In two weeks, our son from China -- his wife and four month old son -- and our two sons from Victoria, B.C. will all be here. It will probably be the last time we will all be together.
My wife and I are really looking forward to this event. Family is one of God's true gifts.
In two months, Carol Anne and I will celebrate our 46th anniversary. In those 46 years, we've raised three sons and lived in three provinces.
As I've gotten older, I've stiffened up and now use a walker. Carol Anne -- who's a physiotherapist -- has been beside me every step of the way.
I love her dearly.
I wish to write a few words about my family. Carol Anne -- my wife -- and Michael, Christopher and Thomas -- our sons -- and Christopher's wife Pan Pan and his son Raphael -- are the best things in my life. It's that simple and that profound.
It's been awhile since I published anything. I'm still around and I've been watching. I'm not happy that Donald Trump is president again. We are in for a rough four years. And I don't expect Trump will leave when the four years are over.
Still, I'm grateful for the time I've been given. And I continue to be optimistic -- in the long run.
Four days ago, I wrote that Jaqmeet Singh engineered his own demise when he tore up his agreement with Justin Trudeau's Liberals. Michael Harris believes Singh had no choice. He writes:
The timing of Singh’s campaign-style announcement is telling. It comes just a week before the return of Parliament, as well as two important byelections in which the NDP is competitive.
The prime minister’s reaction to Singh’s decision was defensive, if not dismissive. Making clear that he hopes it won’t lead to an election before the fixed date of October 2025, Trudeau had this to say on CTV:
“I’m not focused on politics. I’ll let other parties focus on politics. I’m focused on actually delivering things that Canadians told me this summer they need.”
By comparison to Trudeau’s hike up the high road, Pierre Poilievre waded into the NDP’s news with political elbows high. Calling Singh’s decision to abandon the deal with the Liberals a “stunt,” Poilievre said at a press conference in Nanaimo.
“My message to sellout Singh is this: If you’re serious about ending your costly carbon tax coalition with Trudeau, then commit today to voting for a carbon tax election at the earliest confidence vote in the House of Commons.”
Poilievre's reaction was predictable. Like Donald Trump, he believes you can score political points by name-calling. Singh's problem was that the agreement gave him no political boost:
The deal was a flop at the political box office for the NDP. Instead of getting credit for pushing the Trudeau government on key, progressive issues, the party saw its popularity decline.
Some pollsters have projected that the NDP will win fewer seats at the next election than they did in 2021. The lesson seems to be this: Trudeau and the Liberals are so deeply unpopular with Canadians in almost every region in the country, that anyone seen as propping them up damages their own brand — no matter how noble their reason for doing so.
Pollster and data-scientist Nik Nanos said that the NDP have not benefited from the deal, noting that the party ranks lower in the polls than the embattled Liberals.
“Maybe it’s a moral victory from a policy perspective, but it sure isn’t a political victory in terms of gains in ballot support for the New Democrats,” he told CTV.
Unfortunately, that's been the story of the NDP. Canada's most progressive policies started out in the NDP brain trust. But it's been the Liberals who implemented them.
Image: Facebook
Jagmeet Singh has done it. Yesterday he cancelled his agreement with the Liberals. Max Fawcett writes:
After months of speculation about the fate of the confidence and supply agreement that bound his party to the federal Liberal government and a few days of being taunted as a “sellout” by Pierre Poilievre, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh pulled the plug on the deal Wednesday.
“The Liberals have let people down,” Singh said in a video. “They don’t deserve another chance from Canadians.” In the process, though, Singh showed why he probably doesn’t deserve another one either.
That doesn't mean there'll be an election tomorrow. The New Democrats simply don't have the resources they need to go into an election:
For all the bravado and bluster about how he “ripped up” the deal, it’s not like he actually intends to bring down the government any time soon. The NDP’s provincial wings in British Columbia and Saskatchewn are in the midst of election campaigns of their own, and there simply isn’t enough volunteer labour to support a federal campaign right now. There’s also the non-insignificant matter of the NDP’s underwhelming bankroll, which has been dedicated to paying off the $22 million debt it racked up in the last election. If he tries to bluff Trudeau on a potential confidence vote, he should expect it to be called immediately.
