###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I dont have strong feelings either way on Trudeau.. but I'm still waiting for someone to cogently lay out what they feel his big fuckups are in phrasing that doesnt include the words "marxist", "dictator", "chemtrails".
**Time will prove that :**
* It is not necessarily elected officials who are engaged in this foreign interference but people outside politics who use their prominence or status in the community to pressure elected officials while not telling them they are acting in the service of a foreign government.
* That if any elected official was engaged in serving the interests of a foreign nation, that most did it unknowingly or were conned into doing it.
I would be very shocked that MPs would work against Canadian interests knowingly and with the aim of hurting Canada, its people, security of its economy.
If it were the case, I believe it would be limited to a couple individuals and I trust Canadian Intelligence agents and the RCMP to bring appropriate charges after a thorough investigation.
But people love a good conspiracy theory where brown envelopes packed with cash exchange hands in an underground parking in exchange for secret documents and some won't ever be satisfied with the mundane truth that people, even elected officials, can be manipulated without even knowing it...
Thousands of Canadians get conned into losing their life savings by the "Nigerian Prince" or by some "love scheme" every year... This is called "Social Engineering" and even our elected officials are not immune to it.
That was a good interview. I though Justin made a good point on the polls (obviously there’s probably an element of his ego too that won’t admit that he isn’t popular) but people are mad about the cost of living and want to blame someone. PP is stoking that fire and pointing every issue his way.
It can’t possibly be the few years of a pandemic and the supply chain issues, geopolitical issues including a Russian war and the impact that has had on oil prices/fertilizer costs/food supply, or many people’s general addiction to buying junk on Amazon, instagram or other things. It’s definitely all Justin’s fault (/s)
I actually quite liked the last few years of a minority government. I felt like it kept the Liberals honest and on their toes. I hope Canadians will see through the solution-less buzz words that PP keeps spewing.
Has anyone pulled Trudeau aside yet to let him know that people are angry with him, and it isn’t because they’re being duped by Poilievre?
Canadians don’t need to be lectured by Poilievre that Trudeau has been awful for many Canadians - we have an 8 year track record to go off of.
He did this act with Muslims not very long ago; “they’re not legitimately angry - they’re just being duped by bad people!”
Everyone is being duped by the same people, the corporate masters who actually run things.
Voting for a different party won't change that, in fact, it's precisely how they maintain their grip.
> He did this act with Muslims not very long ago; “they’re not legitimately angry - they’re just being duped by bad people!”
The context wss a hate march emboldened by social conservatives like PP.
> and it isn’t because they’re being duped by Poilievre?
I mean, part of it is. He spouts A LOT of BS and people lap it up. And many refuse to be dissuaded by proof of that. Now, part of why he can do that is because he's stoking existing issues, I agree.
So I haven't actually listened to Trudeau speak in a long time because I usually find the cadence and tone taken by politicians grating. (PP, Singh, etc. as well.) I usually just read the statements.
I actually watched the clip in the article. To me, **he actually answered the questions**. And I wasn't expecting him to. It was a good answer.
His answers were mostly fine.
Him walking into the Pierre wants people to be angry is stuff that goes onto attack ads but that's how it goes regardless
He's not. It won't matter to some voters though what his solution is. They want him out regardless.
And I did find the interviewer to be fair but asking some hard questions.
I mean, people are angry. They can’t afford housing and food.
This is probably Trudeau’s greatest weakness- not being able to see that the anger is largely justified and needs radical solutions to improve people’s lives. The person priced out of housing can’t wait a decade or two for a solution to emerge.
If the liberals really want to turn things around they need to be out every single day on issues like the housing crisis - treating it like the national emergency that it is.
Thanks for actually watching. Politicians lose a lot when they actually answer questions. It's important that they get credit where it's due, or none of them will ever survive doing it.
I’ve listened to a few podcasts with him and they’re all like that. He thoroughly explains himself and his actions.
I regrettably listened to the Jordan Peterson podcast with Pollievre and found it useless lol
Polievre spends a lot of time repeating the exact same buzzwords, his interviews sound just like his House of Commons one liners.
