Pierre Poilievre’s popularity has taken a significant hit in the weeks since Parliament returned from the summer break, according to the latest Abacus Data polling.
Even if the Liberals somehow manage to find a credible, electable leader that doesn’t end up being a Michael Ignatieff 2.0, I see no reason to trust that they won’t deliver more of the same bullshit.
When it comes to leadership in American politics, it’s said that democrats fall in love, and republicans fall in line.
I don’t want to fall in love. The past decade of Canadian politics has been a parade of ‘charisma’ and it hasn’t gotten us anywhere. I want a sincere and straightforward leader, who won’t get embroiled in scandals, has a strong stance on foreign policy, a plan for foreign interference, the housing & affordability crisis, and an ability to deal with issues in a straightforward and policy-focused way. I guess what I’m trying to say is I want a prime minister with a short skirt and a long jacket.
I always thought it was the terrible campaign quip that sunk him… I don’t remember exactly but it was something like:
“Healthcare, Medicare, Mulcair…” and IIRC it received a LOT of groans at the time.
Mulcair also could never ever ever live up to the legacy of Jack Layton. If Jack hadn’t been taken from us, we’d be looking at a very different Canada right now.
I am not sure Layton would be as good as people suspect: there’s a big “die a hero or live long enough to become the villian” about his possible legacy.
He was a pretty good politician, and had a lot of charisma, but he was also responsible for toppling the Martin government despite knowing it would give us Harper. I wasn’t the biggest Martin fan, but we were really close to some real improvements under Martin, and instead of leveraging that, Layton rolled the dice and the result was a lost decade for progressivism.
If I had my choice of recent NDP leadership possibles, post-Layton, I’d have opted for Charlie Angus.
Fair enough. But despite any possible repercussions, the play was to make the NDP a much bigger player than it had ever been, and he succeeded; under him, the NDP became the official opposition for the first time in it’s history. If Layton were still around, and the NDP perhaps managed to retain the official opposition status, Canadian politics would have been forever changed. Instead we quickly reverted back to the Liberal/Conservative swap game every few election cycles.
I think regardless of the ultimate legacy of Layton, the status quo would have been shaken up. And at this point, any change is better than two entrenched and old political parties essentially power sharing every few years.
I think the reason the federal Liberals even ran with Trudeau–instead of another technocrat like Ignatieff–is that the NDP under Layton scared them shitless. They were, for the first time in their history, looking down the tubes at irrelevancy. If the NDP got traction, they (the Liberals) would stop being the default ABC choice.
Especially the NDP inroads in Quebec. That was scary.
They’d already seen this happen in Alberta, and it was well under way in other provinces. They needed Trudeau or someone like him to shine them up, or they’d be gone by the next cycle.
I’ve been feeling the same way for years now. I think the course of Canadian politics massively changed for the worse from his passing. Though I never thought of it as a real inflection point until years later.
What I mean to say is not that the LPC’s choice for leader would be bullshit, but that, whatever their choice is, it’s hard to imagine how they would be able to credibly separate themselves from what has made the LPC so unpopular.
So for that reason, I’m not sure why Freeland would be the obvious choice. If the Liberals want to win a federal election, I think she’d be a poor choice for party leader. Any barbs that could be directed at Trudeau could be easily directed at Freeland. From an optics standpoint, I don’t think it’s possible to differentiate Freeland from Trudeau, and the Liberal party of the past decade. That’s a problem that I think would override who she is or her credentials, at least in the public eye.
Freeland is incredibly capable - but can be tied, hand in glove, with everything Trudeau. Actually, the current joke is that Trudeau doesn’t even do any work as PM, he just gives it to Freeland.
PP is going ‘young, hip’ - maybe they could use Fraser as the next PM candidate.
Such a laughable turn. I think it’s a marker that literally anybody could be in his shoes, doing and saying anything at all, and they’d be polling well.
Freeland is incredibly capable - but can be tied, hand in glove, with everything Trudeau
As I understand it, because she is the Deputy PM, she wouldn’t be allowed to replace Trudeau unless she lost her position first, which would basically mean the Liberals would have to lose government this next election. Only afterwards could she possibly run for party leader afterwards.
Even if the Liberals somehow manage to find a credible, electable leader that doesn’t end up being a Michael Ignatieff 2.0, I see no reason to trust that they won’t deliver more of the same bullshit.