The party should be riding a wave. It's got a lot of what it wanted. And the Liberals have tanked:
With a tired and increasingly error-prone Liberal government, a Conservative leader who loves nothing more than getting high on his own supply, and a political environment that’s elevating issues like the cost of living and housing, the NDP should be poised to make major gains. Instead, they might be lucky to keep the seats they have if Singh remains leader — especially if they can’t establish themselves as the prevailing progressive alternative.
That’s still on the table, by the way. A recent Abacus Data poll showed the NDP has both a larger potential vote universe than the Liberals and more opportunity to consolidate the progressive vote under its banner. “If it became clear that the NDP had the best chance of stopping the Conservatives from winning the election,” its analysis said, “we find that 11 per cent of committed voters or 35 per cent of Liberal, Green, and BC supporters would probably vote NDP, while 6 per cent of the committed electorate or 20 per cent of Liberal, Green, and BC supporters would definitely vote NDP.” If the two groups are combined, the NDP’s vote share rises to 35 per cent — just seven points behind the CPC.
But that won't happen with an NDP leader who can't stand up to Poilievre who -- let's face it -- is the snotty-nosed bully on Parliament Hill.
Image: Obert Madondo / Flickr.
Pierre Poilievre wants an election. He sent a letter to Jagmeet Singh this week, suggesting he should bring the Trudeau government down. Susan Delacourt suggests that Singh may be worried about Doug Ford:
Pierre Poilievre and Doug Ford don’t have a lot in common, except maybe their desire to hold elections early.
Yes, they are conservatives and chances are that the many Ontarians who have voted for Ford are likely leaning toward voting for the federal Conservatives when the next election comes.
Both leaders in their own ways would call themselves populists, too.
But that’s where Ford and Poilievre have very different approaches. Ford is what many would call a happy populist — a guy who just wants everyone to vote for him, whether that requires giving out his phone number or shovelling someone’s vehicle out of a snowbank.
Delacourt suggests that Poilievre is worried about an election in Ontario:
As my colleagues at Queen’s Park have been reporting for months now, there’s a very good chance Ontarians will be voting in a provincial election before then.
"Sources say Ford is worried that if, as polls suggest, Pierre Poilievre wins an election expected in October 2025, there would be reduced transfer payments to the provinces, a scrapping of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s electric-vehicle strategy that is a cornerstone of Ontario economic policy and other slashed spending that would hurt the Progressive Conservatives,” Queen’s Park Bureau Chief Robert Benzie wrote in May.
Poilievre hasn’t said publicly how he feels about an Ontario vote possibly upstaging the Conservatives’ much-anticipated romp to victory. The fact that Ford sees a Poilievre victory as not great for Ontario, however, is fascinating and further underlines that there are serious tensions between the Ford and Poilievre brands of conservatism.
What remains to be seen is whether an early Ontario election could harm Poilievre’s chances. For instance, what if Ontarians use a provincial election as their chance to vent at Trudeau and get some of the anti-Liberal sentiment we keep hearing about? What if Ontarians decide that as long as Ford remains premier, they might as well have a prime minister with whom he has a good working relationship?
Maybe that’s one of the reasons Poilievre was out there this week, agitating for Canada to go to the polls this fall, not next fall.
It's not all sweetness and light among Conservatives.
Image: reddit
On the Right, lying has become standard operating procedure. Jim Stanford writes:
The PR flacks working in the Conservative Party’s media war room are nothing if not zealous. They regularly issue inflammatory, offensive, and often just-plain-false statements and social media posts.
As part of their broader strategy to discredit conventional journalism, the Conservatives’ spinners don’t hesitate to post fake news. And usually their misleading missives evade significant blowback. The more inflammatory the better, in their books: their main purpose is to harvest names and digital contact information from people who sign a petition, or take some other token act of digital resistance, against the Trudeau regime.
Occasionally the mainstream political and journalism worlds pay more sustained and crucial attention to this propaganda. For example, the party’s recent nationalistic ‘Our Home’ video had to be pulled after it was found to contain bizarre stock footage—including Russian fighter jets, a Venezuelan sunset, and Ukrainian schoolchildren.