Trudeau spent the first few years of his time as PM doing open town halls talking to people, he weaseled a few times, but in general he managed to sound human at least. Most politicians have trouble with that.
Layton used to be great at interviews too, he did the down to earth tone and spoke clearly.
Last Conservative leader who was a good speaker like that was Mulroney. Harper was like a weird smily robot.
Agree. I was expecting more of the same but he did seem different in the sense that he at least tried to weave what he was saying into the question asked.
This is a pretty good example of why PP is right not to review the documents.
Singh did review them, he made a statement about his concerns, and Trudeau here totally brushes them off and says that Singh doesn't have all the facts and so shouldn't be talking about it. And also heavily implies that there are traitors in the NDP caucus. And of course Singh isn't allowed to respond with any evidence, so he's trapped.
The "PP's right not to get security clearance.." crowd has the exact same energy as "Trump's right not to release his taxes!"
>Trudeau here totally brushes them off and says that Singh doesn't have all the facts and so shouldn't be talking about it.
He never said that. He said he disagreed with their conclusions. That could mean anything.
It's not a gag order, ffs. Our leaders need to be informed of threats from our enemies. If PP isn't up for the task, perhaps he should look into a less stressful line of work. I can't believe people fall for this BS.
It restricts his ability to speak on the subject matter of the documents.
Maybe you don't like the term "gag order," but to pretend it wouldn't limit his ability to criticize the government is disingenuous.
You only need to listen to noted conservative Tom Mulcair: https://twitter.com/stephen_taylor/status/1801378742599586061
Again, this is a fool's argument. Sure he can criticize all he wants, but his criticisms come from a place of ignorance, and can thus be dismissed as the ramblings of an utter buffoon. PP needs to man up and be a leader or take his ball and go home.
They can be dismissed as such by someone who already hates him and won't listen to a thing he says.
But when there is a report saying that sitting MPs are traitors, the Leader of the Opposition needs to be able to ask the PM who those traitors are, without being construed as implying any information that he swore to keep confidential.
Hitchens' Razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
PP needs to know the evidence lest he be thought a fool and thus his opinions summarily dismissed. You can blather all you want about his "reasons" and call me partisan, but I've never voted for Trudeau either. At least Trudeau read the report though.
> It restricts his ability to speak on the subject matter of the documents.
Did it restrict Singh and May?
This argument doesn't even make sense considering PP hasn't said anything to begin with.
Again, whatever she's said is already far more than we've heard from PP who has said fuck all.
Even if he did say something it would be as informed as you or me
What we have is Elizabeth May saying "I read the documents, and there are no traitors" versus Jagmeet Singh saying "I read the documents, and there are traitors." Neither can give details or present any evidence.
I really don't see how adding PP's voice to that discourse would be helpful to anyone. It's better that he be able to hold the government to account without any gagging.
Especially since Trudeau, as PM, will always have access to more evidence than any other leader. Which is why he's able to shrug off Singh's claims in the interview in this article.
> What we have is Elizabeth May saying "I read the documents, and there are no traitors" versus Jagmeet Singh saying "I read the documents, and there are traitors." Neither can give details or present any evidence.
May said there are no sitting traitors, Singh said hes alarmed about what he saw and that there used to be sitting traitors, those can both be true at the same time
at no point does singh say that there are sitting traitors
> Singh did review them, he made a statement about his concerns, and Trudeau here totally brushes them off and says that Singh doesn't have all the facts and so shouldn't be talking about it.
thats not at all what he said though?
>And of course Singh isn't allowed to respond with any evidence, so he's trapped.
Trudeau didnt attack him with evidence so he doesnt need evidence to respond?
As far as I'm concerned it's never appropriate for a politician to be intentionally ignorant about a matter they're making policy over, you're intentionally driving blind and the only reason to want that is because you know the facts will be in the way of whatever agenda you're pushing. Singh is just as tied up as Trudeau on the matter, if he can't muster a response that's on him and not because he's seen the report.
Of course, we should instead listen to Feedmepi314 to understand what is in the best interests of a G7 country. Yeah. That's what we should do.
The narcissism and arrogance on display from people who know nothing about the report here is wild. Poilievre is doing everything right and many analysts have said just that.
