussed upthread). It was back in October and was reported in the Globe. The article is behind a paywall but not too difficult to summarize.
Broad numbers in Canada were 60% for Harris vs. 21% for Trump; Trump did better in 2024 than in 2020, when he was polling 15% to Biden’s 67%. Most of the increase appears to come from young (18-34) men, with people over 55 least likely to support him.
For Canadian Conservative Party supporters you get 36% Harris vs 44% Trump. This represents an 11% increase for Trump over 2020 (the only party with a significant change), with 48% support from men and 36% support from women.
For the other three major parties (Liberals, Bloc, and NDP) you get over 80% support for Harris and 6% to 8% for Trump. The NDP has the lowest numbers for both Harris and Trump, but even 6% support for Trump from NDP voters is surprising.
There’s a lot of artificiality built into asking people about their voting preferences in a country where they don’t live or vote. Also, some of the Trump support seems to be situational rather than an indicator of long-term commitment to the Republican Party. But it seems to give some sense of where people’s heads are at.
Yeah. I know there's been progress. But, still, to the extent that whatever degree of non-completion is a stain on any party's image, it's the Liberals.
Plus, stuff like "Thank you for your donation", snarked at the pro-clean water protestors at the fundraising dinner. Probably not widely remembered, but that's arguably because the overall issue is kept relatively low-profile.
I am beginning to think that therl United Church in Ottawa Centre is simply a cover for NDP activities....
AND I am totally here for it!!!! 😀
Fixed that for ya.
``Canadians will never give up the best country in the world to join the U.S.``
The full text, which appeared in the Globe and Mail, is for subscribers only, but it is well summarized here:
https://www.montrealgazette.com/news/article671131.html
My reaction was Attaboy!