They have a standard menu of lies:
Of course, complaints about the economy, inflation, and taxes are a mainstay of Conservative rage-farming. But in this arena, too, the adolescent overreach of their war room can get them into trouble. An example is a recent ‘X’ post from leader Pierre Poilievre, trying to exploit a recent Statistics Canada report that showed a decline in median real household incomes in Canada in 2022.
The post claimed that in 2022 prices were rising ‘3 times faster’ than incomes, that ‘wages’ lagged far behind inflation (2.5 per cent versus 6.8 per cent), and that as a result Canadians suffered a ‘pay cut’ of 4.3 per cent. The post was illustrated with a striking high-contrast graph that conveyed a sense of emergency in living standards.
But Stanford immediately spotted the ruse:
As someone who makes their living studying wages, prices, and living standards, I immediately saw that Poilievre’s post was far off-base. And so I posted my own ‘X’ thread, complete with a revised chart, to correct the record.
The first and most obvious issue was the time frame Poilievre chose. The Statistics Canada report was based on a detailed census of income tax returns, which naturally take some time to compile and analyze (hence we receive their 2022 report in mid-2024). But there is much more recent data showing up-to-date trends in wages and prices.
Indeed, within hours of Poilievre’s post, Statistics Canada released its latest data on consumer price inflation: year-over-year inflation slowed in the 12 months ending in July to 2.5 per cent. That’s the slowest in 40 months (ever since inflation first accelerated after the end of COVID lockdowns in 2021), and well within the Bank of Canada’s target range for inflation (they aim for 2 per cent, plus-or-minus 1 percentage point).
Meanwhile, labour market data released by Statistics Canada a few days earlier had confirmed that wages are growing at a strong clip: up 5.2 per cent in the same 12-month period. This made for an easy update to Poilievre’s chart:
Unlike the Conservatives, I listed the statistical sources used in the graph. Needless to say, my chart tells a very different story: hourly wages (measured by the labour force survey) have grown twice as fast as prices (measured by the CPI) in the last year. Real ‘pay,’ adjusted for inflation, has increased strongly: up 2.6 per cent in one year.
Justin is well past his best before date. But do we really want to replace him with Poilievre?
Image: X
American politics has been radically reformed. Could it happen here? John Delacourt writes:
It was just a few weeks ago that the prospects for progressive governments in North America were trending in a similar downward direction. And perilously so. If there were wake-up calls necessary for just how bad it might be for both President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau, both parties received them at full volume. Biden’s barely coherent June 27 debate performance against an unhinged but resurgent Donald Trump sent the Democrats’ campaign into a tailspin.
As for Trudeau’s Liberals, the results of the Toronto-St. Paul’s by-election three days earlier, a loss in what had been a Liberal stronghold, seemed to confirm what the dreadful poll numbers had been signaling for months. In both instances, party faithful were compelled to go through that ritual of ensuring message discipline was strictly observed, and that the most, um, colourful responses to these five-alarm incidents stayed behind closed doors as much as possible.
The Liberals have not responded as the Democrats did:
Nobody within the Liberal party seemed to have thought through what kind of process answer could at least serve to put this brush fire out (one regular outlier from Liberal caucus messaging, Nathan Erskine Smith, offered one by way of a kind of a plebiscite involving all party members, but that went nowhere quickly). The official response in the aftermath of Toronto-St. Paul’s seemed to be something about listening to constituents and disaffected former Liberal voters and then … reflecting. Those were the outputs; outcomes TBD.
It's hard to be the incumbent after COVID:
Incumbency is more than just a stigma; it’s emerged as the fundamental challenge of governments that bear the scars and road miles of the pandemic years. Biden’s fragility only made his presence on the campaign more evocative of those before-times. Trump’s maundering incoherence has served to transfer that dark lockdown mantle onto his padded shoulders. Rishi Sunak could not put up much of a fight against it in the UK; no bold campaign platform or strategic foregrounding of any star players were going to scrub away the brand corrosion the party accumulated, both during and since Johnson’s time as PM.
Liberals can't simply hand the baton off to the Deputy Prime Minister. Breathing new life into the party will be much more complicated.
