I considered sending you an FI deficit graph, but it stopped at 2014.
I even stated *quite clearly* that JT continued deficits, with a huge on in 2020.
Hardly a denial …
But let’s return to what *you* said:
“we all know the Liberals only solve problems by increasing taxes”
That’s self-evidently untrue, as even the FI data shows.
So once again, *you’ve* been caught in a lie, and once again, not a particularly clever one. Trying to distract, deny, and dissemble to avoid attention to your foundation of lies & repugnant character.
The track we are on was created by the Liberals and Trudeau and his consultant Carney not Trump. Diehard Liberals think Canadians will forget the last ten years of complete mismanagement. The Liberal comeback is built on matchsticks and may not hold up in the next few weeks. What should have been a landslide victory for the PC party is now a dog fight. Canadians are not politically involved enough so they can be fooled by somebody that is apparently reasonable. I see Mr. Reasonable as Trudeau 2.0 only worse.and there is nothing Reasonable about that.
PP blew his lead (& load) by sucking up to naked authoritarianism. You’ve got no one but yourself & your fellow cranks to blame for that — you all seem to believe your farts don’t smell, and having locked yourselves in an unventilated room for so long, don’t notice the stink that wafts from you now that you’re forced to interact with the broader 🇨🇦 public.
But we all smell it — it’s like being around Peanuts’ Pig Pen, but miasmic — and virtually everyone thinks it’s disgusting 🤷♂️
2. Entrenching the lie of gender ideology in law due to a misguided & manipulated “be kind” instinct (except, say to the women caged with sex offenders, and the children subjected to evidenced “care”).
But we’ll recover from both of those in due course, I’m quite confident: the people, and Reality, are hard to ignore forever.
Anyway, back to your proposition: no, Nick. It’s *really* you.
Fooled by the PC.. they were not in power.. if anything Canadians had to endure and were fooled by an alliance of NDP and Liberals that they did not vote for..
Nick why don't you actually cease Polievre and the right wing media talking points and a bit of research into Mark Carney's public and written statements as to what he thinks need to be done like government spending less, investing more, generational unfairness, Canadians have an income problem and his long held views on stakeholder capitalism where businesses prioritize long-term value creation for all stakeholders, not just shareholders, to ensure equitable and sustainable growth.
He views climate change as an urgent and systemic threat, urging immediate action to transition to a net-zero economy, as businesses that fail to adapt risk obsolescence.
Also, he's stated clearly that the child care benefit, dental and pharmacare won't go nor will a woman's right to choose.
Polievre will tell us only after the election what he'll do to those initiatives that are far better in outcomes than tax cuts when child care averages $1500 per month versus $10 a day in a new regime.
First, I declare my prior: I assume you sympathize with the Conservative Party of Canada, Nick.
Even if you are 100% right in your assessment of the Liberal government and the equation Carney = (Trudeau - charisma), Canadian voters don't care about the past ten years anymore. And that sucks if you are a CPC supporter.
The electorate seem to deeply care about the health of the economy under attack from the US, and the integrity of Canada as a nation.
You can discuss the economy and the experience of each candidate dealing with crisis (maybe), but the cultural stuff is a natural for the Liberal party: our healthcare, our multicultural policies, reconciliation with our First Nations, openness to diversity in gender choice and sexual orientation... the Liberals -and the NDP- own those issues.
I am not sure voters are being fooled, they are acting based on the context we have been thrown into, which is a strength for the Liberals and a weakness for the Conservatives, especially since Poilievre embraced the anti-woke agenda early on. How do you walk that back?
Lastly, let's treat everyone with respect. Those who think differently are not the enemy, the guy in the White House is.
Any Canadian who believes that Canada can defend itself without the help of its neighbor is delusional.. I believe that you are a country only when you can protect your boarders and defend yourself from enemies without anyone's help. We are a country that has a massive land mass with the population the size of California. We need the big daddy below us whether we like it or not. Yes, culturally we are different but we are being warned not to go too far away from the middle otherwise we are on our own. That message was delivered by Vance to the Europeans.. he made it clear.. if your ideology does not match ours.. you are on your own.. we will not defend you..did anyone in Canada hear what he said...Canadians can pound their chest all they want but we are better off if we need the call.. if we do not then we are on our own and we are left very vulnerable. Make no mistake., I am not suggesting that we need to become a state.. I so not want that.. what i am saying is the USA has a new sheriff in town and there is no free loading.. I fear that if we stay on the road Trudeau has put us on is not in sync with the Big Guy..
