Right on the money, milked the emotional vulnerabilities of the majority to swing the vote. Just like a grifter duping life savings out of seniors. Let's hope that isn't the plan.
Since they won again without being punished for the last decade of atrocious govt, what I’m watching for is to see if they try to finally open up MAiD for depressed 12 year olds.
Then we’ll see how much they’ve changed.
That and the wonderful democracy saving idea of jailing people for possible future “hate” crimes.
That anyone can vote for people that advance these ideas is beyond me.
People can vote for them because they don’t believe the ridiculous over-statements required to make the policies sound bad. The fact is the actual policies are an attempt at balance. Some will always disagree in these very difficult subject areas. It’s okay to land where you land in terms of your position but if you can’t recognize that there legitimate views other than your own - then you (you and everyone else behaving in this way) are the real problem.
As a boomer that voted for my local Liberal MP - I can say there was a fear element but that was solely around what would the other guy, whose history many of us see as one of an antagonist, a sneering sloganeer, a yap dawg, a supporter of conspiracy theories, a vilifier of all who disagree etc. etc. We ask ourselves, how successful would THAT person be in unifying our country and representing Canada to the world. Truly scary to many of us. Even those of us (like myself) with a history of voting conservative.
But more than those fears, many of us saw something strong, positive, and unifying in Carney's message. And his experience and past performance provided much more confidence in his ability to lead our Federal government in these tumultuous times. Still not certain by any stretch... but the better of the choices available.
I'm not trying to convince you that we made a better choice or "our guy is better than your guy." I'm just explaining how folks saw it. If you characterize it as solely fear and buying some faulty line - then you do not, and will not, understand this rather large group of fellow Canadians. Maybe you don't care to.
Maybe just maybe Poilievre had the interests of Canadians at heart? No one is perfect and yet a globalist has been elected PM. A globalist who trotted off to see the net zero king right after he was parachuted in to the liberals? A globalist who has spent more time out of Canada than he has in it? Maybe some of the conspiracy theories that you sneer at might actually be true? Like the safe and effective vaccines. We will see. By their fruits you shall know them.
My point was, however, that whichever team you chose in the end… don’t let that make the other team automatically idiots. There are plenty of card carrying idiots supporting both major parties but often our minds only let us see the ones with the added feature of being in disagreement with us. We (and I say we because I can fall victim to this myself - despite being aware of the tendency) tend to apply less scrutiny and judgement to those that agree with us. Positive reinforcement gets a pass.
Maybe. I don’t doubt that there is good and bad in everyone. It also depends on what you see as important. For me, I believe that Canada’s wealth and security is gained through international trade and cooperation. So, what you see as “jetting off” I see as directly serving our interests in a powerful way. What I see as endless baseless personal attacks and sloganeering you may see as holding accountable.
And I recognize that almost any “conspiracy theory” could possibly be true. But possibly being true, and true, or even likely are all very different things. On vaccines - the people and processes that have tested these things and say they’re good are the same people and processes that approve all medicines and medical treatment, the same system that makes our cars, roads, and parachutes safe. None of it is infallible but it’s the best system we have. To selectively choose this particular vaccine to suddenly think I know better than them on this seems unreasonable to me.
Perhaps if the media had reported on Carney’s climate policies, based on his book, the public would at least know where he stands. He’s a Net Zero climate zealot who convinced the UK government to become involved in environmental projects that helped Brookfield, the company he chaired. Brookfield owns a modular homes company. Carney says he wants to build modular homes here. He still owns several million Brookfield stock options, so will benefit when Brookfield benefits. Carney is Net Zero in Canada but Brookfield is in the coal and oil business elsewhere. How does that work? Canadians don’t know Mark Carney because the media hasn’t done their job. Here’s something from the British media who do.
Some folks will let themselves be consumed with things that are not policy or mandate. I dont know why but we're likely going to see a lot of the same mindless BS as we've been seeing in our politics.
I don't mind if someone thinks the planet is worth saving but also recognizes that we live in a democracy. You can't make people think long term or believe what they've been convinced is not true. So, I'm looking for pragmatic solutions that take care of those immediate short term needs (even if it includes new pipelines and slower emissions reductions) as long as we don't go completely untethered as the oil corporate interests (and thus D. Smith) would have.
It worked. Canada was left weaker. Now, with a failed net zero popinjay in charge, unable to develop a coherent economic plan Canada will continue to suffer. A fifty cent dollar. Massive government spending including more money for Canada’s propaganda CBC. Ugh.