Image: The Japan Times
Joe Biden has passed the baton to Kamala Harris. Jennifer Rubin writes:
Even before Biden entered the hall, the affection for him bubbled to the surface. A surprise, early appearance from Vice President Kamala Harris with an early shout out to Biden got the crowd roaring and chanting. Later, Hillary Clinton — who got her own rapturous welcome — paid him tribute; again chants rippled over the audience. (Clinton’s speech was the most uplifting, defiant and emotional of the night.)
Biden’s speech itself was less important than the response to it and him, the content less memorable than the emotion. He turned to the crowd after embracing his daughter with tears in his eyes. He let the applause wash over him, luxuriating in the gratitude and the chant “Thank you, Joe.” He tried several times to start, only to be interrupted by more applause and chanting.
He saluted his rock, Jill Biden, generating more cheers and starting another round of “We love Joe.”
Monday’s appearance was the last consequential speech of Biden’s presidency, the final opportunity for a large national audience to see and hear from him. Given that he has devoted more than a half-century to public service, the emotion of the moment, the bittersweetness of the circumstances, could not be lost on anyone.
I became a teacher because I believed in the potential of the next generation. I have seen several generations in my seventy-seven years. Not every generation lives up to its potential. But one thing is true. Kamala Harris faces the most decrepit member of my generation. J.D. Vance is a member of the generation that follows Harris.
Now is the time we need the best from Harris' generation. Here's hoping they succeed.
Image: The Independent
There is a growing fatalism setting in about the next election. Dale Smith writes:
If you listen to Canadian political commentary, a certain kind of fatalism has sunk in: a Pierre Poilievre and Conservative Party of Canada victory is inevitable in the next election, and nothing is going to matter over the next year-and-a-bit until the next federal election is scheduled. This is possibly the worst of all possible instincts to harbour, and a sign that our media spends way too much time huffing the horse-race poll numbers that they treat as gospel, which is also why Poilievre keeps pushing for an early election, so that he can come in on a sweeping victory. But this sense of inevitability should be fought, particularly among marginalized Canadians who know that a Poilievre-led government is going to be a very big problem for them, and for their rights.
But voters are befuddled. They like a lot of what Justin Trudeau has done. But they're tired of him:
Saying you like the Liberals’ plan but can’t vote for Trudeau won’t help you keep those Liberal plans alive. There was polling earlier this summer that found that people said they were willing to vote for Poilievre, but they also wanted all of the services that the Liberals (and, to a lesser extent, the NDP) have provided, like child care and dental care. You can’t have both. As much as he can claim to have a coherent ideology, Poilievre has internalized the so-called teachings of crypto bros on YouTube, and thinks that massive spending cuts in order to achieve a notional balanced budget is the way to a prosperous economy (mostly because from all appearances, he doesn’t understand monetary or fiscal policy). That’s going to mean a lot of painful cuts to services. A simple change in government also won’t fix most of the problems that we’re dealing with, such as the housing shortage or the affordability crunch, because many of those problems are structural in nature. No amount of empty slogans will fix those issues, and would in fact be made worse with an austerity agenda.
Things could -- as has recently happened in the United States -- change radically. But that kind of change is rare. Canadians will have to decide what -- like the Spice Girls sang -- they really really want.
Image: The Financial Post
It's not easy figuring out when it's time to go. Joe Biden didn't want to leave. Michael Harris writes:
Like a lot of people who don’t know when to call it a day, Biden was whistling past the graveyard. Power is too hard to get to voluntarily give up, especially when you are at the pinnacle. But after a disastrous and terribly revealing debate performance, Americans saw for themselves just how diminished a figure their president had become.
So did major donors to the Democrats, as well as members of Biden’s own party, including elected officials. Nevertheless, it looked like Biden was going to follow the example of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The great jurist and women’s rights advocate rebuffed overtures to retire while Barack Obama was still president. Those requests began in 2012, when Ginsburg had already had bouts of pancreatic cancer. The pressure intensified in 2015, just before the presidential election.
Instead of taking a “safe retirement,” as her Democratic colleagues urged her to do, Ginsburg chose to continue on in the Supreme Court
Ginsberg's refusal has led to a Supreme Court which is hellbent on restoring a monarchy. Donald Trump intends to be that monarch. But, because Biden was able to grasp the importance of that moment, it's beginning to look like Donald won't sit on a throne. Instead, he'll sit behind bars.