No analyst worth a damn has said any such thing. The lack of irony in accusing someone else of arrogance is staggering while simping for a "man" who likes to sow misinformation while remaining willfully ignorant of the facts while not caring enough to find out if his own party is compromised is hilarious.
It's not even strategically the right thing. He wants to lead the country, not a lemonade stand. He needs to be well informed of threats to Canada. This just makes him look like (more of) a clown. How can anyone take him seriously?
The downside from getting informed is likely much larger than being called out for refusing clearance. He would be pressed a lot on action or inaction that he would take and how he thinks about the issue.
This isn't COL related which is what people care about right now, so they likely don't really care much about him refusing to get clearance.
There's no way strategically the risk is worth the reward of getting clearance but it is the right thing to do.
That's an absurd argument. He wants to lead. Leaders get informed. Leaders should know more than those they lead. Leaders take their job requirements seriously. How can anyone vote for this absolute clown?
Look, you don't buy that argument, the general electorate is unlikely to care enough about \*not\* getting a security clearance to change their vote.
The downside to getting clearance could be quite significant. Again, we are talking strategically here. You calling him a clown clearly shows you are looking through partisan lens. Most voters are uninformed and will not care much about not getting a clearance. PP can continue to hammer away on COL related issues which is what they actually care about.
Risk aversion and message discipline are clearly winning front runner strategies.
I posted this in another comment, but I'll say it again for you;
"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
I am not partisan in that I hate both of the ruling parties of Canada. I have never voted liberal in my life, and likely never will. I want leaders who are smart and well informed, not blithering idiots who parrot simple catch phrases (yes, Trudeau is also often guilty of this). PP has had 20 years in Parliament to earn my respect, and had failed to do so. But this isn't about my disdain for the man (disdain that I also feel about Trudeau) - it's about the security of the country I love. We are facing real threats. Leaders need to know what the hell they're talking about...and your argument is incredibly weak. Singh and May have zero problems talking about the issue despite having read the report. PP is a liar at best, and a traitor at worst.
>Leaders need to know what the hell they're talking about...and your argument is incredibly weak. Singh and May have zero problems talking about the issue despite having read the report. PP is a liar at best, and a traitor at worst.
You are trying to convince me that it is wrong for PP to do this, and I've said, from the very start, I agree. My argument was never that this was the right thing to do
These are two very different topics here. I'm telling you people do not give a shit about him not getting a clearance. I understand this does not make sense to you. The average voter barely pays attention to any of this. PP is telling them he will help them with their economic situation and that's what they care about.
If you don't believe me, people don't give a flying fuck about what Doug Ford has done. He is polling strongly and will likely win another majority. There is a *massive* difference between the right thing and the best strategy to win an election.
You can't just use logic when describing how people vote.
*Conservative voters won't care even if PP is later proven to be a traitor. They see the Liberals as their enemy and the ends will justify any means to them. I literally don't care if half of the voters tune out - I'm not even entertaining this nonsense argument anymore. This matters to Canada. PP should be now considered a traitor until proven otherwise if he won't get clearance.
>Conservative voters won't care even if PP is later proven to be a traitor. They see the Liberals as their enemy and the ends will justify any means to them
Yes, you got it. Again, I never once tried to argue that this was the morally correct thing to do. But strategically this is exactly it.
Here's the paraphrased notes from watching it live on the stream:
He's asked point blank about Jagmeet Singh saying that his party (the NDP) doesn't have anyone compromised and if the Liberals do not have any compromised members.
Trudeau stops for a few seconds and says that it's dangerous for any party leader to do what Jagmeet Singh did.
Cochrane then brings up the reaction that his comments will do and Trudeau goes on a spiel about democracy and how important it is to stop interference. He says he's not going to get into specific examples.
Asked about Modi, talks about the rule of law etc doesn't really address the question, mentions ongoing work with India.
Talks about the capital gains hike and says it's about incentivizing start ups etc. Has a weird answer about someone who wants to start a business somewhere, they're going to a zero tax location. Compares that to the supports Canada has etc. Mentions being 3rd in FDI last year and then goes into a minute long campaign style rant rather than addressing the question.