All of the aforementioned media outlets were desperate to stop the Conservatives. They didn't ask because they think we're stupid. They ran a propaganda campaign.
"Journalism is printing something that someone does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." George Orwell
Narrative control top to bottom, not a real news/journalism outfit left in the bunch.
It’s no surprise that it’s the boomers who carried the Libs to victory as the old folks mostly get their info from “trusted sources” meaning they had no idea whatsoever.
The messaging was maddening.
We’ve had years of propaganda how Poilievre is too abrasive, too combative, too MEAN to be PM but suddenly narrative control switches to saying he can’t handle Trump?
But Carney can, he who couldn’t even handle Rosie Barton is suddenly going to handle the most accomplished troll in modern history who is holding all the cards because of ten years of the worst govt in our history.
So yes our “journalists” let us down, but it only takes rudimentary reading skills and the minimum of cognitive ability for the last 5 years to know this is the case, minimum requirements that our pathetic boomers could not meet.
Well done to all
Now we have to see where carney takes us because we have no choice.
Sigh….. To those of you taking the time to comment here and elsewhere on Substack, please please please stop blaming boomers as some sort of mindless collective where 100% percent deflated your hopes and dreams of wiping the Liberal reign of error from the our landscape. Other than the sliver of coastal BC, Western Canada voted to do exactly as you wished and demographically there are actually boomers in this area. Boomers are starting to become the new age “those people”.
Another boomer here; it’s mainly the 905, 416 or basically T.O., Montreal & the east coasters (who keep flocking to Alberta in search of work) who have given the liberals a 4th chance. It’s exhausting to watch. And frankly, to listen to the pundits massaging their ‘updated’ perspective to match the outcome.
A Boomer here: In my circle of about forty friends and acquaintances, all but two declared their intention to vote Conservative. Birds of a feather flock together, I suppose, but in Regina there was modest appetite for four more years of you-know-what
My riding of Nanaimo Ladysmith is a perfect example of the silliness of the 2025 election.
The Conservative candidate won.
The three center left parties, especially the Greens and NDP, spent the entire election mostly arguing over who is the best ABC (anyone but conservative) candidate. In the end the NDP MP came third. The former Green MP came fourth. The Liberal that was a distant fourth in 2021 came in a solid second.
I most certainly did not vote for the Greens or NDP because they put forward practically zero policies locally and only talked about “Conservatives and Trump bad.” Well, that and the transgender stupidity.
Now, the Greens and NDP are pretty much irrelevant at the national level.
> Mark Carney ... has never led any political office from the reeve of a rural municipal council on up. On the contrary, until age 60, he scrupulously sequestered himself in bureaucracies, banking, and business – endeavours which, in daily life, sure ain’t the House of Commons.
that background in economics is arguably more desirable than a career politician like Pierre Poilievre who has been a politician since he was 18 and has never had a real job in his life
I mean this in an absolutely snark free sense, but I think we really need to think through the logic of that sentiment, especially as it was so widely shared during the campaign. If it's true, then one valid conclusion is we should simply shut Parliament down and agree to be governed by a rotating council of experts since no one elected to the House of Commons is doing a "real" job and learns nothing, gains no worthwhile experience, even over the course of 20 years. There's a certain appeal to that conclusion, which goes back at least to Plato's "Guardian" class, but it's the antithesis of the Westminster system that has evolved over hundreds of years. One present life outcome of accepting it is the presence of Elon Musk with a chain saw choosing who should stay and who should go.
To suggest that Carney, who advised both Harper and Trudeau, and who rubbed shoulders with global politicians for decades, is less qualified than a man known on the hill for 20 years as "Skippy" is patently ridiculous.
I really don't care about either Carney's or Poilievre's background. I care about the ideas and policies that they are putting forward. If you think that Carney's idea (Net Zero to the max, Green boondoggles, spending = investing, genderwang) is going to make Canada a better place then vote for him. Don't vote for him because of some nonsensical idea that he will be better suited to deal with Donald Trump.
Carney's "background in economics" is a very narrow lense by which to judge a candidate. It speaks to the lack of media objectivity that his performance record, globalist ideology, U.K. policies and Brookfield conflicts were not given equal weight.
You know you, too, were once a brand new reporter that maybe didn't know where all the bathrooms were in the newsroom. But you learned.
That the media is biased is a given. But maybe Canadians just didn't like the smugness and hubris of an apple-chomping, Trump-wannabe fearmonger. Personally I welcome the economist with a PhD over an angry and vain little man.
