Now we see if the ghost of David Peterson’s political career shows up on election day…
You mean Ford could end up as Peterson 1990? Don't really see it. He was already pretty popular before Trump started threatening tariffs and spouting off about annexation, and now he's getting himself widely hailed as Captain Canuck. I'm seeing a pretty easy path to victory for him.
Poilievre, on the other hand, could be in some trouble. His main foil is leaving the political, and he hasn't established himself as solidly anti-Trump in the way that Ford has and Carney might.
Now we see if the ghost of David Peterson’s political career shows up on election day…
You mean Ford could end up as Peterson 1990? Don't really see it. He was already pretty popular before Trump started threatening tariffs and spouting off about annexation, and now he's getting himself widely hailed as Captain Canuck. I'm seeing a pretty easy path to victory for him.
Poilievre, on the other hand, could be in some trouble. His main foil is leaving the political, and he hasn't established himself as solidly anti-Trump in the way that Ford has and Carney might.
Despite my reference to Peterson I’m inclined to agree with you - it would take a major upset for Ford not to walk away with another majority, whereas Poilievre is potentially vulnerable. To be clear, I wouldn’t bet against him, but there’s still a potential for things to come unstuck.
It is an axiom of Ontario politics that if you have a Conservative at each level, each suffers from the others misdeeds. Ontario has a habit of electing opposite parties at the provincial and federal level.
Ontario has a habit of electing opposite parties at the provincial and federal level.
And even during periods of celestial convergence, it's not been an entirely harmonic groove. See, for example, Hepburn vs. Mackenzie King on conscription.
(Liberal example, of course. I'm also guessing that Premier Davis and Prime Minister Clark didn't quite agree on energy policy, though I don't quite recall how tangible an issue that was pre-1980.)
Poilievre still has a very strong head of momentum but Doug Ford and Pierre Poilievre are very different kinds of Conservatives. Doug Ford, per NDP MPP's of my acquanitance, is a Populist, he is not a dyed-blue Conservative. Ford chose the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario as his vehicle for power, he is there solely because it was convenient for him.
Poilievre, OTOH, is a dyed-blue Conservative true believer. He'll get in, start cutting programmes and making unpopular announcements and Ford doesn't want to be tagged with it. I can;t blame Ford for thinking that but the ghost of David Peterson is rattling around the attic.
Hmm are you sure of your conclusion? I asserted that Doug Ford *DOESN'T* want that, so are you saying that Doug Ford is not, as you say, an adult politician?
Poilievre still has a very strong head of momentum but Doug Ford and Pierre Poilievre are very different kinds of Conservatives. Doug Ford, per NDP MPP's of my acquanitance, is a Populist, he is not a dyed-blue Conservative. Ford chose the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario as his vehicle for power, he is there solely because it was convenient for him.
I agree that Ford is more populist than your typical old-school Tory, but I don't know if I could really see him in any party but the PCs(or some equivalent of). Seems to me he really wouldn't fit in with the Liberals, except maybe as one of their more suburbanny backbenchers, and the NDP is outta the question.
Granted, I could be biased because of his erstwhile association with Ford Nation, widely recognized as explicitly right-wing(albeit with a higher percentage of multicultural voters), but it's still the vibe I get when considering Doug in his own context.
Hmm are you sure of your conclusion? I asserted that Doug Ford *DOESN'T* want that, so are you saying that Doug Ford is not, as you say, an adult politician?
I wasn't talking about Ford and Ontario. Pretty sure the quote in my post made that clear.
I thought that Erin O'Toole was the adult in the room, but he wasn't wanted. In any case I am waiting for my laundry to finish and do not want to be confused by discussions about Messrs Ford and Polièvre. While both are succesful politicians in their own way, I would not have assumed that either were focussed on policy issues.
In any case I need to see when the all-candidates meetings are to be held in my riding, being one of the 3% of the population which votes on the candidate.