Image: The Daily Beast
We live in The Age Of Disinformation. That disinformation has found a comfortable home on the Right. Linda McQuaig writes:
If we end up with Pierre Poilievre as prime minister, it will be partly because of all the groundwork done by right-wing think tanks in distorting the public debate over taxes.
Most notably, the Fraser Institute, generously funded by wealthy interests, has been using its ample resources for decades to turn Canadians into tax-haters, to disconnect taxes in the public’s mind from all the benefits, services, programs and infrastructure that taxes provide.
Key to promoting this anti-tax agenda has been grossly exaggerating the actual tax burden on Canadians.
So, for instance, a new report from the Fraser Institute last week proclaimed that the tax bill paid by Canadians has increased by 2,705 per cent since 1961.
Now, there’s a mind-bending number. But it’s also a meaningless number, in that it fails to take into account inflation and the real increase in Canadian incomes over the past 63 years.
When these two factors are taken into account, we discover that taxes have increased 28% in 63 years:
Now, we could have a reasonable debate about whether a 28 per cent increase in the tax rate over six decades is too high. But we should start by acknowledging that government today provides a lot more benefits than it did in 1961 — most notably, universal health coverage and old age pensions — major programs that have become essential to the well-being and financial security of Canadians.
The Fraser Institute’s new report also claims that the average Canadian family pays total taxes of $46,988, which it says amounts to an average tax rate of 43 per cent.
But don’t be fooled by that word “average.” In doing its calculations, the Fraser report lumps all Canadians together — including rich Canadians, whose incomes and taxes distort the picture. (Although effective tax rates on the very rich are lower than on most Canadians, they receive a disproportionately large amount of the nation’s income and so pay more tax.)
As the old joke goes: if Bill Gates walks into a bar crowded with homeless people, the average net worth might rise to, say, $500 million. This “average” could lead us to believe that the people in the bar are very prosperous when, in fact, they’re all penniless, except Bill Gates who has $130 billion.
In The Age of Disinformation, the sources of information are of paramount importance. Mr. Poilievre's sources can't be believed. Neither can he.
Mark Twain was right. There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.
Image: Paul Daly The Canadian Press
The world is on a knife's edge. Michael Harris writes:
With the assassination of the political leader of Hamas in Tehran, Iran is vowing revenge against Israel. No one knows what that will look like.
Another missile and drone attack on Israel itself like the one last April, an assault on Israeli shipping, or an indirect strike at Israeli assets outside the country. It could get very personal—civilians, diplomats, politicians, no one knows.
While the world waits to see what Iran does, the earlier assassination of a Hezbollah leader in Beirut all but guarantees that the Iran proxy group will also be seeking vengeance. Tension is already high along Israel’s northern border, and any retaliatory attack by Hezbollah could transform sporadic fighting into a full-scale war in Lebanon.
All of this is unfolding against the backdrop of Israel’s brutal war in Gaza, triggered by the mass slaughter of 1,200 innocent Israelis by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023. The terror group also snatched hostages, more than 100 of whom are still being held in Gaza.
The consequences of that war have been catastrophic:
Israel’s nine-month war has killed 40,000 Gazans, many of them women and children. It has also displaced 1.9 million people and caused an estimated $20-billion in damages to homes and infrastructure. Since the IDF cut off all services in Gaza, including water, and severely limited the food supply, a humanitarian disaster is also brewing.
Not all the violence has occurred in Gaza. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in 2023, Israeli forces killed 492 Palestinians in the West Bank, including 12 children.
Israel is also holding more than 3,000 Palestinians in “administrative detention.” These detainees are being held without charge and trial, based on secret information that they pose a threat.
The war in the Middle East never ends. But it could end us all.
Image: Andrew Meade and photographs courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Forty years ago, my wife and I and our kids spent two nights in a cabin outside of Jasper, Alberta, along the shores of the Athabasca River. Today, with a third of the town burned to the ground, I am profoundly sad. Susan Riley writes:
Our forests and communities burn at accelerating rates. One day downtown Toronto is awash in flood water; the next, iconic Jasper National Park is aflame. Winter is gradually retreating. Summers are becoming unbearable in some cities, especially for the elderly and those without air conditioning. Each new year brings once-in-a-lifetime climate emergencies. A recent Sunday was the hottest ever recorded globally—until the record was smashed the next day.