The electorate voted. If we - the electorate - are kept so much in the dark because of said biased media, then it cuts both ways. If your guy Little Petey (or Skippy as I saw him called more recently) had won, would you be deploring the result the same way?
Fair comment but just for the record, I started out as a green reporter covering a rural municipal council where the issue of the day was how to install an emergency alert system without frightening the local farmers' cows. I learned the journalistic ropes from there. I didn't walk into my first newsroom as editor-in-chief of the New York Times. More importantly, "Little Petey" or "Skippy" or whatever name is chosen, is not, not, not "my guy." I don't have a "guy" or a "gal" or any variation thereof. I never have had, and never will. I admire the democratic process. As a matter of personal consistency, I've never been a member of any political party or champion of any politicized individual to the exclusion of all others. So, yes, if the circumstances, were the same, I wouldn't have hesitated to write exactly the same thing about Skippy Petey.
Fair enough. I did not know that you started out in rural communities. Question for you: so Skippy during the election campaign was talking about bringing jobs to hard-working Canadians, etc. So now a so-called hard-working Canadian named Damian Kurek is giving up his seat - and his $100,000/yr salary and whatever benefits - so that Poilievre can (try to) get re-elected. This guy Kurek first got elected in 2019. So I'm guessing/hoping he's put in his 6 years of pensionable service. But isn't it somewhat hypocritical of Skippy - who represented Carleton, ON for 20 years - to now parachute into Battle River, AB? And to effectively rob Kurek of a job?
In this case, I think the media is too starry-eyed with the potential for Poilievre to get back into the House of Commons, when at the other end a hard-working Canadian has to find a job.
Yes, it does seem harsh that a fellow spends five weeks campaigning, wins, and then gets pushed aside. But Battle River is just northeast of Red Deer, which is halfway between Edmonton and Calgary, where Poilievre was born and raised. So, home ground. And if he’s going to defend the oil patch, it’s a great place to do it from. I’ve got a feeling Mr. Kurek won’t be burning the candle down to a nub sending out resumes to get work.
Kurek is, in fact, six months shy of qualifying for a pension. He won the riding Monday with 82% of the votes. I have no insights other than those and the fact Poilievre grew up in Alberta and all his family are here
Media bias is only a given in the sense that any politician who is questioned automatically screams it out and scurries safely to the warm embrace of caucus, regardless of what side they are on.
The fact is that almost every major newspaper and the national post skew very much to the right. Globe is very centrist. CTV and CBC commit what is commonly known as “journalism” which means challenging the leaders of either party. It is their job. If PP didn’t deign to answer questions from real media, he can’t complain when his point of view isn’t represented.
Two weeks ago, a man here on Substack said that he woke up that morning in a cold sweat, fearing that Trunp would invade Canada. His followers commiserated with him. That’s where we were with these ‘elbows up’ people.
The War for Bankocracy series (fabulous) explains how the US Congress, out of fear during Covid allowed the Federal Reserve to operate without oversight and engage in practices that caused problems we’re unable to correct.
Hidden in it is a reference to the head of the Bank of England (Carney) doing the same thing. Fear is a powerful tool and is used by those who understand that.
It has always been a legitimate risk. Some may be leveraging the fear for their own aims, I can't say conclusively any better than you could. But to suggest the risk has not increased or that it's not real seems rather imprudent.
I am a liberal but have not voted Liberal for the whole of Trudeau's tenure. To think that people who voted for Carney did so by reflex is insulting. That is what Conservatives tend to do. I picked him because I thought he was the best person for the job. I voted enthusiastically for Carney. He is an adult, and far better than Pierre Polievre or Justin Trudeau. The best thing that Conservatives can do is get rid of their lunatic fringe and turf out Polievre. And choose a leader that is an actual adult instead of a pit bull. But that is their business. Canada is best served when all parties have excellent leaders, well thought out policy and zero doubts as to their loyalty. Anyone who has visited Mar-a-fucking-Lago is automatically disqualified. Fascist wannabes need not apply.
Are we going to have to listen to this vapid bitching and whining for the next four years 🙄 PP lost because he spent the last 20 years striving to be an unlikable yappy puppy and it worked, nobody likes him, nobody trusts him. Carney ran two banks, PP never even ran a lemonade cart, and not a single world leader, certainly not Xi, Putin or Trump, would take PP seriously.
Really? It's not popular with Americans so there's no actual threat and it's all the fault of Liberal spinners and a complacent media that so many Canadians think there is?
