Danielle Smith comes out against an oil embargo against the USA, and at least one Alberta columnist is saying that such a policy would be as bad as Trump's tariffs.
I wonder if Ford vs. Smith on trade-sanctions could turn out to be a repeat performance of Davis Vs. Lougheed on oil prices, if maybe scripted by WWE this time around.
Ford now says that Smith "doesn't speak for Canada".
And Smith is gonna be attending the inauguration. Not sure if she can spin that as the carrot in a carrot-and-stick strategy, since she's already stated that in her view the tariffs are inevitable.
Danielle Smith comes out against an oil embargo against the USA, and at least one Alberta columnist is saying that such a policy would be as bad as Trump's tariffs.
I wonder if Ford vs. Smith on trade-sanctions could turn out to be a repeat performance of Davis Vs. Lougheed on oil prices, if maybe scripted by WWE this time around.
The columnist I mention there is Don Braid of the Calgary Herald. Funny thing, I remember him at the Edmonton Journal in the early 80s, cheering on Conservative Lougheed against Conservative Davis and Trudeau pere in the Energy Wars. So there's a weird sense of deja vu in all of this.
Can we bring Chretien back as PM? Trump won't know what hit him.
While I really do think he got an obscenely easy ride for the Shawinigan Handshake(*), it would be pretty cool to see that becoming a meme in the trade-wars.
(*) Imagine how progressives would react if a Conservative had done that to a left-wing demonstrator, as Chretien did.
Some might look askance at Carney basically announcing his leadership run on an American comedy show. But with Ford, Smith etc arguing their respective jurisdictions' in the US media right now, he probably figured he needed to get a piece of that action for himself.
Plus, as I saw others point out, more Canadian hipsters probably watch The Daily Show then any equivalent show up here.
Ford's now wearing a CANADA IS NOT FOR SALE ballcap. Doesn't quite precisely fit the tariff situation, since the point of Trump's autarkic proposals isn't to buy up lots of stuff in or from Canada.
But if you assume(and I personally think it's a leap) that Trump is playing the long game of isolating Canada so severely that we'll have no choice but eventually to beg for economic relief via annexation, then the proclamation might make more sense.
Overall, probably just a bit of sloganeering intended to promote a vague rock-em-sock-em mood.
Hey, I think I just found out now that Mark Carney's an Edmonton boy. That's where he formally announced his leadership bid, calling the city "home". Kid behind him was wearing an Oilers' jersey.
Starting in heavily with the implication that Poilievre is just the northern franchisee for MAGA. He also cracked a coupla witticisms, and his style seems rather deadpan, without being condescending. (This is all totally first impressions.)
Apparently, he went to St. Francis Xavier High School, way out in the west end. About the only thing I know about that school is that my own school played football against them, and I once heard second-hand an insulting and obscene chant that had been sung by our fans against theirs.
Eh, no, Charlie. As someone who spent 32 years in the GREAT CITY OF WINNING CHAMPIONS FOREVER, I don't need to hear your canned outrage at billionaire MAGA-connected celebrities, wistfilly prefaced by folksy recollections of watching The Great One play back in the day.
Though, if I'm being honest, I can't deny that this might be good politics. Bobby Orr got mentioned by Angus as a fallen idol as well. I do recall Orr being something of a hero around Edmonton in the pre-NHL 1970s, even though he was playing with a yankee team.
As an outsider observer of Canadian politics, I was wondering if Trump's attacks, tariffs, etc. will actually result in an increase Liberal support??
That's what I've been wondering as well. Right now, though, I think it's too early to tell. We'll probably know more later this week, after we've seen what Trump implements and how the various parties respond.
The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that any party headed by Doug Ford would be viewed as the best for battling Trump on tariffs, but alas, he's a provincial leader.
That's what I've been wondering as well. Right now, though, I think it's too early to tell. We'll probably know more later this week, after we've seen what Trump implements and how the various parties respond.
The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that any party headed by Doug Ford would be viewed as the best for battling Trump on tariffs, but alas, he's a provincial leader.
Interesting - I was wondering whether it was Trudeau being a drag on the poll numbers or the whole Liberal "brand".
A week is a (very) long time in politics as someone once said, the Trump regime is going to create shockwaves around the world...
As an outsider observer of Canadian politics, I was wondering if Trump's attacks, tariffs, etc. will actually result in an increase Liberal support??
Very unlikely. In short we have reached the toxic overstayed-your-welcome phase of governments, see Kim Campbell and Brian Mulroney (the most direct comparison) or Bob Rae as Premier of Ontario.