Yet we allow our fossil-fuel industry to continue polluting—to actually increase production—to make promises it has shown it has no intention of keeping, while we wait for some imagined technology that will keep the oil (and profits) flowing and emissions magically shrinking.
Our politicians, with a few laudable exceptions, are divided into two camps: they are either stout defenders of the oil and gas industry no matter what damage the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions cause, or they are rhetorically committed to addressing climate change, but maybe next decade. Or maybe 2050. Maybe when there are no trees left, and smoke season lasts six months.
There is no need to re-litigate tired arguments about the carbon tax, or engage in hand-wringing over the costs of climate adaptation. There is, instead, an increasingly desperate need for a mass movement away from fossil dependency towards the clean, green future that—so far—is mostly glimpsed on billboards.
Yet that mass movement has not materialized:
Just recently, for instance, in a blinding irony, a handful of major oilsands producers had to evacuate non-essential workers from mine sites in the Fort McMurray, Alta., area because of encroaching wildfires—fires, it hardly needs be said, made increasingly savage as emissions from these very sites multiply and accelerate the climate crisis.
But if the immense fire that partly destroyed the city of Fort McMurray in 2016—a world-renowned event thanks to John Vaillant’s brilliant reporting in his award-winning book, Fire Weather—if that didn’t slow the pace of oil production, what will it take? Does the Alberta government care, for instance, that the scenic Rocky Mountain town of Jasper had to be evacuated last week as wildfires encroached? Does no other sector of that province’s economy—tourism, ranching, farming—count for anything in the face of the immense power of the oil industry?
Apparently not. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith declared herself “frightened and stressed” by the Jasper blaze, but she and many others are still living the dream: a booming oil and gas sector, big paycheques and bigger cars, and, well, if climate change is a problem, Canada is a tiny part of it. You would think it would be harder, every year, to ignore the inferno burning on the doorstep of the Edmonton provincial legislature, but denial is the easier and more lucrative course.
The federal government, meanwhile, looks on fretfully, tries to “work with the industry,” continues to offer loan guarantees—the latest worth $19-billion—to the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which, now that it is finally finished, will triple the amount of crude oil transported from Alberta to Vancouver harbour, and on to other places to be refined.
It bought the pipeline, of course, to win favour in Alberta, watched costs balloon to $34-billion, chipped in a $17-billion loan guarantee when construction got complicated, quietly tossed in that extra $19-billion a few weeks ago and—as NDP MP Charlie Angus says—is now “trying to cut some kind of backroom deal to create a front company” to take the embarrassing asset off its hands.
Even more cynically, it is primed to unload at least some of the pipeline on Indigenous groups, having set aside $5-billion in budget 2024 in loan guarantees for bands interested in investing in “natural resource” projects. Let them deal with the financial risk, the political heat, and—if the oil era ends expeditiously—a costly white elephant.
This is unforgivable folly.
Image: Cpl. Marc-André Leclerc, DND Canada
From now until the election, not just Americans -- but all of us -- are in for a wild ride. Michael Harris writes:
The traditional cliché is that all politics is local. For now, no politics is local. What happens over the next four months in the United States will affect everyone, which is why the eyes of the world are on Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
NATO, China, Europe, Canada, and Ukraine, and an array of others all have a massive stake in the outcome. Will Americans choose the former prosecutor, or the convicted felon; the first Black, female commander-in-chief, or the 78-year-old twice impeached ex-president who talked about shooting migrants in the legs at the border, and deporting millions of them now living in the United States.
Two very interested bystanders in this most unusual presidential election are the Canadian federal leaders who may soon be squaring off against each other to decide who will be prime minister: Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre.
What happens in the United States may foreshadow what happens here:
In the end, not even the president of the United States could suspend—let alone repeal—the laws of the great game. You can’t play poker without chips, and you can’t run a campaign without money.