The first rule of arguments: If you don't state and respond to even the most obvious rebuttals, your argument is bad.
Here's the rebuttal: So much power is concentrated in the president, particularly this president, that it doesn't particularly matter whether an action is broadly popular or not. What matters is whether Donald Trump is prepared to do it. As Donald Trump has already demonstrated over and over and over again in the handful of weeks since he returned to office. Take a look at how popular blowing up the global trading system with 19th century levels of tariffs is. And watch as Trump does it.
What's the response in this piece? There isn't one. Which makes it a truly terrible argument.
So maybe stop condescending to those of us who think the existential threat is real.
Except you've neglected the obvious rebuttal that Trump has already climbed down multiple times even on the 19th century tariffs and there are multiples of multiples of forces at work to push him back even further, not the least of which is the panic that went through money markets in response to a global dumping of Treasuries. You've also neglected the obvious rebuttal that something being "real" doesn't preclude its exaggeration, manipulation and exploitation by politically invested forces. There's a reason political parties of all stripes have war rooms and spend millions on spinmeisters. Finally, it's hardly "condescension" to suggest that any perceived "existential crisis" benefits from countervailing evidence being made public if an effective response is to be made. On the contrary, it's the reason for having political arguments in the first place. See: Edmund Burke on the necessity of circumstances.
Yes, there's lots more back and forth that could and should be done in any serious analysis of how real this existential threat is, with any conclusion necessarily being probabilistic only. But what you wrote suggests the idea's unpopularity is all you need to know, it's impossible, QED.
And the "condescension" I referred to is suggesting the correct conclusion is incontrovertible thanks to that data point so anyone who disagrees -- like, say, me -- is misinformed thanks to bad reporting failed to "help Canadians distinguish reality from self-serving Liberal party hysteria."
I won't be reading foreign constitutions but some things have been formally recorded you might find interesting.
Here's a list of *Trumps Greatest Hits* on the US Constitution:
1. Emoluments Clause Violations: Refused to divest from his businesses while in office.
2. Obstruction of Justice (Mueller Report): Allegedly tried to interfere with the Russia investigation—e.g., by directing Comey to drop the Flynn case and later firing him.
3. Undermining the Peaceful Transfer of Power (2020 Election): Attempted to overturn the 2020 election results, pressuring state officials (e.g., Georgia’s secretary of state) and inciting supporters on Jan. 6.
4. Abuse of Pardon Power: Issued pardons to political allies (Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort) who could have implicated him.
5. Refusal to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas: He and senior officials refused to testify or provide documents during impeachment inquiries and oversight efforts.
6. Use of Federal Troops Against Protesters: In 2020, Trump used federal forces to forcibly clear peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square for a photo op.
7. Holding Office While Profiting from Government: Spent significant time at his own properties (Mar-a-Lago, Trump International DC), where U.S. agencies and officials spent public money.
8. Threats to Jail Political Opponents: Frequently called for investigations and imprisonment of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and others without due process.
9. Promoting False Election Claims (Post-Presidency): Continues to spread false claims about the 2020 election, undermining faith in the electoral system.
It’s amazing that you still don’t get it. The old America is gone now. This regime will use any lie, any means necessary to do what their glorious leader wants. They will manufacture “reasons” to annex Canada. I have absolutely no doubts about this. There will be no more free and fair elections. Voter suppression and manipulation will occur during the next mid-terms that would make a Soviet pol blush. It’s time for you to get your head out of the sand. When your unstable and extremely powerful neighbour threatens you,the only sane response is to prepare for battle, even if that battle never happens.
Right on the money, milked the emotional vulnerabilities of the majority to swing the vote. Just like a grifter duping life savings out of seniors. Let's hope that isn't the plan.
That’s actually a great analogy as it was the boomers, old folks, who fell for all the fear nonsense.
Plus of course all the women who agreed Poilievre was going to force everyone to attack abortion clinics with assault rifles.
Maybe next Carney will sell them siding.
Not just siding, but UFFI through a MURB tax avoidance scheme, all that is old, is new again.
Since they won again without being punished for the last decade of atrocious govt, what I’m watching for is to see if they try to finally open up MAiD for depressed 12 year olds.
Then we’ll see how much they’ve changed.
That and the wonderful democracy saving idea of jailing people for possible future “hate” crimes.
That anyone can vote for people that advance these ideas is beyond me.