Generally speaking I would say that Liberals’ chances in the next election are not great, whoever their leader ends up being. The complication introduced by DT is that (a) depending on what decides to do his tariffs may present an existential threat to Canada, (b) there’s no evidence that Poilievre is remotely up to the challenge of this threat, (c) the two leading contenders in Liberal leadership race are highly competent and probably as well positioned as anyone is going to be to deal with it, and (d) it is just possible that this could ultimately influence the electorate’s view of the wisdom of keeping the Liberals on under new management for just a bit longer. We shall see.
Freeland was subject to repeated heckling by pro-Palestine activists at her campaign launch yesterday. In her speech, she emphasized disagreements she's had with Trudeau.
I assume most cabinet members will endorse Carney and consider Freeland a traitor.
Cabinet members may do the first, but not necessarily the second-- they are more mellow and calculating than is generally thought. Party activists, however, are another social class....
I admit I thought of Freeland’s negatives with the electorate more in terms of being a long-time Trudeau loyalist than bring a traitor. But perhaps she is facing the worst of both worlds.
So far Freeland has support from Mark Holland and Diane Lebouthillier in cabinet, and a bunch of sitting MPs. Melanie Joly and former cabinet minister Anne McLellan and a bunch of sitting MPs are supporting Carney. Not really sure what this means in practical terms, but it doesn’t sound like anyone has been exiled to Planet Hoth quite yet.
...I was wondering whether it was Trudeau being a drag on the poll numbers or the whole Liberal "brand".
...
Both. They are done.
Neither of the two major parties is ever "done" in Canadian politics. Both Conservatives and Liberals have been declared on death's door often enough that we should have learned they can be brought back from more easily than a Star Trek character with a solid contract.
The Liberals might certainly be "done" for this election, though I don't know if that's a certainty yet. But they'll doubtless be back in some reincarnation.
Basically true. While it is true that the old PCs have legally ceased to exist, I am of the opinion that the harperite party is basically how the PCs would have evolved anyway, with or without the hayseed interregnum of 1993 to 2003.
...
The Liberals might certainly be "done" for this election, though I don't know if that's a certainty yet. .
It's as certain as anything in politics ever is.
At this point, though, I could see Trump's tariff policies as a wild-card on the Canadian side. If they go in as planned on February 1st, and they're as bad as speculated, AND the Liberals succeed in linking Poilievre to Trump, that could hurt the Conservatives.
...
The Liberals might certainly be "done" for this election, though I don't know if that's a certainty yet. .
It's as certain as anything in politics ever is.
In other words, not a lot. I recall with clarity the sure-winner John Turner arrive with a hundred seats under prediction, and the triumphant-to-be Lyn MacLeod come to make a concession speech. And, of course, Kim Campbell.... It is sometimes really unfair, as Paul Dewar experienced in Ottawa Centre. There are literally dozens of Canadian politicians who have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Electors have their own sense of what they want.
I recall it as being a pretty sure thing that Turner's Liberals would lose big-time in 1984, at least after "You had an option, sir."
Same with the Tories in 1993, though I can't totally rule out that there was a slight glimmer of hope after Campbell first took the reins. I do remember that that one infamous ad definitely seemed to mark a point where people started saying it was all over for the Conservatives.
I recall it as being a pretty sure thing that Turner's Liberals would lose big-time in 1984, at least after "You had an option, sir."
Same with the Tories in 1993, though I can't totally rule out that there was a slight glimmer of hope after Campbell first took the reins. I do remember that that one infamous ad definitely seemed to mark a point where people started saying it was all over for the Conservatives.
The predictions of their victory(ies) was a big item on their leadership campaigns and perhaps I should have been specific on that. Lots of numbers were thrown about. I did not have the confidence in them that others had, as I was a bit closer to the trenches. A review of contemporary commentators in the better-paid press will give you more evidence. The real campaign, begun in earnest, did them both a number and I fear that I wickedly collected on a few bets.
From the Globe it sounds like Carney is ahead of Freeland in cabinet endorsements and “unofficial” support (the latter including Domenic Leblanc). Erskine-Smith (not yet officially supporting anyone) is quoted as suggesting people are seeing Carney as more effective against Poilievre.
Robyn Urback argues in a column today or yesterday that Freeland’s notably adversarial relationship with Trump during his last term may not be an asset. As mentioned upthread I’m not an unqualified fan of Urback but she may have a point.
Robyn Urback argues in a column today or yesterday that Freeland’s notably adversarial relationship with Trump during his last term may not be an asset. As mentioned upthread I’m not an unqualified fan of Urback but she may have a point.