Thank you for your perspective. I do think based on polling and reporting that Canadians don't see your suggested path forward -alignment with the US administration due to our lack of capacity to assert our sovereignty- as their preferred choice. Advancing your argument -without prejudice- to the general population would be a very tough sell, in my estimation.
I speak now just for myself but I have this gut reaction to the disparaging comments coming from the White House... I would rather be poor and free, than rich and controlled by the USA. Call me delusional, but I would rather stand our ground than quickly fold.
What we’ve been observing is that PP’s platform, entirely based on three word phrases populism and demonizing Trudeau has crumbled miserably like it was built on ‘matchsticks’ or worse . Funny how the cpc always show who they are in their attacks .
Reasonable - like wouldn’t conduct national security business over an unsecured messaging app reasonable. I doubt we could expect the same from someone who won’t even be bothered to get their security clearance. At this moment in history we can’t afford to FAFO, I’ll take reasonable thanks.
My phone is pinging off the wall, messages are coming fast and furious as I try and focus on the policies of which party to support. From where I sit the policies are similar for the most part and need to be emphasized. The situation with Donald is serious, he’s neither reasonable or trustworthy and to think he just might bring the boys across the border is scary. As for Canada, our leader needs to be reasonable and trustworthy, I know where I stand
According to some polling of the populace, there are two major issues on peoples minds: a) the state of the economy for the average Canadian; b) the Trumpian attack on Canada's economy through tariffs and a repeated desire to annex Canada as the 51st state.
The appeal then of an accomplished economist with national and global experience running economies & businesses and dealing with politicians - an adult; vs a petulant, slogan barking toddler that has zero real-world experience in economics, negotiation, or diplomacy. And his political resume is his HOC record of voting. 'Shallow' is a tune that comes to mind.
Carney sounds very reasonable and reliable by comparison and these times demand this level of calm maturity. Now, most of these traits also exist with other members (male & female) of the Liberal caucus. Lots of governing strength.
The Trump tariffs and threats of annexation have rapidly changed mindsets of Canadians including Quebecers. They're looking for that leader who grasps the very real threats and challenges and can provide a steady hand at the tiller when the ship is in a raging storm.
I think they see a steady, focused leader who has successfully led two central banks on two continents who is speaking to the right issues.
The tolerance for the lies and misinformation of the sloganeering Polievre are not as tolerable as these were the tools and techniques that in the next election would take out Justin Trudeau. Now that he's been taken out by Chrystia Freeland and the Liberal caucus Polievre and his right wing extreme supporters are struggling to do the same to Mark Carney with very limited success.
With Danielle Smith suggesting Polievre like her are both in synch with the new direction of the USA is giving many pause.
Where Polievre is caught is wanting not to lose voters like last time to Maxime Bernier's party as these few votes overall were difference makers in some places.
Reasonable is exactly what I want these days. I’m not looking for hyperbole or extravagance or even partisanship….I want a reasoned and reasonable response to the lunacy going on around me. Even though I know very little about Mr Carney, what I do know strikes me as the reasonable answer to the very scary circumstances in which we find ourselves.
"So in the case of most nations, which run external deficits, the fiscal deficit has to not only offset the drain in spending from the external sector, but also the overall private domestic saving.
A factual correction: Mark Carney has not said he will "balance the budget". He distinguishes between the "operating budget" and the "capital budget", the latter being for investments, for which borrowing makes sense. So, the objective is to balance the operating budget.
Naturally, this has drawn the ire of junktanks such as the Fraser Institute, who want the overall budget balanced through cuts to spending. That would facilitate attending their objective of 'minimal government'.