Alberta can scream as long as they want. I knew we should never have brought them into Confederation in '05. ;^)
So you wanted to leave them as part of the Northwest Territories?
I took the comment as whimsy.
I did once encounter a self-proclaimed Ontario sovereigntist who argued that Alberta would have no similar right to independence, because, unlike Ontario which had a real identity rooted in Upper Canada, Alberta was created "with the lazy stroke of a pen".
I was at thr Ottawa Campaign Launch for the Ontario NDP last night. I asked a few federal NDP legislative staff how the federal Tories were feeling about the Trump election victory. The federal Tories are apparently quite dejected as it is costing them dearly,
They staffers opined that we are looking at the death throes of American democracy, I replied this was a golden opportunity to reclaim the Lost Provinces so that we can be one big happy British North America again,
I was at thr Ottawa Campaign Launch for the Ontario NDP last night. I asked a few federal NDP legislative staff how the federal Tories were feeling about the Trump election victory. The federal Tories are apparently quite dejected as it is costing them dearly,
It's not even so much that he's viewed as an ally of the now-reviled Trump, but that he just doesn't come across as the right person for the job of fighting the tariffs, regardless of where he is ideologically.
Anyway, tariffs in effect tomorrow, with oil and gas exempt until the 18th of this month.
I've met a fair fiew New Democrats who fought against Free Trade in 1988 and still held a grudge against it. Now the "Free Trade" deal is going up in smoke. Irony.
I've met a fair fiew New Democrats who fought against Free Trade in 1988 and still held a grudge against it. Now the "Free Trade" deal is going up in smoke. Irony.
I've long thought that, in a way, Trump's protectionism is actually what the anti-globalization crowd have been demanding governments do for decades.
Except, presumably, they wanted it done in a more ordered fashion, rather than one man in the most powerful nation implementing it by fiat. It remains the case, though, that if Trump were able to bring prosperity to his own nation via barriers that might totally disadvantage other nations, he would be doing exactly what the anti-globalizationists wanted, by protecting the "sovereignty" of his own country.
FULL BIAS: Not a fan of the anti-globalization movement, many of whom had a weakness for black-helicopter style theories about shadowy cabals. As well, they didn't seem to realize that their opinions, carried to a logical conclusion, would see international climate and human-rights treaties branded as surrendering of national sovereignty.
What is the likelihood that Trump could succeed in getting enough Canadian manufacturing to move south of the border to make the tariffs economically justifiable?
What is the likelihood that Trump could succeed in getting enough Canadian manufacturing to move south of the border to make the tariffs economically justifiable?
Very limited and nowhere near his fantasy life. The very intertwined car industry requires multi-billion (yes!) capitalization to do much moving but otherwise, multinationals and US-owned companies (FIRA is long gone) have sent south what they could to take advantage of anti-union laws, higher temperatures, and lower transportation costs-- I saw this really get rolling in the 1980s and it's not slowed down much since.
In other words, he'll get some but he should not wager that there'll be anywhere neare enough to make the tariffs economically justifiable--- but that was never the point.
Zero. The stuff that could have gone went decades ago. Thec US is addicted to oil and that the problem.
It seems to me like a case of dueling impossibilities… there’s no way manufacturing can go south overnight, but there’s also no way Canadian-made cars are going to sellable in the United States with 25% tariffs.
Zero. The stuff that could have gone went decades ago. Thec US is addicted to oil and that the problem.
It seems to me like a case of dueling impossibilities… there’s no way manufacturing can go south overnight, but there’s also no way Canadian-made cars are going to sellable in the United States with 25% tariffs.
Reading the Globe explainer (behind a paywall) it looks like this is more complicated than I thought, given how many times automobiles and their parts cross borders.
There may be, but it is irrelevant. Trump would just rip up the agreement anyway.
That's why I'm not quite buying nationalists who are currently saying "NOW do you see what a mistake we made in 1988?" Even if everyone had voted that year to keep the protectionist status quo, it wouldn't matter, faced with a rogue actor who ignores the rules anyway.