Although Trudeau is not encroaching on his dotage, there is still a lesson here for him. Biden couldn’t ultimately ignore inconvenient polls, and neither can Trudeau.
For months and months now, Trudeau has been several postal codes behind Poilievre and the Conservatives in the polls. A majority of Canadians don’t want him leading the Liberal Party into the next election expected in 2025.
Trudeau’s answer so far has been to double down on his insistence that he will contest the next election as head of the party. He assures his nervous caucus that things will gradually get better by the time Canadians choose their next prime minister: interest rates, inflation, and lower housing costs.
And they will, incrementally. The Bank of Canada, for example, just dropped the interest rate to 4.5 per cent.
The problem with that approach is that it didn’t much matter in Biden’s case. The U.S. has had a robust economic recovery from COVID. It also brought down the inflation rate significantly, and is gradually lowering interest rates. But none of that had any affect because that’s not how voters were experiencing it. They aren’t grateful for a reduction in the rate at which their expenses are increasing. They are remembering what groceries used to cost in pre-COVID days.
There is another problem with the PM ignoring polls showing his deep unpopularity, and a massive and consistent Conservative lead as the party of choice. If that doesn’t bother the PM, you can bet it bothers every Liberal MP looking to stay in his or her job.
A restless caucus could easily become a rebellious one if the leader and the polls remain in the ditch. If the conviction sets in that Trudeau is about to lead the party lemming-like over the cliff in 2025, his own team may turn on him as the Democrats did on Biden.
That’s because the Liberal caucus has seen in the U.S. the power of down-ballot candidates to remove an unpopular leader when he becomes a drag on their own reelection prospects. For now, it is up to Trudeau to decide whether it’s “damn the polls, and full speed ahead,” or the Biden option. But it may not be up to him much longer.
Stay tuned.
Image:
Justin Trudeau needs to pay attention to Kamala Harris. Robin Sears writes:
It is rare that one event can upend an entire political landscape overnight. But it happened at 1:45 on a Sunday afternoon in Delaware.
Mindful that every campaign exaggerates its wins and discounts its failures, consider these statistics about U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, who become the Democratic frontrunner on Sunday to replace President Joe Biden on this year’s Democratic ticket.
She has raised more than $100 million in 48 hours. A sum never before seen.
She has won more than 2,000 delegates endorsement, guaranteeing her nomination at the Democratic Convention in three weeks time. She had won 20,000 new volunteers overnight.
There's a lesson in Harris' rise and in Canadian polls:
Respected pollster Nik Nanos cautioned not to take as secure his “who’s on top” numbers. They tell him that a large chunk of Conservative support is made up of Trudeau deserters, not Poilievre lovers. He warns all those saying the political stage is set for a Tory landslide to be careful. A single serious mistake could wound Poilievre badly. Where his potential deserters would then go is unknown. But it is a flashing yellow light for Conservative strategists.
This appears to be what is happening to the Trump campaign already. Having predicated their entire strategy on mocking Joe Biden, who finally relented to pressure and decided to not run for re-election this fall. The Republicans are in a bit of a pickle using the same tactics on the immigrant child of Indian and Jamaican parents who fought her way to the top on merit.
Replacing one wounded leader with a fresher face at the last minute rarely works in Canadian politics, ask Kim Campbell. Still, worried Liberals may be watching the Harris juggernaut quickly build speed and scale and wonder. Apropos Nick Nanos observation, maybe even a non-superstar new Liberal leader could successfully woo a large slice of Trudeau deserters back. Harris seems to have wooed many worried Democrats back in days.
We don't repeat American history in this country. But this is an era of rapid change. Canadians are caught up in that change as much as the Americans are.
Image: CTV News Montreal
That was interesting. Joe Biden flipped the script. Dana Milbanks writes:
On Sunday morning, House Speaker Mike Johnson declared that President Biden absolutely, positively had to run for another four years as president.
“It’s not possible to simply just switch out a candidate who has been chosen through the democratic, small-d democratic process,” he told ABC News’s “This Week.”
Biden's response was "Wanna bet?" As Milbanks continues:
[The Republicans] wanted desperately to campaign against Biden this fall, and their party’s nominee, Donald Trump, had built his entire campaign around beating an opponent he could portray as old and feebleminded. But Biden upended everything Sunday with these words: “I believe it is in the best interest of my party and my country for me to stand down.”