Make your vote on sound judgement on Character,Experience. That’s why I’m voting Carney. He has character and WORLD FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE. Has Delt with all Governors of Central Banks . And has hands on experience and knowledge of how the WEF works
Great post, David. The threat of annexation has upended the electoral calculus of Canadians. The Wall Street Journal reported today that Canadians are indeed avoiding travel to the United States, and the economic impact for the US can be huge. The story notes that "Canadian arrivals declined 9.4% in February to Las Vegas, compared with a year ago, federal air-travel data show, and dropped 11% for Newark and the New York airports. But the decline wasn’t universal. Arrivals to Phoenix rose 15% year-over-year."
We can with some degree of confidence extrapolate this behaviour to the electoral calculus of the average Canadian: instead of "anyone but the Liberals" we are now into "anything that looks or sounds remotely like President Trump is toxic". And that is precisely what Pierre Poilievre has to deal with. When your narrative was "Canada is broken", and you need to Axe the Tax, Build more Houses and be tough on crime, well those cards are now worth less than the Melania Crypto Coin. And you can't walk back the interview with Jordan Peterson or the praise he received from pro-MAGA politicians.
Under this scenario, the NDP also gets squeezed out because we have a first-past-the-post system, and they really don't have any thought-through answer to the tariff situation and the re-negotiation of the free trade agreement that is surely to follow.
I would love to be a fly in the wall in the CPC strategy meetings right now. They are trying the core economic message, but I am not sure that will be enough. They somehow need to prove that a Poilievre government will not follow through on culture war stuff, while being able to deal with the threat posed by the US Federal Government. In this context "Canada First" works, but you need to fill that slogan with something concrete, maybe a 4 or 5 point plan with an iron-clad assurance that the culture war is over?
This one Federal election is going to be textbook material in PolSci, let me tell you...
I am a progressive, and I am very concerned about a Carney led government. While I understand the motivation of his positions, I think history shows us that when we do large projects in a hurry, we do so at the expense of the most vulnerable. If I was grading Carney, I would give him a 40 out if 100. He gets rattled when questioned and challenged. That gets worse, not better as someone is longer in their term.
The problem is I give Poilievre a 20 out of 100, and Mr Singh gets an incomplete. I haven't really looked at the Greens yet.
Apparently you haven’t noticed that Mr. Carney gets rattled with stupid questions only. Otherwise he pauses and thinks before answering. The only ones challenging him are those who have a hard on/wet panties for lil’ pp
I've always been a progressive, and I understand your concerns, but I no longer share them. Of course Carney gets rattled -- try to put yourself in the shoes of a person used to leadership and decision-making (by consensus is Carney's preferred way), adjusting to the kind of questioning Rosie Barton gave him in Europe. Carney's a neophyte politician, but that will change. But he is also very experienced in careful and considered planning for the future as well as implementation of those plans. He has spent years thinking about what he's learned and how that might help Canada. He also genuinely believes that humility is an important virtue, which is why he never seems to stop learning from experience.
If you listen carefully he's not putting his faith in big projects as he knows full well as do investors that the big things like pipelines that private investors won't invest in have dubious economics attached to them.
Instead he's wanting gov't to spend less and invest more and create the right climate for business to do more in economy building.
We also need the NDP but Jagmeet is not going to get traction with Mark Carney as some big central banker boogeyman schtick. He's got to focus on what they got done in pushing dental and pharma care and how Polievre is a risk to these programs.
I'll take reasonable over radical any day of the week.
Indeed, Carney seems to have recaptured the “reasonableness” of Canadians.
I’d have preferred PM Gould in a more perfect world, but this ain’t that, at least right now.
So settle things down, PM Carney , get things on a different track than the one Trump/Musk/Putin have envisioned, and we can be bolder in the future.
Now’s not the time for 🇨🇦 to elect our own Scheinbaum, but I don’t think it’s far away either 🤞
Yes, you donkey.
I considered sending you an FI deficit graph, but it stopped at 2014.
I even stated *quite clearly* that JT continued deficits, with a huge on in 2020.
Hardly a denial …
But let’s return to what *you* said:
“we all know the Liberals only solve problems by increasing taxes”
That’s self-evidently untrue, as even the FI data shows.
So once again, *you’ve* been caught in a lie, and once again, not a particularly clever one. Trying to distract, deny, and dissemble to avoid attention to your foundation of lies & repugnant character.