Their counterargument is we would have retained more domestic industry so this wouldn't be a problem.
Fair point.
For the record, as a usually non-wavering dipper, I voted against free trade in '88. But somewhere between the '93 and '97 election, I pretty much decided the issue was settled and not worth pursuing by the left.
North American free trade is out the window. It's going to hurt. A lot.
I wonder if there is any mechanism in the Canada-USA-Mexico agreement to deal with the current situation with such punitive tariffs.
Indeed there is, and it was difficult to get Trump's agreement to any dispute mechanism whatsoever due to his belief that a neutral panel was ipso facto opposed to the USA.
100 years from now, Fentanyl Czar will still be a cabinet position, and the law-and-order crowd will scream blue-murder whenever someone tries to axe it, even though no one will remember why it was ever created in the first place.
100 years from now, Fentanyl Czar will still be a cabinet position, and the law-and-order crowd will scream blue-murder whenever someone tries to axe it, even though no one will remember why it was ever created in the first place.
100 years from now, Fentanyl Czar will still be a cabinet position, and the law-and-order crowd will scream blue-murder whenever someone tries to axe it, even though no one will remember why it was ever created in the first place.
As long as it doesn’t become the fentanyl politburo after the revolution…
Weirdly anticlimactic and hard to tell what it all means. I suppose we will find out soon enough.
I thought I’d dreamt it, but it showed up in my Facebook feed again… “This election, I’m on your side” says the leader of one of the major Ontario parties, making one wonder whose side they were on in previous elections…
Looking at 338 Canada and the polls are looking depressingly like a re-run of last time.
Comments
You mean Ford could end up as Peterson 1990? Don't really see it. He was already pretty popular before Trump started threatening tariffs and spouting off about annexation, and now he's getting himself widely hailed as Captain Canuck. I'm seeing a pretty easy path to victory for him.
Poilievre, on the other hand, could be in some trouble. His main foil is leaving the political, and he hasn't established himself as solidly anti-Trump in the way that Ford has and Carney might.
Despite my reference to Peterson I’m inclined to agree with you - it would take a major upset for Ford not to walk away with another majority, whereas Poilievre is potentially vulnerable. To be clear, I wouldn’t bet against him, but there’s still a potential for things to come unstuck.
Though the real reason is to get a majority ahead of the Tories federally before they can act as an anchor on him.
Funny how in just a few days, we've gone from Poilievre being The Indisputable Next Prime Minister to The Guy That Other Tories Are Running Away From.
And even during periods of celestial convergence, it's not been an entirely harmonic groove. See, for example, Hepburn vs. Mackenzie King on conscription.
(Liberal example, of course. I'm also guessing that Premier Davis and Prime Minister Clark didn't quite agree on energy policy, though I don't quite recall how tangible an issue that was pre-1980.)
Poilievre, OTOH, is a dyed-blue Conservative true believer. He'll get in, start cutting programmes and making unpopular announcements and Ford doesn't want to be tagged with it. I can;t blame Ford for thinking that but the ghost of David Peterson is rattling around the attic.
Someone has to be the adult in the room.
I agree that Ford is more populist than your typical old-school Tory, but I don't know if I could really see him in any party but the PCs(or some equivalent of). Seems to me he really wouldn't fit in with the Liberals, except maybe as one of their more suburbanny backbenchers, and the NDP is outta the question.
Granted, I could be biased because of his erstwhile association with Ford Nation, widely recognized as explicitly right-wing(albeit with a higher percentage of multicultural voters), but it's still the vibe I get when considering Doug in his own context.
I wasn't talking about Ford and Ontario. Pretty sure the quote in my post made that clear.
In any case I need to see when the all-candidates meetings are to be held in my riding, being one of the 3% of the population which votes on the candidate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
So you wanted to leave them as part of the Northwest Territories?
I took the comment as whimsy.
I did once encounter a self-proclaimed Ontario sovereigntist who argued that Alberta would have no similar right to independence, because, unlike Ontario which had a real identity rooted in Upper Canada, Alberta was created "with the lazy stroke of a pen".
