I had no interest in watching the debate as it clarifies exactly zero for informed voters. I hate to sound like a loon, but I don’t think Trump will leave office in 4 years. I think he only leaves in a pine box, whenever that might be <checks for breaking news>. So managing, fostering, and initiating international trade and defense relationships will be a large part of our PM’s function for the foreseeable future. And without successful navigation on the international front, success on domestic issues is moot. So a pragmatic Harvard/Oxford educated, internationally respected economist is simply the only sensible choice for the country.
should tick off a box that the CPC candidate showed up. Yes, the leader of the party...but across the country there are empty chairs as they are following Harper's well trodden lead and staying away from debates, town-halls and other places that might question their policies
As for Mr. Poilievre, maybe we are just getting used to him! I was yelling at the TV several times when, in response to a a question about what he would do or what position on a question he holds, all he had to say was what the Liberals had done for the past ten years, as usual never once acknowledging global events that occurred during that period, including the pandemic or Soviet invasion of the Ukraine. Off topic and obnoxious, I say!
I don't think any minds were changed because of either Poilievre or Carney. I'm not sure any of them reached anyone new but I think they made everyone who already supported them feel good about that support. The ones who weren't sold will still make their minds up on something else.
Second of your articles that I've read. Am enjoying the reasoned but straightforward style.
It appears to be a two-horse race. For each election, no matter the level, i consider the context of it before committing to a particular candidate. In this election, my entire family will be voting for the Liberal candidate; it wasn't a shoe-in as for us, there are several issues we considered and we don't necessarily all vote the same.
In this election the liberals play the part of centre leaning right (imo) versus a far right party. This is unbalanced and unhealthy for our democracy. We have seen and are continuing to see the results of this unfolding south of us.
In future, we'll need either an outfit like the NDP to reinvent itself, or some outfit like the Revolution Party. While i don't like the name, it seems to consist of young, enthusiastic, left leaning people. I've heard them called Reform for the Left. Hopefully, they won't be antisemitic. It is difficult to be progressive and either Jewish or Jewish-allied these days.
For the record, i have voted Conservative, Green, and Liberal federally. And i've done so irrespective of how i suspected my riding would turn out. I look forward to being able to be freer to vote my conscience in the future. In this rare case, i am voting both for something and against something at the same time.
Many thanks! I’ve had a few people in my circles say they really like Carney as “the PC” candidate, which is what I figured would help them keep the CPC at bay. Just over a week more of all this!
When it comes to dealing "with Quebec", PM Carney dealt with the Premier of Quebec, just as he dealt with other Premiers across the country. Blanchett sees himself as the primary representative of Quebec whereas he only represents a segment of Quebecers.
I wonder if it wasn't as noticeable in previous debates because we weren't in the same position as this election but Blanchet just seemed wildly out of place.
Perhaps it's time Blanchett, Leader of the Bloc Quebecois, and François Legault, the Premier of Quebec, sat down together and decided which of the two should represent Quebec in discussions with the PM. The BQ is a Quebec-only party and Blanchett will never become PM of Canada, the post to which all the national leaders aspire. Further, he does NOT represent all Quebecers, just those who are supporters of the BQ rather than the LPC, CPC, NDP or Green. Legault represents ALL Quebecers.
I was out of the country doing fun things, so skipped the debates (if I'm honest, doing fun things served as a convenient excuse, for I probably would have skipped them anyways), but your column gives rise to a couple of thoughts...
Your comments about Blanchette give me an idea that there's probably a whole lot of federalist-minded francophone Quebeckers who are just as irritated by the incessant defeatism of the sovereigntists as I am with the secessionists here in Alberta. I guess I'd never considered that before. But it's useful to ponder.
And I'm realizing just what it is about Mark Carney that I'm finding so refreshing: that he is putting forward a positive vision, and offering himself as a leader with the gravitas and nationalist impulse to make it happen. Harper understood that the provinces will never, ever be happy, but his response - ignoring them - was ultimately destructive. Trudeau seemed to learn this later, but was always too eager to play small-ball politics with the provinces to the extent that big things would never be possible. Carney is expressing an urgency and vision so big that the provinces are almost dared to oppose it, lest they get run over - and the size of his mandate might just prove big enough to pull it off.
