All Things Canada Eh

[Brian Peacock]

Yep - I have 72 years of living there ....what have you got??

Look. You got completely the wrong end of Svarty's 'corrupt moron' comment, and then you got completely the wrong end of his explanation of that comment. Take a step back mac.

[macdoc]

Maybe you should parse his comments instead of playing Don Quixote.

This is what he says....

what I'm saying is that all MPs are corrupt morons, or end up so after serving long enough.

I guess you agree with that nonsense do you Brian being so anti-establishment?

[Brian Peacock]

Maybe you should parse his comments instead of playing Don Quixote.

This is what he says....

what I'm saying is that all MPs are corrupt morons, or end up so after serving long enough.

I guess you agree with that nonsense do you Brian being so anti-establishment?

Well, in a way, yes... mostly... but not for the reasons you assume - reasons which follow from a simple misunderstanding of what has been said.

Svarty wondered if Carney may be less venally self-serving than your average elected representative because he's arrived from outside the traditional playground of party politics. When you got the wrong end of the stick, assuming Svarty was characterising Carney as a corrupt moron, he explained...

I'm implying no such things, actually, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, since, precisely, he's NOT from the MP pool.

... to which, seemingly still not understanding his point, you took further exception...

So why would that follow that Australia with no outside PMs is better off than Canada who hired a gun. Give it up mate ....you make no sense.

See? As I said, you simply got the wrong end of the stick, and then ran with it.

As for Carney. Well, perhaps the former Goldman Sachs executive and Governor of the Canadian and UK central banks will bring a fresh, independent perspective to Canadian and world politics. I mean, as far as 'elite internationalists' go he's among the elite of the elite - so he's got to be able to see the wood for the trees, eh?

[Cunt]

you seem to take malign pleasure in not understanding what I state clearly... maybe you're juste a sock for our member from Yellowknife

I would not use him as a sock. Something about the suggestion of it makes me uncomfortable. Please reconsider.

Carney was making financial moves for his own fortune, while influencing decisions in Canada on things like energy. Perhaps wonder if he was making himself rich on 'insider trading', or plain old banning production in Canada, while investing in the companies who would pick up the slack.

Anyway, now that the dust has settled, do we know why Freeland (etc.?) quit on Trudeau? Was it some kind of corrupt decision, direction or history? Is it all forgotten now that there is a new PM?

And now that he's retired, can someone say why that school Justin worked at, never bragged about having a PM on their staff?

[macdoc]

I posted this up in full because an earlier post of his was deleted.
>

> ### **Poilievre’s movement feels familiar—and that’s exactly why I’m worried​**
>
> A few days ago, I wrote about the rise of populism in Canada—about how it follows the same patterns we’ve seen in other countries. The post took off. People were talking. And then it was deleted.
>
> I don’t care if this gets deleted again. This conversation needs to happen.
>
> Because if we don’t stop for a second and really think about what’s happening, we’re going to wake up a few years from now and wonder how we got here.
>
> I get why people are frustrated. I am too.
>
> The cost of living is brutal. Housing feels out of reach. The government feels disconnected from the struggles of regular people. For a long time, I thought Trudeau was the biggest problem. And for a while, I thought Pierre Poilievre might be the solution.
>
> But then I started listening. Really listening.
>
> And I started asking myself: what happens *after* the slogans?
>
> What happens after “axe the tax”? What happens after “fire the gatekeepers”? What happens after “make Canada affordable again”?
>
> Because none of these are solutions. They’re emotions. They’re easy, powerful statements designed to *feel* like action, without actually telling us what comes next.
>
> That’s when I started seeing the pattern.
>
> Populist movements—whether in Canada, the U.S., the U.K., or anywhere else—always follow the same formula. First, they convince you that the country is broken beyond repair. That the system is rigged against you. That everything you’re struggling with is someone else’s fault: the elites, the immigrants, the media, the politicians. That nothing can be fixed until we “take our country back.”
>
> Then, they give you a simple solution.
>
> It doesn’t have to be realistic. It doesn’t have to be backed by policy. It just has to be **clear, catchy, and direct.** And it has to feel like a fight.
>
> That’s the key—because if you’re fighting, you’re not questioning. You’re not asking for details. You’re not stopping to wonder whether the solutions actually hold up. You’re too busy being angry at the people you’ve been told to blame.
>
> J.D. Vance, before he joined Trump’s inner circle, once described this kind of politics perfectly:
>
> *"What Trump offers is an easy escape from the pain. To every complex problem, he promises a simple solution... He never offers details for how these plans will work, because he can’t. Trump’s promises are the needle in America’s collective vein."*
>
> It’s not about Trump. It’s not about any one leader. It’s about **how populism works.**
>
> It starts with anger. It thrives on resentment. And it keeps going by making sure the fight never ends.
>
> And that’s what’s happening here.
>
> Poilievre talks about fighting more than governing. He talks about enemies more than solutions. He talks about everything that’s wrong, but never about what comes after. And that’s the part that worries me the most.
>
> A leader who truly believes in fixing a country doesn’t convince people that the country is beyond saving. A leader who has real solutions doesn’t need to rely on slogans instead of policies. A leader who has a vision for the future doesn’t spend all his time telling you who to blame for the present.
>
> And that’s why I started questioning.
>
> What happens when the slogans don’t work? What happens when inflation doesn’t drop just because we axed the tax? What happens when firing the gatekeepers doesn’t magically make housing affordable? What happens when the economy doesn’t improve overnight?
>
> What happens when the frustration is still there, and people need someone new to blame?
>
> Does he take responsibility? Or does he do what populist leaders always do: double down, shift the blame, and push the country deeper into division?
>
> Because when your entire movement is built on fighting enemies, you can never afford to stop fighting.
>
> I’m not saying Trudeau’s government got everything right. They didn’t. There are real reasons to be frustrated. But there’s a difference between frustration and hopelessness.
>
> Trudeau didn’t run on the idea that Canada was beyond saving. He made mistakes, but he never built his political movement on convincing people that the country itself was broken.
>
> And that’s why, as much as I disliked his government, I will take an economist over a populist. I will take a leader over a political arsonist.
>
> Because I refuse to believe that Canada is a lost cause.
>
> We still have a choice. We can choose solutions, or we can choose anger. We can choose to fix what’s broken, or we can choose to believe that nothing was ever worth saving in the first place.
>
> Because once we go down that road, there’s no turning back.