But I guess that’s just me being all judgy
People can vote for them because they don’t believe the ridiculous over-statements required to make the policies sound bad. The fact is the actual policies are an attempt at balance. Some will always disagree in these very difficult subject areas. It’s okay to land where you land in terms of your position but if you can’t recognize that there legitimate views other than your own - then you (you and everyone else behaving in this way) are the real problem.
As a boomer that voted for my local Liberal MP - I can say there was a fear element but that was solely around what would the other guy, whose history many of us see as one of an antagonist, a sneering sloganeer, a yap dawg, a supporter of conspiracy theories, a vilifier of all who disagree etc. etc. We ask ourselves, how successful would THAT person be in unifying our country and representing Canada to the world. Truly scary to many of us. Even those of us (like myself) with a history of voting conservative.
But more than those fears, many of us saw something strong, positive, and unifying in Carney's message. And his experience and past performance provided much more confidence in his ability to lead our Federal government in these tumultuous times. Still not certain by any stretch... but the better of the choices available.
I'm not trying to convince you that we made a better choice or "our guy is better than your guy." I'm just explaining how folks saw it. If you characterize it as solely fear and buying some faulty line - then you do not, and will not, understand this rather large group of fellow Canadians. Maybe you don't care to.
Maybe just maybe Poilievre had the interests of Canadians at heart? No one is perfect and yet a globalist has been elected PM. A globalist who trotted off to see the net zero king right after he was parachuted in to the liberals? A globalist who has spent more time out of Canada than he has in it? Maybe some of the conspiracy theories that you sneer at might actually be true? Like the safe and effective vaccines. We will see. By their fruits you shall know them.
My point was, however, that whichever team you chose in the end… don’t let that make the other team automatically idiots. There are plenty of card carrying idiots supporting both major parties but often our minds only let us see the ones with the added feature of being in disagreement with us. We (and I say we because I can fall victim to this myself - despite being aware of the tendency) tend to apply less scrutiny and judgement to those that agree with us. Positive reinforcement gets a pass.
Maybe. I don’t doubt that there is good and bad in everyone. It also depends on what you see as important. For me, I believe that Canada’s wealth and security is gained through international trade and cooperation. So, what you see as “jetting off” I see as directly serving our interests in a powerful way. What I see as endless baseless personal attacks and sloganeering you may see as holding accountable.
And I recognize that almost any “conspiracy theory” could possibly be true. But possibly being true, and true, or even likely are all very different things. On vaccines - the people and processes that have tested these things and say they’re good are the same people and processes that approve all medicines and medical treatment, the same system that makes our cars, roads, and parachutes safe. None of it is infallible but it’s the best system we have. To selectively choose this particular vaccine to suddenly think I know better than them on this seems unreasonable to me.
Perhaps if the media had reported on Carney’s climate policies, based on his book, the public would at least know where he stands. He’s a Net Zero climate zealot who convinced the UK government to become involved in environmental projects that helped Brookfield, the company he chaired. Brookfield owns a modular homes company. Carney says he wants to build modular homes here. He still owns several million Brookfield stock options, so will benefit when Brookfield benefits. Carney is Net Zero in Canada but Brookfield is in the coal and oil business elsewhere. How does that work? Canadians don’t know Mark Carney because the media hasn’t done their job. Here’s something from the British media who do.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2025/04/29/mark-carneys-canada-has-just-made-a-catastrophic-error/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2025/04/29/carneys-honeymoon-will-be-short-lived-canada-conservatives/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/26/mark-carney-is-elected-canada-failed-state/
Some folks will let themselves be consumed with things that are not policy or mandate. I dont know why but we're likely going to see a lot of the same mindless BS as we've been seeing in our politics.
I don't mind if someone thinks the planet is worth saving but also recognizes that we live in a democracy. You can't make people think long term or believe what they've been convinced is not true. So, I'm looking for pragmatic solutions that take care of those immediate short term needs (even if it includes new pipelines and slower emissions reductions) as long as we don't go completely untethered as the oil corporate interests (and thus D. Smith) would have.
It worked. Canada was left weaker. Now, with a failed net zero popinjay in charge, unable to develop a coherent economic plan Canada will continue to suffer. A fifty cent dollar. Massive government spending including more money for Canada’s propaganda CBC. Ugh.
All of the aforementioned media outlets were desperate to stop the Conservatives. They didn't ask because they think we're stupid. They ran a propaganda campaign.
"Journalism is printing something that someone does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." George Orwell
G&M
CB freakin C
CTV
Mcleans
Narrative control top to bottom, not a real news/journalism outfit left in the bunch.