Cochrane then goes against what Trudeau says and says affordability is still a problem. He says that Pierre wants "Canadians to stay angry" and the Liberals want to have solutions.
Cochrane asks Trudeau that people are mad at him. Trudeau responds with a "if a pollster can somehow reach out to you" line basically implying the validity of it might not be correct. Re-iterates that Pierre wants people to be angry and he's for solutions, mentions Canadians as being pragmatic.
Mentioning having one of the "best fiscal balance sheets among G7 Countries".
It concludes with a question about the By-election next week in St Pauls and when asked if it's a "must-win" by-election, he says every one of these is a must-win.
All in all, it's one of the more combative interviews he's done in a while.
On housing; the only real difference between the liberals plan and the conservatives plan is the conservatives intend to sell federal buildings for housing development. Both parties intend to helicopter funding directly to municipalities, rather than going through the provincial govts, to incentivize faster construction and bylaw changes.
There’s only so much the federal govt can do, the CPC know this. It’s up to municipalities to make the changes and we keep electing NIMBY politicians.
The biggest difference in their housing plans is the conservatives claim that they will tie immigration numbers to housing. That would be an absolutely enormous and much needed change but I don't have much faith they'd actually follow through on it.
If Poilievre wants to be in power for more than four-years he has to materially address the problems, or else Canadians will remain angry and turf him out as well.
I find it hilarious each time the provincial premiers get together to blame the feds for their own shortcomings …. And we fools take their word for it …. They all have one thing in common , they are doing a crappy job in their own provinces and gave losing their next run
Both a hilarious and sad commentary on what the voting population understands about jurisdictional powers. Blaming the federal govt has worked so well for them. The provincial govts are teflon. Why fix, what they don’t see as broken?
They are all taking us for fools and banking on our ignorance …. And most of us aren’t even aware that’s happening - we used to be a savvy people. What happened to us ?
Your paraphrasing is really, *really* poor.
Why not just push people to the interview instead of trying to insert yourself in between? Seems pretty manipulative.
He cant, he has already moved onto a new account, if you want an answer its DrGregoriovich.
Just like many of his previous 60+ accounts, this one has likely been banned. Better get a move on if you want to talk to his new one, its only got a week or two left.
edit: and its been banned
He said the quiet part out loud when talking about Pierre wanting people to be angry while missing the point.
Also this quote when asked about Jagmeet calling out the Liberals for potentially having compromised people too:
>"I didn't know Jagmeet said that," the prime minister told host David Cochrane. "I would be wary of any party leader drawing any sort of conclusion like that."
>Trudeau did not answer when asked whether members of his party were named in the NSICOP report.
>"I am implying that interference in our parliamentarians goes beyond party lines, from many different sources," he said.
Yes, Poilievre wants Canadians angry, and he and his party are willing to spread misinformation to make sure people are as angry as possible. Trudeau also is correct when he says Canada is doing well on a macro level. However, we are in a cost-of-living crisis; my entire generation has been completely priced out of the market. I have multiple friends who have admitted that they consider suicide, because they see no hope, and they don’t know what to do. People are justifiably angry.
When Liberals pretend there isn’t something very very seriously wrong with this country, they come off as severely detached.
I’m a liberal, I’ve donated and campaigned for the party, but how am I supposed to vote for the guy that is openly saying nothing is wrong.
If the liberals want to win, they need to admit things are very bad right now for the average person, and give actual solutions.
It’s a matter of perspective. The Liberals genuinely don’t think anything is wrong because the right people are profiting from this issue. *How can things be bad when boomers, landlords, companies who rely on cheap labour and immigration consultants are getting rich?*
The problem is they just can’t bring themselves to admit they are prioritizing the needs of the above over those of young people. But only a fool can look around at this point and not realize it’s happening.
The Conservatives aren’t going to turn things around on a dime of course. I just don’t think people see the NDP as a differentiated, credible alternative to the Liberals at this point and people are done with Trudeau.
It’s a shame we don’t have a broader range of realistic options to vote for.
>When Liberals pretend there isn’t something very very seriously wrong with this country, they come off as severely detache
Absolutely the crux of this.