When it comes to leadership in American politics, it’s said that democrats fall in love, and republicans fall in line.
I don’t want to fall in love. The past decade of Canadian politics has been a parade of ‘charisma’ and it hasn’t gotten us anywhere. I want a sincere and straightforward leader, who won’t get embroiled in scandals, has a strong stance on foreign policy, a plan for foreign interference, the housing & affordability crisis, and an ability to deal with issues in a straightforward and policy-focused way. I guess what I’m trying to say is I want a prime minister with a short skirt and a long jacket.
I miss Tom Mulcair. He really was very good, but apparently people thought he was “angry” or somesuch nonsense.
And now we have petulant Millhouse as our next potential PM. Tell me about “angry Tom”, again?
I always thought it was the terrible campaign quip that sunk him… I don’t remember exactly but it was something like:
“Healthcare, Medicare, Mulcair…” and IIRC it received a LOT of groans at the time.
Mulcair also could never ever ever live up to the legacy of Jack Layton. If Jack hadn’t been taken from us, we’d be looking at a very different Canada right now.
I am not sure Layton would be as good as people suspect: there’s a big “die a hero or live long enough to become the villian” about his possible legacy.
He was a pretty good politician, and had a lot of charisma, but he was also responsible for toppling the Martin government despite knowing it would give us Harper. I wasn’t the biggest Martin fan, but we were really close to some real improvements under Martin, and instead of leveraging that, Layton rolled the dice and the result was a lost decade for progressivism.
If I had my choice of recent NDP leadership possibles, post-Layton, I’d have opted for Charlie Angus.
Fair enough. But despite any possible repercussions, the play was to make the NDP a much bigger player than it had ever been, and he succeeded; under him, the NDP became the official opposition for the first time in it’s history. If Layton were still around, and the NDP perhaps managed to retain the official opposition status, Canadian politics would have been forever changed. Instead we quickly reverted back to the Liberal/Conservative swap game every few election cycles.
I think regardless of the ultimate legacy of Layton, the status quo would have been shaken up. And at this point, any change is better than two entrenched and old political parties essentially power sharing every few years.
True.
I think the reason the federal Liberals even ran with Trudeau–instead of another technocrat like Ignatieff–is that the NDP under Layton scared them shitless. They were, for the first time in their history, looking down the tubes at irrelevancy. If the NDP got traction, they (the Liberals) would stop being the default ABC choice.
Especially the NDP inroads in Quebec. That was scary.
They’d already seen this happen in Alberta, and it was well under way in other provinces. They needed Trudeau or someone like him to shine them up, or they’d be gone by the next cycle.
I consider it a national tragedy that Jack Layton didn’t survive long enough to be elected as a PM. He would’ve rocked it.
I’ve been feeling the same way for years now. I think the course of Canadian politics massively changed for the worse from his passing. Though I never thought of it as a real inflection point until years later.
Well the obvious choice would be Chrystia Freeland. But would you consider her to be a bullshit choice?
What I mean to say is not that the LPC’s choice for leader would be bullshit, but that, whatever their choice is, it’s hard to imagine how they would be able to credibly separate themselves from what has made the LPC so unpopular.
So for that reason, I’m not sure why Freeland would be the obvious choice. If the Liberals want to win a federal election, I think she’d be a poor choice for party leader. Any barbs that could be directed at Trudeau could be easily directed at Freeland. From an optics standpoint, I don’t think it’s possible to differentiate Freeland from Trudeau, and the Liberal party of the past decade. That’s a problem that I think would override who she is or her credentials, at least in the public eye.
Freeland is incredibly capable - but can be tied, hand in glove, with everything Trudeau. Actually, the current joke is that Trudeau doesn’t even do any work as PM, he just gives it to Freeland.
PP is going ‘young, hip’ - maybe they could use Fraser as the next PM candidate.
Such a laughable turn. I think it’s a marker that literally anybody could be in his shoes, doing and saying anything at all, and they’d be polling well.
Yep. Liberals are zugzwanged.
As I understand it, because she is the Deputy PM, she wouldn’t be allowed to replace Trudeau unless she lost her position first, which would basically mean the Liberals would have to lose government this next election. Only afterwards could she possibly run for party leader afterwards.
I also want my Cake and to eat it too.