It’s no surprise that it’s the boomers who carried the Libs to victory as the old folks mostly get their info from “trusted sources” meaning they had no idea whatsoever.
The messaging was maddening.
We’ve had years of propaganda how Poilievre is too abrasive, too combative, too MEAN to be PM but suddenly narrative control switches to saying he can’t handle Trump?
But Carney can, he who couldn’t even handle Rosie Barton is suddenly going to handle the most accomplished troll in modern history who is holding all the cards because of ten years of the worst govt in our history.
So yes our “journalists” let us down, but it only takes rudimentary reading skills and the minimum of cognitive ability for the last 5 years to know this is the case, minimum requirements that our pathetic boomers could not meet.
Well done to all
Now we have to see where carney takes us because we have no choice.
Sigh….. To those of you taking the time to comment here and elsewhere on Substack, please please please stop blaming boomers as some sort of mindless collective where 100% percent deflated your hopes and dreams of wiping the Liberal reign of error from the our landscape. Other than the sliver of coastal BC, Western Canada voted to do exactly as you wished and demographically there are actually boomers in this area. Boomers are starting to become the new age “those people”.
Another boomer here; it’s mainly the 905, 416 or basically T.O., Montreal & the east coasters (who keep flocking to Alberta in search of work) who have given the liberals a 4th chance. It’s exhausting to watch. And frankly, to listen to the pundits massaging their ‘updated’ perspective to match the outcome.
A Boomer here: In my circle of about forty friends and acquaintances, all but two declared their intention to vote Conservative. Birds of a feather flock together, I suppose, but in Regina there was modest appetite for four more years of you-know-what
Qualifier: Liberal Boomer = brainwashed and stupid
lol. Assuming there was a functioning brain to wash.
I love that you're "heartbroken" for FOUR MORE YEARS 🙄 With that kind of mindset, you surely deserve to marinate in it!
Anouther smart take on Canada’s journalistic integrity.
We need to Gordy Howe their asses for intentional interference !
Or Mike Tyson. "Everybody has a plan until they get a punch in the mouth."
My riding of Nanaimo Ladysmith is a perfect example of the silliness of the 2025 election.
The Conservative candidate won.
The three center left parties, especially the Greens and NDP, spent the entire election mostly arguing over who is the best ABC (anyone but conservative) candidate. In the end the NDP MP came third. The former Green MP came fourth. The Liberal that was a distant fourth in 2021 came in a solid second.
I most certainly did not vote for the Greens or NDP because they put forward practically zero policies locally and only talked about “Conservatives and Trump bad.” Well, that and the transgender stupidity.
Now, the Greens and NDP are pretty much irrelevant at the national level.
> Mark Carney ... has never led any political office from the reeve of a rural municipal council on up. On the contrary, until age 60, he scrupulously sequestered himself in bureaucracies, banking, and business – endeavours which, in daily life, sure ain’t the House of Commons.
that background in economics is arguably more desirable than a career politician like Pierre Poilievre who has been a politician since he was 18 and has never had a real job in his life
I mean this in an absolutely snark free sense, but I think we really need to think through the logic of that sentiment, especially as it was so widely shared during the campaign. If it's true, then one valid conclusion is we should simply shut Parliament down and agree to be governed by a rotating council of experts since no one elected to the House of Commons is doing a "real" job and learns nothing, gains no worthwhile experience, even over the course of 20 years. There's a certain appeal to that conclusion, which goes back at least to Plato's "Guardian" class, but it's the antithesis of the Westminster system that has evolved over hundreds of years. One present life outcome of accepting it is the presence of Elon Musk with a chain saw choosing who should stay and who should go.
To suggest that Carney, who advised both Harper and Trudeau, and who rubbed shoulders with global politicians for decades, is less qualified than a man known on the hill for 20 years as "Skippy" is patently ridiculous.
We see how the experts did with Covid.
How clever.
I really don't care about either Carney's or Poilievre's background. I care about the ideas and policies that they are putting forward. If you think that Carney's idea (Net Zero to the max, Green boondoggles, spending = investing, genderwang) is going to make Canada a better place then vote for him. Don't vote for him because of some nonsensical idea that he will be better suited to deal with Donald Trump.
Carney's "background in economics" is a very narrow lense by which to judge a candidate. It speaks to the lack of media objectivity that his performance record, globalist ideology, U.K. policies and Brookfield conflicts were not given equal weight.