Haven't read the article, but my personal inkling would be that the existing hostility between them might make it difficult for Freeland to pander to Trump's ego and/or present a freshly menacing persona, as the case may be. Whereas a relative newbie like Carney can come in with a clean slate as far as establishing a rapport goes.
Naheed Nenshi has got the nomination for Rachel Notley's old constituency, Edmonton Strathcona.
Presumably he took this one just because it had opened up. The UCP is complaining about Nenshi being a parachute candidate, which is the most most insincere and meaningless criticism in politics.
I try to stay on top of other countries' politics, especially when those countries have such a strong demographic similarity to Australia. So this, from the Toronto Star, has been usefully educational.
There are lots of good things that can be said about Carney. The risk of course is that he has never even run for any kind of elected office, which leaves a lot of unknowns about some pretty important skills. Given that the most difficult part of being Prime Minister of Canada is arguably getting the job in the first place…
There were lots of good things that were said about Kim Campbell.
One thing I remember is that her academic credentials were originally exaggerated by the media, with claims that she had a graduate degree, when, as it was soon revealed, she only had a BA. I think the fact that she'd gone to the LSE led some people to assume she must've finished grad studies.
And I think maybe it was Jefferey Simpson who published an extract from her thesis on Russia to show how "brilliant" she was. IIRC, it was a critique of Communist Party rule, along the lines of that contained in Animal Farm, ie. probably correct but no longer remarkable.
Then she got into this weird, tangential debate about whether the New Deal had alleviated or aggravated the Great Depression. The Globe cartoonist took Campbell's side by caricaturing Chretien with a top-hat and cigarette holder hallowed by the words "Jobs Jobs Jobs", captioned "The Old Deal".
I was living in the States around the 1993 election and my recollection of Campbell’s short tenure as PC party leader and PM is not as vivid as it might be. I remember the columnist Allan Fotheringham taking credit for proposing her as Mulroney’s successor. She was also made (in)famous by her remark, in the middle of the 1993 campaign, that “an election is no time to discuss serious issues”. She sort of came out of nowhere and it’s hard to imagine that the Conservatives were really putting their best foot forward by making her their leader. I don’t think anyone doubts that the Liberals are going to have an uphill battle in the next election, but at least two of the people thought to be the most serious contenders for the party leadership have actually stepped up the plate.
Ontario will be going to the polls. Doug Ford confirmed it.
I really wish that provinces and the federal parliament would stop this hypocritical nonsense about fixed election dates (and as an Anglican I know my hypocritical nonsense when I see it). I do not know of a fixed election date law which does not include a loophole big enough for a locomotive (I think that the federal one has clause 54.1).
Comments
I wonder if Ford vs. Smith on trade-sanctions could turn out to be a repeat performance of Davis Vs. Lougheed on oil prices, if maybe scripted by WWE this time around.
Ford now says that Smith "doesn't speak for Canada".
And Smith is gonna be attending the inauguration. Not sure if she can spin that as the carrot in a carrot-and-stick strategy, since she's already stated that in her view the tariffs are inevitable.
The columnist I mention there is Don Braid of the Calgary Herald. Funny thing, I remember him at the Edmonton Journal in the early 80s, cheering on Conservative Lougheed against Conservative Davis and Trudeau pere in the Energy Wars. So there's a weird sense of deja vu in all of this.
While I really do think he got an obscenely easy ride for the Shawinigan Handshake(*), it would be pretty cool to see that becoming a meme in the trade-wars.
(*) Imagine how progressives would react if a Conservative had done that to a left-wing demonstrator, as Chretien did.
It seemed like a pretty impractical scenario from the start, even before her mishandling of the questions over partisan affiliation.
Plus, as I saw others point out, more Canadian hipsters probably watch The Daily Show then any equivalent show up here.
But if you assume(and I personally think it's a leap) that Trump is playing the long game of isolating Canada so severely that we'll have no choice but eventually to beg for economic relief via annexation, then the proclamation might make more sense.
Overall, probably just a bit of sloganeering intended to promote a vague rock-em-sock-em mood.
No disagreement from me. Populist roughhousing is a sine qua non for any effective strategy on this.
Starting in heavily with the implication that Poilievre is just the northern franchisee for MAGA. He also cracked a coupla witticisms, and his style seems rather deadpan, without being condescending. (This is all totally first impressions.)
Apparently, he went to St. Francis Xavier High School, way out in the west end. About the only thing I know about that school is that my own school played football against them, and I once heard second-hand an insulting and obscene chant that had been sung by our fans against theirs.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chrystia-freeland-running-liberal-leader-1.7434083
If she had really wanted to do a shot across the bow, she should have announced on Bluesky.