[Brian Peacock]

Fine words, well expressed, but I think we're still all being asked to back a lost cause at election times - regardless of what colour tie it wears.

[macdoc]

Who is being asked at what election time??
Canada's right and left parties are tied Federally and the way the voting system works in Canada the left party ( Liberals ) does not need as much of the popular vote as the right ( PPC ) because all of one province votes right. ( Alberta )

So how is THAT a lost cause?

Carney is PM on Friday and will likely call an election immediately. Most Canadians detest the right wing - their votes have been split in the past. Indicators are that that may not happen this time.

[Tyrannical]

Nothing would solidify Trump more in the American Presidency Pantheon then finally acquiring Bendict Arnold Land.

[Brian Peacock]

Who is being asked at what election time??

These people.

Canada's right and left parties are tied Federally and the way the voting system works in Canada the left party ( Liberals ) does not need as much of the popular vote as the right ( PPC ) because all of one province votes right. ( Alberta )

So how is THAT a lost cause?

Because the main parties share the same core economic and social assumptions and beliefs, they differ only in the detail around implementation - a choice between more of the same or more of the same but harder?

Carney is PM on Friday and will likely call an election immediately. Most Canadians detest the right wing - their votes have been split in the past. Indicators are that that may not happen this time.

Perfect Peter must be so annoyed. There he was thinking he was a shoe-in and all he had to do was keep his botox appointments and the platitudes and slogans in the headlines, and then Trump pipes up puts Canadians on the shit list.

[macdoc]

I repeat - how is that a lost cause....??
Because none of the participant parties are up to your .....?????

[Cunt]

In western Canada, we all know the election is decided before the polls close at our end of the country.

I wonder if those in the eastern provinces, who benefit from those transfer payments, have been influenced by those payments...But most westerners are less uncertain than me. Not that it can count at election time.

[Brian Peacock]

I repeat - how is that a lost cause....??
Because none of the participant parties are up to your .....?????

Put yer reading specs on grandpa!

Because the main parties share the same core economic and social assumptions and beliefs, they differ only in the detail around implementation - a choice between more of the same or more of the same but harder?

[Cunt]

[JimC]

It does seem to be a weird aspect of the Canadian political system that a PM does not have to be an MP. Certainly not the case here.

Having said that, his party will be facing an election very soon, and the Canadian people will be able, in effect, to decide whether he is worthy of leadership, so they will indeed be able to vote yes or no to Carney...

[Cunt]

His godchild is Freelands kid. They go WAY back. Freeland is the one who quit in protest at Justin's upcoming budget (or something). Then her successor quit. Then they all had a party, and decided this guy from Bank of London is going to lead their party.

Much democracy. So voters.