Apparently his background in economics wasn’t of much help. From the UK.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2025/04/29/mark-carneys-canada-has-just-made-a-catastrophic-error/
You know you, too, were once a brand new reporter that maybe didn't know where all the bathrooms were in the newsroom. But you learned.
That the media is biased is a given. But maybe Canadians just didn't like the smugness and hubris of an apple-chomping, Trump-wannabe fearmonger. Personally I welcome the economist with a PhD over an angry and vain little man.
The electorate voted. If we - the electorate - are kept so much in the dark because of said biased media, then it cuts both ways. If your guy Little Petey (or Skippy as I saw him called more recently) had won, would you be deploring the result the same way?
Fair comment but just for the record, I started out as a green reporter covering a rural municipal council where the issue of the day was how to install an emergency alert system without frightening the local farmers' cows. I learned the journalistic ropes from there. I didn't walk into my first newsroom as editor-in-chief of the New York Times. More importantly, "Little Petey" or "Skippy" or whatever name is chosen, is not, not, not "my guy." I don't have a "guy" or a "gal" or any variation thereof. I never have had, and never will. I admire the democratic process. As a matter of personal consistency, I've never been a member of any political party or champion of any politicized individual to the exclusion of all others. So, yes, if the circumstances, were the same, I wouldn't have hesitated to write exactly the same thing about Skippy Petey.
Fair enough. I did not know that you started out in rural communities. Question for you: so Skippy during the election campaign was talking about bringing jobs to hard-working Canadians, etc. So now a so-called hard-working Canadian named Damian Kurek is giving up his seat - and his $100,000/yr salary and whatever benefits - so that Poilievre can (try to) get re-elected. This guy Kurek first got elected in 2019. So I'm guessing/hoping he's put in his 6 years of pensionable service. But isn't it somewhat hypocritical of Skippy - who represented Carleton, ON for 20 years - to now parachute into Battle River, AB? And to effectively rob Kurek of a job?
In this case, I think the media is too starry-eyed with the potential for Poilievre to get back into the House of Commons, when at the other end a hard-working Canadian has to find a job.
H.
Yes, it does seem harsh that a fellow spends five weeks campaigning, wins, and then gets pushed aside. But Battle River is just northeast of Red Deer, which is halfway between Edmonton and Calgary, where Poilievre was born and raised. So, home ground. And if he’s going to defend the oil patch, it’s a great place to do it from. I’ve got a feeling Mr. Kurek won’t be burning the candle down to a nub sending out resumes to get work.
Kurek is, in fact, six months shy of qualifying for a pension. He won the riding Monday with 82% of the votes. I have no insights other than those and the fact Poilievre grew up in Alberta and all his family are here
Media bias is only a given in the sense that any politician who is questioned automatically screams it out and scurries safely to the warm embrace of caucus, regardless of what side they are on.
The fact is that almost every major newspaper and the national post skew very much to the right. Globe is very centrist. CTV and CBC commit what is commonly known as “journalism” which means challenging the leaders of either party. It is their job. If PP didn’t deign to answer questions from real media, he can’t complain when his point of view isn’t represented.
we know that Canadian MSM were not going to bite the Liberal hand feeding them by reporting anything that might prevent Marx Carnage from winning
Marx Carnage! LOL.
Two weeks ago, a man here on Substack said that he woke up that morning in a cold sweat, fearing that Trunp would invade Canada. His followers commiserated with him. That’s where we were with these ‘elbows up’ people.
The manipulation - and monetization - of fear is what all of us, and particularly journalists, should stand on guard against.
The War for Bankocracy series (fabulous) explains how the US Congress, out of fear during Covid allowed the Federal Reserve to operate without oversight and engage in practices that caused problems we’re unable to correct.
Hidden in it is a reference to the head of the Bank of England (Carney) doing the same thing. Fear is a powerful tool and is used by those who understand that.
https://solari.com/the-war-for-bankocracy/
It has always been a legitimate risk. Some may be leveraging the fear for their own aims, I can't say conclusively any better than you could. But to suggest the risk has not increased or that it's not real seems rather imprudent.
Excellent synopsis I thank you.
I am a liberal but have not voted Liberal for the whole of Trudeau's tenure. To think that people who voted for Carney did so by reflex is insulting. That is what Conservatives tend to do. I picked him because I thought he was the best person for the job. I voted enthusiastically for Carney. He is an adult, and far better than Pierre Polievre or Justin Trudeau. The best thing that Conservatives can do is get rid of their lunatic fringe and turf out Polievre. And choose a leader that is an actual adult instead of a pit bull. But that is their business. Canada is best served when all parties have excellent leaders, well thought out policy and zero doubts as to their loyalty. Anyone who has visited Mar-a-fucking-Lago is automatically disqualified. Fascist wannabes need not apply.