You said, “easily fooled”, let’s not forget.
Ah yes, the “right playbook”: conveniently tell a half truth to distract from their actual words & actions.
No apology required or offered to you. I don’t apologize to liars for calling them out.
The track we are on was created by the Liberals and Trudeau and his consultant Carney not Trump. Diehard Liberals think Canadians will forget the last ten years of complete mismanagement. The Liberal comeback is built on matchsticks and may not hold up in the next few weeks. What should have been a landslide victory for the PC party is now a dog fight. Canadians are not politically involved enough so they can be fooled by somebody that is apparently reasonable. I see Mr. Reasonable as Trudeau 2.0 only worse.and there is nothing Reasonable about that.
Sure, Nick.
Let’s talk on April 29th.
PP blew his lead (& load) by sucking up to naked authoritarianism. You’ve got no one but yourself & your fellow cranks to blame for that — you all seem to believe your farts don’t smell, and having locked yourselves in an unventilated room for so long, don’t notice the stink that wafts from you now that you’re forced to interact with the broader 🇨🇦 public.
But we all smell it — it’s like being around Peanuts’ Pig Pen, but miasmic — and virtually everyone thinks it’s disgusting 🤷♂️
What you are smelling is the rot of a Liberal government that have destroyed this country.
“Destroyed” 🤣
Sure, Jan.
Yeah, JT made 2 mistakes imho, big ones frankly:
1. Backtracking on electoral reform,
and
2. Entrenching the lie of gender ideology in law due to a misguided & manipulated “be kind” instinct (except, say to the women caged with sex offenders, and the children subjected to evidenced “care”).
But we’ll recover from both of those in due course, I’m quite confident: the people, and Reality, are hard to ignore forever.
Anyway, back to your proposition: no, Nick. It’s *really* you.
Could be. Could also be that many Canadians have lately realized they were being fooled by the CPC for the past five or ten years.
Fooled by the PC.. they were not in power.. if anything Canadians had to endure and were fooled by an alliance of NDP and Liberals that they did not vote for..
Or maybe they were fooled into thinking the CPC offered something they no longer feel they need.
Nick why don't you actually cease Polievre and the right wing media talking points and a bit of research into Mark Carney's public and written statements as to what he thinks need to be done like government spending less, investing more, generational unfairness, Canadians have an income problem and his long held views on stakeholder capitalism where businesses prioritize long-term value creation for all stakeholders, not just shareholders, to ensure equitable and sustainable growth.
He views climate change as an urgent and systemic threat, urging immediate action to transition to a net-zero economy, as businesses that fail to adapt risk obsolescence.
Also, he's stated clearly that the child care benefit, dental and pharmacare won't go nor will a woman's right to choose.
Polievre will tell us only after the election what he'll do to those initiatives that are far better in outcomes than tax cuts when child care averages $1500 per month versus $10 a day in a new regime.
Do you not understand how parliamentary government works, Nick?
Let’s add it to the growing list …
First, I declare my prior: I assume you sympathize with the Conservative Party of Canada, Nick.
Even if you are 100% right in your assessment of the Liberal government and the equation Carney = (Trudeau - charisma), Canadian voters don't care about the past ten years anymore. And that sucks if you are a CPC supporter.
The electorate seem to deeply care about the health of the economy under attack from the US, and the integrity of Canada as a nation.
You can discuss the economy and the experience of each candidate dealing with crisis (maybe), but the cultural stuff is a natural for the Liberal party: our healthcare, our multicultural policies, reconciliation with our First Nations, openness to diversity in gender choice and sexual orientation... the Liberals -and the NDP- own those issues.
I am not sure voters are being fooled, they are acting based on the context we have been thrown into, which is a strength for the Liberals and a weakness for the Conservatives, especially since Poilievre embraced the anti-woke agenda early on. How do you walk that back?
Lastly, let's treat everyone with respect. Those who think differently are not the enemy, the guy in the White House is.