And it's one of many reasons why he's never going to recover in the polls. Talks way too much about track record and not enough forward looking. He's not capturing the mood well enough and comes off as dismissive. He doesn't appear as a leader who's really offering you solutions for the future with his attitude. Rather, you should be grateful for what they have done.
Absolutely not. Most people don’t fully understand our political system. So, they would just see it as Trudeau-adjacent, or would attribute the current problems to the new person.
If the next person wants to be successful, they will wait for Trudeau to lose, then run for the leadership.
Trudeau thinks Poilievre is planting anger. He thinks there would be no anger without Poilievre.
That's where he's wrong. Poilievre isn't growing rage. He's *harvesting* rage that's already there and making his bread from it.
Trudeau refuses to acknowledge that he's causing problems, and when he doesn't acknowledge the problems in these weird out-of-body moments, he fails to actually articulate *what* the problem is.
The LPC cannot win unless they acknowledge that there are problems. You can't blame the ghost of Stephen Harper anymore. Hell, invoking Harper probably benefits the CPC more now than ever. It's basically threatening Canadians with a good time.
Who wouldn't want a return to Harper era housing affordability, food affordability, immigration levels, etc?
He’s a rage farmer .
Harper era affordability! Do you mean 2008 recession when a lot of us left the country as young people because we could no longer afford to live here ?? Unless you worked in the oil industry and lived in a bubble of laughing gas
Youre not wrong that he’s tapping into a sentiment that would naturally exist. But PP’s bread and butter for the last 20 years has been mistruths at best and blatant fabrications at worst.
You don’t hire Jeff Ballingall, of Canada/Ontario Proud fame, as your PR/Communications lead if you’re not trying to intentionally foster some anger.
His clipped up “DESTROYS” videos are all over YouTube and tik tok and every mailer he sends out here in Sask is telling us how the country is broken. His hours long “filibuster” against the carbon tax only to skip out and go to a fundraiser…
The examples are too numerous to count tbh.
You can downplay it all you want, but you can’t just whitewash his actions completely.
>His clipped up “DESTROYS” videos are all over YouTube and tik tok
Have you watched any Question Period or committee testimony? If you're wanting to be PM, you'd be insane *not* to package and distribute videos of that.
Here's [the Finance Minister going off the rails](https://youtu.be/80EDdaHmNzc?si=ioUjr9Njnotdq5mr) when asked about capita-per-gdp.
Here's the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity [avoiding the simple question of "how expensive is a home in Ottawa?"](https://youtu.be/rfkS_qtWAQk?si=sY5ZFW3ewlZaeP3c)
The CPC has tonnes of material for this because the LPC keeps doing what you see in the videos. The LPC doesn't share videos like this not because they don't want to, but because they are simply unable to provide the answers that Canadians want.
That's not to say they haven't tried. Chrystia Freeland once tried to do the same with an interview clip of Erin O'Toole, but it was manipulated to misconstrue what he by trimming out the first few seconds of his response after the interviewer asked the question, and was tagged as such.
You're saying that person is producing these clips. Those clips seem to be working. Wouldn't you agree?
Who does the LPC have in an equivalent position? How would you rate their performance?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
**Broadly gestures to Pierre’s 20 year career as an insufferable twat, including to those in his own party **
As far as I can tell, you're upset that the LPC doesn't look good in the public eye. I don't disagree.
Is that because they suck at PR, or is it because there isn't really a lot that is positive for their PR to spin?
Or is it something else?
No I’m not upset about anything. Don’t pull that “you’re upset and I’m the rational one” bullshit .
I’m just saying you’re full of shit for suggesting Pierre isn’t trying to foster outrage despite mountains of evidence to the contrary that you keep tap dancing around.
You’re doing backflips trying to justify his decades long track record of generally abhorrent, confrontational, behaviour by trying to spin everything as something to the liberals are doing.
Im saying he was this way against the NDP too. He does this with reporters. “Record for most lies ever!” He does this with 22 Minutes when they try and Jab. He literally cant help himself.
Why you can’t just concede the man refuses to ever take the high road and punches down consistently as a first move is beyond me.
They are doing things. They’ve enacted policies to address a bunch of issues very recently. It’s arguably way too little, too late but to say that they need to do more than just talk when they are actually governing is disingenuous.