His opponents seemed not to know what to do. The Republican response was confused and weak. They accused Democrats of a coup and a conspiracy to hide Biden’s “dementia.” They called for invoking the 25th Amendment and teed up legal challenges. But mostly they responded, in what was clearly a coordinated if illogical plan, by insisting that Biden resign immediately. “If Joe Biden can’t run for re-election,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) wrote in a typical formulation, “he is not capable of serving as president for the next six months and needs to resign NOW!
Politics is a cruel business. It's not about governing. It's about winning. And to win, you need to put on a good show. Biden -- wise though he is -- is no showman. Kamala Harris is no showwoman. But, as a former prosecutor, she knows how to prosecute the case against Trump.
Let's hope she succeeds.
Image: CNN
Progressives in the United States and Canada have a leadership crisis on their hands. Michael Harris writes:
In both countries, the progressive parties are in a crisis of leadership. For very different reasons, the parties themselves are deeply conflicted about their incumbents: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau here, and President Joe Biden in the United States.
The polling and approval ratings for both leaders are abysmal. They are so bad, in fact, that even though they are incumbent leaders of governments, they have each been invited by members of their own party to step down.
After nine years in power, the Liberals are dealing with the public’s “Trudeau fatigue.” The Democrats in the United States are saddled with a wobbly president deemed to be too old for a second term by two-thirds of Americans.
Another similarity? Both beleaguered leaders have not only refused to resign, but insist they will carry the party banner into the next election.
Grit or denialism?
That depends on your point of view -- and timing:
Those who support the president—including the panicked staff in the White House, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, and much of the Democratic leadership—talk about colds, jet-lag, and all the wonderful things that Biden has done over his long career. They are on the loyalty train, possibly of the misguided variety.
Then there are those who “love” the president, but think he is too old and diminished for the job, include a growing chorus of elected representatives, pundits, and celebrities. Actor and Democratic fundraiser George Clooney made that case in a guest essay in The New York Times on July 10.
Trudeau is another matter:
Trudeau is not Biden. He is mentally sharp, still youthful, and formidable on the campaign trail. But there is no pretending that the Liberal Party in Canada does not have a major leadership issue to resolve.
Based on how the Democrats have fractured their party by ignoring Biden’s age and competency issues until that became impossible; based on the fact that this has happened just months away from what might be the most consequential election in U.S. history; the Liberals should resolve their leadership issues now.
There is word today that Trudeau is bringing Mark Carney into the Liberal caucus.
Stay tuned.
Image: The Hill
A decade ago, the government of Ontario replaced our LCBO with a much bigger building. It does a roaring business, particularly in the summer. These days, there's a long picket line outside the building. Almost a decade ago, Doug Ford rode to power, promising a "buck a beer" and wider access to booze. He also made it clear that he was convinced that profit made the world go around.
That's what makes what's going on so strange. The LCBO is very profitable. Linda McQuaig writes:
The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), a crown corporation, has been doing a fine job selling alcohol — not exactly a risky enterprise requiring a lot of innovation — through its 677 outlets across the province.
And since it is publicly owned, its healthy annual profit — $2.5 billion in 2023 — goes into the public treasury, where it pays for things like health care and education.
Those profits have been invested in healthcare and education. But Ford has been cutting off revenue streams to the province's treasury. Ontarians no longer pay to renew their license plates. And Ford wants to cancel the contract with Ontario's Beer Stores at a cost of 225 million dollars:
Like so much this premier does, the basic animating force appears to be a zealous desire to privatize, to hand over ever more of our province to private interests, to further cannibalize Ontario’s strong tradition of public services and public enterprises that have served the province well.
Ford is following the path of former Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris, whose needless privatizations produced some disasters for Ontario.
Harris’ privatization of Highway 407 has cost us billions, his water-testing privatization was a factor in seven water-contamination deaths in Walkerton, and his privatization of long-term care homes worsened the COVID crisis, with death rates four times higher in private homes than in public ones.
Both men claimed to be good businessmen. Right.
Image: Niagara At Large