Any Canadian who believes that Canada can defend itself without the help of its neighbor is delusional.. I believe that you are a country only when you can protect your boarders and defend yourself from enemies without anyone's help. We are a country that has a massive land mass with the population the size of California. We need the big daddy below us whether we like it or not. Yes, culturally we are different but we are being warned not to go too far away from the middle otherwise we are on our own. That message was delivered by Vance to the Europeans.. he made it clear.. if your ideology does not match ours.. you are on your own.. we will not defend you..did anyone in Canada hear what he said...Canadians can pound their chest all they want but we are better off if we need the call.. if we do not then we are on our own and we are left very vulnerable. Make no mistake., I am not suggesting that we need to become a state.. I so not want that.. what i am saying is the USA has a new sheriff in town and there is no free loading.. I fear that if we stay on the road Trudeau has put us on is not in sync with the Big Guy..
Thank you for your perspective. I do think based on polling and reporting that Canadians don't see your suggested path forward -alignment with the US administration due to our lack of capacity to assert our sovereignty- as their preferred choice. Advancing your argument -without prejudice- to the general population would be a very tough sell, in my estimation.
I speak now just for myself but I have this gut reaction to the disparaging comments coming from the White House... I would rather be poor and free, than rich and controlled by the USA. Call me delusional, but I would rather stand our ground than quickly fold.
What we’ve been observing is that PP’s platform, entirely based on three word phrases populism and demonizing Trudeau has crumbled miserably like it was built on ‘matchsticks’ or worse . Funny how the cpc always show who they are in their attacks .
The Right Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fulfilled 98% of his election promises. Name another PM who has come close to that…I’ll wait 😎
Reasonable - like wouldn’t conduct national security business over an unsecured messaging app reasonable. I doubt we could expect the same from someone who won’t even be bothered to get their security clearance. At this moment in history we can’t afford to FAFO, I’ll take reasonable thanks.
My phone is pinging off the wall, messages are coming fast and furious as I try and focus on the policies of which party to support. From where I sit the policies are similar for the most part and need to be emphasized. The situation with Donald is serious, he’s neither reasonable or trustworthy and to think he just might bring the boys across the border is scary. As for Canada, our leader needs to be reasonable and trustworthy, I know where I stand
According to some polling of the populace, there are two major issues on peoples minds: a) the state of the economy for the average Canadian; b) the Trumpian attack on Canada's economy through tariffs and a repeated desire to annex Canada as the 51st state.
The appeal then of an accomplished economist with national and global experience running economies & businesses and dealing with politicians - an adult; vs a petulant, slogan barking toddler that has zero real-world experience in economics, negotiation, or diplomacy. And his political resume is his HOC record of voting. 'Shallow' is a tune that comes to mind.
Carney sounds very reasonable and reliable by comparison and these times demand this level of calm maturity. Now, most of these traits also exist with other members (male & female) of the Liberal caucus. Lots of governing strength.
The Trump tariffs and threats of annexation have rapidly changed mindsets of Canadians including Quebecers. They're looking for that leader who grasps the very real threats and challenges and can provide a steady hand at the tiller when the ship is in a raging storm.
I think they see a steady, focused leader who has successfully led two central banks on two continents who is speaking to the right issues.
The tolerance for the lies and misinformation of the sloganeering Polievre are not as tolerable as these were the tools and techniques that in the next election would take out Justin Trudeau. Now that he's been taken out by Chrystia Freeland and the Liberal caucus Polievre and his right wing extreme supporters are struggling to do the same to Mark Carney with very limited success.
With Danielle Smith suggesting Polievre like her are both in synch with the new direction of the USA is giving many pause.
Where Polievre is caught is wanting not to lose voters like last time to Maxime Bernier's party as these few votes overall were difference makers in some places.
Reasonable is exactly what I want these days. I’m not looking for hyperbole or extravagance or even partisanship….I want a reasoned and reasonable response to the lunacy going on around me. Even though I know very little about Mr Carney, what I do know strikes me as the reasonable answer to the very scary circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Balancing the federal budget may not be so reasonable:
William Mitchell is Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=40926
"So in the case of most nations, which run external deficits, the fiscal deficit has to not only offset the drain in spending from the external sector, but also the overall private domestic saving.
Otherwise, you get recession and stagnation."
Poilievre: “a hyper-masculine pugilist”?? I don’t think that is a sales pitch that is working.