Are we going to have to listen to this vapid bitching and whining for the next four years 🙄 PP lost because he spent the last 20 years striving to be an unlikable yappy puppy and it worked, nobody likes him, nobody trusts him. Carney ran two banks, PP never even ran a lemonade cart, and not a single world leader, certainly not Xi, Putin or Trump, would take PP seriously.
Really? It's not popular with Americans so there's no actual threat and it's all the fault of Liberal spinners and a complacent media that so many Canadians think there is?
The first rule of arguments: If you don't state and respond to even the most obvious rebuttals, your argument is bad.
Here's the rebuttal: So much power is concentrated in the president, particularly this president, that it doesn't particularly matter whether an action is broadly popular or not. What matters is whether Donald Trump is prepared to do it. As Donald Trump has already demonstrated over and over and over again in the handful of weeks since he returned to office. Take a look at how popular blowing up the global trading system with 19th century levels of tariffs is. And watch as Trump does it.
What's the response in this piece? There isn't one. Which makes it a truly terrible argument.
So maybe stop condescending to those of us who think the existential threat is real.
Except you've neglected the obvious rebuttal that Trump has already climbed down multiple times even on the 19th century tariffs and there are multiples of multiples of forces at work to push him back even further, not the least of which is the panic that went through money markets in response to a global dumping of Treasuries. You've also neglected the obvious rebuttal that something being "real" doesn't preclude its exaggeration, manipulation and exploitation by politically invested forces. There's a reason political parties of all stripes have war rooms and spend millions on spinmeisters. Finally, it's hardly "condescension" to suggest that any perceived "existential crisis" benefits from countervailing evidence being made public if an effective response is to be made. On the contrary, it's the reason for having political arguments in the first place. See: Edmund Burke on the necessity of circumstances.
Yes, there's lots more back and forth that could and should be done in any serious analysis of how real this existential threat is, with any conclusion necessarily being probabilistic only. But what you wrote suggests the idea's unpopularity is all you need to know, it's impossible, QED.
And the "condescension" I referred to is suggesting the correct conclusion is incontrovertible thanks to that data point so anyone who disagrees -- like, say, me -- is misinformed thanks to bad reporting failed to "help Canadians distinguish reality from self-serving Liberal party hysteria."
Maybe you should read the US constitution. Donald Trump, or any president, can't unilaterally add a new state or annex territory.
Trump doesn’t care about the constitution.
I won't be reading foreign constitutions but some things have been formally recorded you might find interesting.
Here's a list of *Trumps Greatest Hits* on the US Constitution:
1. Emoluments Clause Violations: Refused to divest from his businesses while in office.
2. Obstruction of Justice (Mueller Report): Allegedly tried to interfere with the Russia investigation—e.g., by directing Comey to drop the Flynn case and later firing him.
3. Undermining the Peaceful Transfer of Power (2020 Election): Attempted to overturn the 2020 election results, pressuring state officials (e.g., Georgia’s secretary of state) and inciting supporters on Jan. 6.
4. Abuse of Pardon Power: Issued pardons to political allies (Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort) who could have implicated him.
5. Refusal to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas: He and senior officials refused to testify or provide documents during impeachment inquiries and oversight efforts.
6. Use of Federal Troops Against Protesters: In 2020, Trump used federal forces to forcibly clear peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square for a photo op.
7. Holding Office While Profiting from Government: Spent significant time at his own properties (Mar-a-Lago, Trump International DC), where U.S. agencies and officials spent public money.
8. Threats to Jail Political Opponents: Frequently called for investigations and imprisonment of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and others without due process.
9. Promoting False Election Claims (Post-Presidency): Continues to spread false claims about the 2020 election, undermining faith in the electoral system.
It’s amazing that you still don’t get it. The old America is gone now. This regime will use any lie, any means necessary to do what their glorious leader wants. They will manufacture “reasons” to annex Canada. I have absolutely no doubts about this. There will be no more free and fair elections. Voter suppression and manipulation will occur during the next mid-terms that would make a Soviet pol blush. It’s time for you to get your head out of the sand. When your unstable and extremely powerful neighbour threatens you,the only sane response is to prepare for battle, even if that battle never happens.