My guess would be she just defaulted to twitter because it's what she's used to.
That's what I've been wondering as well. Right now, though, I think it's too early to tell. We'll probably know more later this week, after we've seen what Trump implements and how the various parties respond.
The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that any party headed by Doug Ford would be viewed as the best for battling Trump on tariffs, but alas, he's a provincial leader.
Interesting - I was wondering whether it was Trudeau being a drag on the poll numbers or the whole Liberal "brand".
A week is a (very) long time in politics as someone once said, the Trump regime is going to create shockwaves around the world...
In other news, rumour has it (of unknown reliability) that Doug Ford is going to the polls this week.
Very unlikely. In short we have reached the toxic overstayed-your-welcome phase of governments, see Kim Campbell and Brian Mulroney (the most direct comparison) or Bob Rae as Premier of Ontario.
And Melanie Joly has endorsed Mark Carney.
Cabinet members may do the first, but not necessarily the second-- they are more mellow and calculating than is generally thought. Party activists, however, are another social class....
Both. They are done.
Neither of the two major parties is ever "done" in Canadian politics. Both Conservatives and Liberals have been declared on death's door often enough that we should have learned they can be brought back from more easily than a Star Trek character with a solid contract.
The Liberals might certainly be "done" for this election, though I don't know if that's a certainty yet. But they'll doubtless be back in some reincarnation.
Basically true. While it is true that the old PCs have legally ceased to exist, I am of the opinion that the harperite party is basically how the PCs would have evolved anyway, with or without the hayseed interregnum of 1993 to 2003.
It's as certain as anything in politics ever is.
At this point, though, I could see Trump's tariff policies as a wild-card on the Canadian side. If they go in as planned on February 1st, and they're as bad as speculated, AND the Liberals succeed in linking Poilievre to Trump, that could hurt the Conservatives.
In other words, not a lot. I recall with clarity the sure-winner John Turner arrive with a hundred seats under prediction, and the triumphant-to-be Lyn MacLeod come to make a concession speech. And, of course, Kim Campbell.... It is sometimes really unfair, as Paul Dewar experienced in Ottawa Centre. There are literally dozens of Canadian politicians who have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Electors have their own sense of what they want.
I recall it as being a pretty sure thing that Turner's Liberals would lose big-time in 1984, at least after "You had an option, sir."
Same with the Tories in 1993, though I can't totally rule out that there was a slight glimmer of hope after Campbell first took the reins. I do remember that that one infamous ad definitely seemed to mark a point where people started saying it was all over for the Conservatives.
The predictions of their victory(ies) was a big item on their leadership campaigns and perhaps I should have been specific on that. Lots of numbers were thrown about. I did not have the confidence in them that others had, as I was a bit closer to the trenches. A review of contemporary commentators in the better-paid press will give you more evidence. The real campaign, begun in earnest, did them both a number and I fear that I wickedly collected on a few bets.
Robyn Urback argues in a column today or yesterday that Freeland’s notably adversarial relationship with Trump during his last term may not be an asset. As mentioned upthread I’m not an unqualified fan of Urback but she may have a point.
Haven't read the article, but my personal inkling would be that the existing hostility between them might make it difficult for Freeland to pander to Trump's ego and/or present a freshly menacing persona, as the case may be. Whereas a relative newbie like Carney can come in with a clean slate as far as establishing a rapport goes.
Presumably he took this one just because it had opened up. The UCP is complaining about Nenshi being a parachute candidate, which is the most most insincere and meaningless criticism in politics.
One thing I remember is that her academic credentials were originally exaggerated by the media, with claims that she had a graduate degree, when, as it was soon revealed, she only had a BA. I think the fact that she'd gone to the LSE led some people to assume she must've finished grad studies.
And I think maybe it was Jefferey Simpson who published an extract from her thesis on Russia to show how "brilliant" she was. IIRC, it was a critique of Communist Party rule, along the lines of that contained in Animal Farm, ie. probably correct but no longer remarkable.
Then she got into this weird, tangential debate about whether the New Deal had alleviated or aggravated the Great Depression. The Globe cartoonist took Campbell's side by caricaturing Chretien with a top-hat and cigarette holder hallowed by the words "Jobs Jobs Jobs", captioned "The Old Deal".
I really wish that provinces and the federal parliament would stop this hypocritical nonsense about fixed election dates (and as an Anglican I know my hypocritical nonsense when I see it). I do not know of a fixed election date law which does not include a loophole big enough for a locomotive (I think that the federal one has clause 54.1).