A factual correction: Mark Carney has not said he will "balance the budget". He distinguishes between the "operating budget" and the "capital budget", the latter being for investments, for which borrowing makes sense. So, the objective is to balance the operating budget.
Naturally, this has drawn the ire of junktanks such as the Fraser Institute, who want the overall budget balanced through cuts to spending. That would facilitate attending their objective of 'minimal government'.
Reasonable. Thoughtful. Strategic. For the greater good. This is the sense I get as a Canadian. Sound bites don’t lead to change.
Polls tell nothing. Can be easily manipulated.
Make your vote on sound judgement on Character,Experience. That’s why I’m voting Carney. He has character and WORLD FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE. Has Delt with all Governors of Central Banks . And has hands on experience and knowledge of how the WEF works
I think that’s a reasonable take.
Meanwhile, when the ship is no longer sinking, look who's clambering back on board: https://bsky.app/profile/duanebratt.bsky.social/post/3ll7fgewggk2u
Great post, David. The threat of annexation has upended the electoral calculus of Canadians. The Wall Street Journal reported today that Canadians are indeed avoiding travel to the United States, and the economic impact for the US can be huge. The story notes that "Canadian arrivals declined 9.4% in February to Las Vegas, compared with a year ago, federal air-travel data show, and dropped 11% for Newark and the New York airports. But the decline wasn’t universal. Arrivals to Phoenix rose 15% year-over-year."
We can with some degree of confidence extrapolate this behaviour to the electoral calculus of the average Canadian: instead of "anyone but the Liberals" we are now into "anything that looks or sounds remotely like President Trump is toxic". And that is precisely what Pierre Poilievre has to deal with. When your narrative was "Canada is broken", and you need to Axe the Tax, Build more Houses and be tough on crime, well those cards are now worth less than the Melania Crypto Coin. And you can't walk back the interview with Jordan Peterson or the praise he received from pro-MAGA politicians.
Under this scenario, the NDP also gets squeezed out because we have a first-past-the-post system, and they really don't have any thought-through answer to the tariff situation and the re-negotiation of the free trade agreement that is surely to follow.
I would love to be a fly in the wall in the CPC strategy meetings right now. They are trying the core economic message, but I am not sure that will be enough. They somehow need to prove that a Poilievre government will not follow through on culture war stuff, while being able to deal with the threat posed by the US Federal Government. In this context "Canada First" works, but you need to fill that slogan with something concrete, maybe a 4 or 5 point plan with an iron-clad assurance that the culture war is over?
This one Federal election is going to be textbook material in PolSci, let me tell you...
I am a progressive, and I am very concerned about a Carney led government. While I understand the motivation of his positions, I think history shows us that when we do large projects in a hurry, we do so at the expense of the most vulnerable. If I was grading Carney, I would give him a 40 out if 100. He gets rattled when questioned and challenged. That gets worse, not better as someone is longer in their term.
The problem is I give Poilievre a 20 out of 100, and Mr Singh gets an incomplete. I haven't really looked at the Greens yet.
Apparently you haven’t noticed that Mr. Carney gets rattled with stupid questions only. Otherwise he pauses and thinks before answering. The only ones challenging him are those who have a hard on/wet panties for lil’ pp
I've always been a progressive, and I understand your concerns, but I no longer share them. Of course Carney gets rattled -- try to put yourself in the shoes of a person used to leadership and decision-making (by consensus is Carney's preferred way), adjusting to the kind of questioning Rosie Barton gave him in Europe. Carney's a neophyte politician, but that will change. But he is also very experienced in careful and considered planning for the future as well as implementation of those plans. He has spent years thinking about what he's learned and how that might help Canada. He also genuinely believes that humility is an important virtue, which is why he never seems to stop learning from experience.
If you listen carefully he's not putting his faith in big projects as he knows full well as do investors that the big things like pipelines that private investors won't invest in have dubious economics attached to them.
Instead he's wanting gov't to spend less and invest more and create the right climate for business to do more in economy building.
We also need the NDP but Jagmeet is not going to get traction with Mark Carney as some big central banker boogeyman schtick. He's got to focus on what they got done in pushing dental and pharma care and how Polievre is a risk to these programs.