I found Blanchet super irritating and arrogant (and impressive). It is somewhat apples and oranges having him there as he really is not relevant to the debate given he is not running for PM, yet he is relevant in that he has a large following. His presence was an attempt to save their headcount but clearly he would prefer carney to poilievre. I thought it was precious of him to complain that he had not been consulted over the past 4 weeks. He has no political power that is relevant, that is the premier’s position. I am not anti Quebec but I am anti separatist and pro-Canadian which includes Quebec. I don’t really get a sense that he gives a shit about Canada apart from what it can offer Quebec.
I was so disappointed that Pedneault was not allowed to participate. He is very impressive and we will be hearing from him one way or another in the future. The Green Party is so under-appreciated as representative of MANY Canadians who know that it will not be forming our government anytime soon but wish it could. Those of us who are Green in our hearts but feel we have to vote strategically want the green message out there.
Trump’s lunacy is the biggest threat we face. Poilievre doesn’t talk about it much because he has no idea what to do about it. Housing, cost of living is the drum he beats, but we are sewered without carney’s vast economic know how. Many people will get sucked in to the over simplistic feedback loop Pierre keeps rolling out.
I really didn’t like the leaders debate commission letting those media personalities (because they aren’t journalists) in, pretending to be journalist. Look what that got us as they ended up causing fights and forced the canceling of the scrum.
I also questioned why the Bloc was allowed in the debates and the Green party was not. I get that the Greens didn’t meet all the criteria required, but like you say, Blanchett was not actually running to be Prime Minister of Canada. It also seemed underhanded the way they handled it. I’ve always liked what the green party brings to the debate, kind of a check on what all the other parties are stating about various items relating to climate and sustainability.
As for Singh, I liked the NDP party under Jack Layton, but Singh was never really that great. I especially didn’t like when he said he was against pipelines and the oil and gas industry during his first few years. He also said he wouldn’t even talk to the CPC party. That right there says to me that he’s not a leader for Canada has a whole.
Very much agree that It seemed like a three man debate with a noisy tone deaf uncle barging in. I. did love it though when he said by the time a cross Canada pipeline got built Trump would be 90 years old!
Yes, Quebec in this current scenario should pick a spokes person.
Interesting question put to Carney and not the others. "Would Carney invite all sit down together after the election? " Why didn't any one ask the same of Poilieve?
I have no trust in the current version of Conservatives either federally or provincially.
I had no interest in watching the debate as it clarifies exactly zero for informed voters. I hate to sound like a loon, but I don’t think Trump will leave office in 4 years. I think he only leaves in a pine box, whenever that might be <checks for breaking news>. So managing, fostering, and initiating international trade and defense relationships will be a large part of our PM’s function for the foreseeable future. And without successful navigation on the international front, success on domestic issues is moot. So a pragmatic Harvard/Oxford educated, internationally respected economist is simply the only sensible choice for the country.
should tick off a box that the CPC candidate showed up. Yes, the leader of the party...but across the country there are empty chairs as they are following Harper's well trodden lead and staying away from debates, town-halls and other places that might question their policies
As for Mr. Poilievre, maybe we are just getting used to him! I was yelling at the TV several times when, in response to a a question about what he would do or what position on a question he holds, all he had to say was what the Liberals had done for the past ten years, as usual never once acknowledging global events that occurred during that period, including the pandemic or Soviet invasion of the Ukraine. Off topic and obnoxious, I say!
I don't think any minds were changed because of either Poilievre or Carney. I'm not sure any of them reached anyone new but I think they made everyone who already supported them feel good about that support. The ones who weren't sold will still make their minds up on something else.
Second of your articles that I've read. Am enjoying the reasoned but straightforward style.
It appears to be a two-horse race. For each election, no matter the level, i consider the context of it before committing to a particular candidate. In this election, my entire family will be voting for the Liberal candidate; it wasn't a shoe-in as for us, there are several issues we considered and we don't necessarily all vote the same.
In this election the liberals play the part of centre leaning right (imo) versus a far right party. This is unbalanced and unhealthy for our democracy. We have seen and are continuing to see the results of this unfolding south of us.
In future, we'll need either an outfit like the NDP to reinvent itself, or some outfit like the Revolution Party. While i don't like the name, it seems to consist of young, enthusiastic, left leaning people. I've heard them called Reform for the Left. Hopefully, they won't be antisemitic. It is difficult to be progressive and either Jewish or Jewish-allied these days.
For the record, i have voted Conservative, Green, and Liberal federally. And i've done so irrespective of how i suspected my riding would turn out. I look forward to being able to be freer to vote my conscience in the future. In this rare case, i am voting both for something and against something at the same time.
