Re: [OT] A deep dive into Canada's next prime minister

On 2025-01-05 2:18 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 16:55:02 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
 

The man who is poised to be the winner of the next federal election and
therefore the next prime minister of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, is
interviewed in depth by Jordan Peterson.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dck8eZCpglc [100 minutes]
>
I don't know if I'm even capable of articulating the difference between
Poilievre and the incumbent PM, Justin Trudeau. Trudeau makes

 Sounds like you just did - the difference of course being that Trudeau
/ "Harris" has been in power since 2015 and is one of the serving PMs
since WW2.
 Despite being well past his "best by" date.

Justin Trudeau had a "best by" date? Really? I think Stephen Harper's campaign had it exactly right in the early part of the 2015 campaign with their picture of Trudeau above a caption that said "He's not up for the job (of PM)".
Trudeau was NEVER "up for the job" and still isn't even after 10 years IN THE JOB! He's proven it every day and in every way.
The millions of Canadians who voted for Trudeau in the past 3 elections owe Stephen Harper a truly abject apology for dumping the best prime minister we've had in my lifetime - and the ONLY one I voted for without holding my nose - for the worst one in Canadian history.

 Can you imagine any US politician even getting to the ballot with
pictures like these in his portfolio? (Much less getting 3 terms of
office?)
 https://www.google.com/search?q=justin+trudeau+blackface+photo&sca_esv=11562f0a2f57a122&sxsrf=ADLYWILz-NzdzWhE9TcBvAFyER8qkFOhkA:1736104631726&source=hp&biw=1106&bih=861&ei=t9p6Z__iKY3z0PEPh7qEuAk&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZ3rox8GM_DFp9eMuc5-AaGZZE2eP3zAC&ved=0ahUKEwi_mvXepd-KAxWNOTQIHQcdAZcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=justin+trudeau+blackface+photo&gs_lp=EgNpbWciHmp1c3RpbiB0cnVkZWF1IGJsYWNrZmFjZSBwaG90bzIIEAAYgAQYxwNI-T5QAFjxOnABeACQAQCYATegAfwLqgECMzG4AQPIAQD4AQGKAgtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ5gCH6ACkQzCAgQQIxgnwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIFEAAYgATCAgQQABgDmAMAkgcCMzGgB9aBAQ&sclient=img&udm=2

I think many people just wrote off the blackface pictures as young person's hijinks, even though he was well into his 20s (or 30s?) in the Point Grey pictures.
The media let him off after a bit of grovelling in front of the cameras so that they could have a big news day. I can't remember a single major non-white figure expressing strong disgust over the pictures or resigning a position in protest. I certainly didn't see any Liberal caucus members or cabinet members resign in protest, even though he has many that normally love to be woke and condemn such things.
The fundamental problem is that virtually every federal Liberal in the caucus or cabinet rode in on his coat tails and they all knew it. That meant they couldn't condemn him or register displeasure publicly for fear of him refusing to sign their nomination papers for the next election. That's a symptom of the Liberals over-centralizing control of the party in the Leader's hands. I think they were embarrassed by past occasions where elected Liberals took positions opposing the general will of the party - especially about abortion - but were powerless to stop that under the old rules so they changed the rules so the Leader had full control over who the nominees were and could keep out those who didn't agree with him. That's inevitably going to result in some form of a personality cult all orbiting the Leader and taking pains not to disagree openly. It's why they've got no real heir-apparent to Trudeau, someone a bit younger with strong leadership skills and genuine competence to take over. All they've got is sycophants like Freeland and all the others who agreed with him every single time he wanted to do something stupid because they knew they were nothing without him. That's why it's taken until only the last couple of months before anyone will openly criticize Trudeau and Freeland, his most devoted deputy, only openly broke with him a few short weeks ago, even though the polls were bad as long as 2 years ago. Before that, the caucus could only barely muster the guts to write him letters hinting at displeasure with his leadership but very few people actually signed those letters to reveal themselves.
The Liberals need to decentralize the party again so that the ridings are the ultimate choosers of candidates and the party just needs to accept that will possibly result in a few ideological outliers getting elected. They also need to adopt the same rules the Conservatives have that allow an under-performing leader - like Erin O'Toole - to be replaced by someone better without having to wait for him to lose an election (or die in office) as per the current Liberal rules. Of course, that assumes the Liberal Party SURVIVES the next election: I'm hoping they realize their time is past and fold up their tent altogether, with the "progressives" joining the NDP, and the moderate/centrist types (if any such people exist in the Liberal Party) joining the Conservatives.
With the current situations in this country and the UK in mind, I'd also love to see the Conservatives try to create a law - or even a Constitutional amendment - that enables the Canadian public to demand an election when they are satisfied that a government is completely counterproductive. Labour in the UK is already widely despised and Starmer's got a -49 rating after just 6 months. Trudeau has been widely despised for years but we have no mechanism to force an early election ourselves if the opposition parties prop up a minority government, as is the case with Singh propping up Trudeau. There'd obviously need to be some thresholds to ensure that disgust with the government is widespread and substantial and probably not over a single narrow issue so that such a provision wouldn't be abused but it shouldn't be so high that it would be impossible to activate this provision and turf out the likes of a Trudeau or Starmer.
--
Rhino