To which Caissa responds: Definitely.
They staffers opined that we are looking at the death throes of American democracy, I replied this was a golden opportunity to reclaim the Lost Provinces so that we can be one big happy British North America again,
It's not even so much that he's viewed as an ally of the now-reviled Trump, but that he just doesn't come across as the right person for the job of fighting the tariffs, regardless of where he is ideologically.
Anyway, tariffs in effect tomorrow, with oil and gas exempt until the 18th of this month.
My guess he's holding off on the oil so he can gauge public reaction to the initial tariffs.
I've long thought that, in a way, Trump's protectionism is actually what the anti-globalization crowd have been demanding governments do for decades.
Except, presumably, they wanted it done in a more ordered fashion, rather than one man in the most powerful nation implementing it by fiat. It remains the case, though, that if Trump were able to bring prosperity to his own nation via barriers that might totally disadvantage other nations, he would be doing exactly what the anti-globalizationists wanted, by protecting the "sovereignty" of his own country.
FULL BIAS: Not a fan of the anti-globalization movement, many of whom had a weakness for black-helicopter style theories about shadowy cabals. As well, they didn't seem to realize that their opinions, carried to a logical conclusion, would see international climate and human-rights treaties branded as surrendering of national sovereignty.
What is the likelihood that Trump could succeed in getting enough Canadian manufacturing to move south of the border to make the tariffs economically justifiable?
Very limited and nowhere near his fantasy life. The very intertwined car industry requires multi-billion (yes!) capitalization to do much moving but otherwise, multinationals and US-owned companies (FIRA is long gone) have sent south what they could to take advantage of anti-union laws, higher temperatures, and lower transportation costs-- I saw this really get rolling in the 1980s and it's not slowed down much since.
In other words, he'll get some but he should not wager that there'll be anywhere neare enough to make the tariffs economically justifiable--- but that was never the point.
Seeing rumours, via David Frum, that Ttump has cut a deal with Maduro to buy Venezuelan oil should Canada hinder supplies in response to tariffs.
I'll believe that when I see it.
It seems to me like a case of dueling impossibilities… there’s no way manufacturing can go south overnight, but there’s also no way Canadian-made cars are going to sellable in the United States with 25% tariffs.
Reading the Globe explainer (behind a paywall) it looks like this is more complicated than I thought, given how many times automobiles and their parts cross borders.
Trump reiterated his 51st state claim today. I'm done talking with him. Cut off the oil and be done with it.
I wonder if there is any mechanism in the Canada-USA-Mexico agreement to deal with the current situation with such punitive tariffs.
That's why I'm not quite buying nationalists who are currently saying "NOW do you see what a mistake we made in 1988?" Even if everyone had voted that year to keep the protectionist status quo, it wouldn't matter, faced with a rogue actor who ignores the rules anyway.
Fair point.
For the record, as a usually non-wavering dipper, I voted against free trade in '88. But somewhere between the '93 and '97 election, I pretty much decided the issue was settled and not worth pursuing by the left.
Indeed there is, and it was difficult to get Trump's agreement to any dispute mechanism whatsoever due to his belief that a neutral panel was ipso facto opposed to the USA.
Details of the mechanism can be found here: https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cusma-aceum/settlement-reglement.aspx?lang=eng
Cone on Donny. Can't you even try?
Time to dust off Defence Scheme No. 1 for War of 1812 2: Electric Boogaloo.
100 years from now, Fentanyl Czar will still be a cabinet position, and the law-and-order crowd will scream blue-murder whenever someone tries to axe it, even though no one will remember why it was ever created in the first place.
That sounds like accretions in liturgy, too! 😂
As long as it doesn’t become the fentanyl politburo after the revolution…
Weirdly anticlimactic and hard to tell what it all means. I suppose we will find out soon enough.
Looking at 338 Canada and the polls are looking depressingly like a re-run of last time.