Cheers, and good luck to us all.
Many thanks! I’ve had a few people in my circles say they really like Carney as “the PC” candidate, which is what I figured would help them keep the CPC at bay. Just over a week more of all this!
When it comes to dealing "with Quebec", PM Carney dealt with the Premier of Quebec, just as he dealt with other Premiers across the country. Blanchett sees himself as the primary representative of Quebec whereas he only represents a segment of Quebecers.
I wonder if it wasn't as noticeable in previous debates because we weren't in the same position as this election but Blanchet just seemed wildly out of place.
Perhaps it's time Blanchett, Leader of the Bloc Quebecois, and François Legault, the Premier of Quebec, sat down together and decided which of the two should represent Quebec in discussions with the PM. The BQ is a Quebec-only party and Blanchett will never become PM of Canada, the post to which all the national leaders aspire. Further, he does NOT represent all Quebecers, just those who are supporters of the BQ rather than the LPC, CPC, NDP or Green. Legault represents ALL Quebecers.
I was out of the country doing fun things, so skipped the debates (if I'm honest, doing fun things served as a convenient excuse, for I probably would have skipped them anyways), but your column gives rise to a couple of thoughts...
Your comments about Blanchette give me an idea that there's probably a whole lot of federalist-minded francophone Quebeckers who are just as irritated by the incessant defeatism of the sovereigntists as I am with the secessionists here in Alberta. I guess I'd never considered that before. But it's useful to ponder.
And I'm realizing just what it is about Mark Carney that I'm finding so refreshing: that he is putting forward a positive vision, and offering himself as a leader with the gravitas and nationalist impulse to make it happen. Harper understood that the provinces will never, ever be happy, but his response - ignoring them - was ultimately destructive. Trudeau seemed to learn this later, but was always too eager to play small-ball politics with the provinces to the extent that big things would never be possible. Carney is expressing an urgency and vision so big that the provinces are almost dared to oppose it, lest they get run over - and the size of his mandate might just prove big enough to pull it off.
Fingers crossed.
Love this Deirdre
I found Blanchet super irritating and arrogant (and impressive). It is somewhat apples and oranges having him there as he really is not relevant to the debate given he is not running for PM, yet he is relevant in that he has a large following. His presence was an attempt to save their headcount but clearly he would prefer carney to poilievre. I thought it was precious of him to complain that he had not been consulted over the past 4 weeks. He has no political power that is relevant, that is the premier’s position. I am not anti Quebec but I am anti separatist and pro-Canadian which includes Quebec. I don’t really get a sense that he gives a shit about Canada apart from what it can offer Quebec.
I was so disappointed that Pedneault was not allowed to participate. He is very impressive and we will be hearing from him one way or another in the future. The Green Party is so under-appreciated as representative of MANY Canadians who know that it will not be forming our government anytime soon but wish it could. Those of us who are Green in our hearts but feel we have to vote strategically want the green message out there.
Trump’s lunacy is the biggest threat we face. Poilievre doesn’t talk about it much because he has no idea what to do about it. Housing, cost of living is the drum he beats, but we are sewered without carney’s vast economic know how. Many people will get sucked in to the over simplistic feedback loop Pierre keeps rolling out.
I really didn’t like the leaders debate commission letting those media personalities (because they aren’t journalists) in, pretending to be journalist. Look what that got us as they ended up causing fights and forced the canceling of the scrum.
I also questioned why the Bloc was allowed in the debates and the Green party was not. I get that the Greens didn’t meet all the criteria required, but like you say, Blanchett was not actually running to be Prime Minister of Canada. It also seemed underhanded the way they handled it. I’ve always liked what the green party brings to the debate, kind of a check on what all the other parties are stating about various items relating to climate and sustainability.
As for Singh, I liked the NDP party under Jack Layton, but Singh was never really that great. I especially didn’t like when he said he was against pipelines and the oil and gas industry during his first few years. He also said he wouldn’t even talk to the CPC party. That right there says to me that he’s not a leader for Canada has a whole.
Very much agree that It seemed like a three man debate with a noisy tone deaf uncle barging in. I. did love it though when he said by the time a cross Canada pipeline got built Trump would be 90 years old!
Thanks for your summaries.
Yes, Quebec in this current scenario should pick a spokes person.
Interesting question put to Carney and not the others. "Would Carney invite all sit down together after the election? " Why didn't any one ask the same of Poilieve?
I have no trust in the current version of Conservatives either federally or provincially.