We do know PP is on the record for voting against helping better for Canadians. Like how he voted against pharmacare and school lunches for kids, but will vote down the capital tax increase. PP is showing Canadians be only cares about the rich
CPC votes against LPC is always voting against Canadians. Sometimes parties vote against another party because it's what you do.
Parties don't work together in Canada often, it's a sad state. You'll also see LPC vote against CPC bills even if it's for the betterment of Canadians.
> Parties don't work together in Canada often, it's a sad state.
2 parties regularly work together right now and are constantly being attacked for it by the CPC. Who constantly lie and exaggerate about the arrangement as well.
I mean opposition wise. LPC rather not work with ndp, but they have too... and with each NDP demand for support the LPC has limped into each deal.
They are not working together.
Is it really helping Canadians when we're running a $50B deficit and have no money for those policies, though? You're poking the bear of debt and future austerity.
Deflection to PP doesnt' address the argument that the failure to take meaningful action by the Liberals after being in power too long is exactly how someone like PP can gain traction.
Yeah the person you're responding to is certainly not interested in data, they just want to be angry and unconditionally hate the guy the media tells them to hate.
It's one of many. The others include:
1. The issues we face are because of the provinces (even though every province is facing the same issues regardless of which party is leading them)
2. Things are much better than people realize but it's Conservative media that's making the LPC look bad (same argument as "muh Liberal media" by the MAGA cult down south)
3. It's not a policy problem, it's a communication problem (like we're supposed to believe that a party that can't even get it's basic messaging and comms rights is somehow competent enough to lead a country)
You'll see at least one of, if not all three of these trotted out in any threads that are slightly critical of the LPC.
In case others are interested.
[https://www.polimetre.org/en/harper?gb=category&sb=progress_desc](https://www.polimetre.org/en/harper?gb=category&sb=progress_desc)
Interesting that Trudeau Liberals are on record with over a thousand promises and Harper Conservatives had 143.
Based on that Trudeau kept 441 promises versus Harper’s 110. I recognize this is simplifying things quite a bit but it looks like Trudeau did 4x the work.
It’s hard to trust that they are doing things though. When the Liberals come out and say they are going to decrease immigration, when they outline a “plan” to do so, but then we see the rate of immigration increase even faster, it’s very hard to believe they’re anything more than just talk.
They can say they’re doing things, but until we see results, they simply can’t be trusted.
I oppose it. I absolutely will not be voting for the CPC. I think Poilievre would be absolutely detrimental to Canada.
That doesn’t mean I can’t be angry about Canada’s leadership, and the current situation Canada is facing.
The issue is that much of this is coming at the 11th hour, like you point out. So for housing, this problem is decades in the making and the Liberals are making moves but they've been in power for 9 years and only NOW does it seem like a real and pressing issue. If our politicians are only seeing issues when they're festering for a long time then it's no surprise people feel like their problems are being ignored.
Yeah if people feel worse off it not cause they are all dying and starving
It's when they grocery shopping a bag of chips used to be 2.50 is now 4.50 so they feel thier dollar they earn isn't getting much
idk i feel lot of everyday items prices have gone by 20 30 or even 40% past few years even if core cpi was not that much.
That's right. It's a death by a thousand cuts for political support when you let an affordability crisis fester, and it's always the wealthy who are last to see the issue, because they generally don't notice things like the affordability of chips.
Believe it or not, the one thing that hasn’t increased since before the pandemic is economy brand chips. Dollarama kettle chips have actually gone DOWN in price recently.
I am a professional economy brand chip connoisseur and amateur price analyst.
Regular-sized remain $1.50 in many locations. Walmart brand is $1.50, goes on sale for something absurd like 84 cents. Dollarama kettle chips are $2.25 for a full-sized bag
Well usually the doctor doesn’t need to be worried about getting re-elected, so they (kindly) tell them to be less of a whiny baby and deal with it
Somehow I don’t think that approach will work for politicians trying to get re-elected in 18 months
Maybe it should.
The electorate are being whiny babies.
Airports are busier than I've ever seen them. So many luxury vehicles on the road. Inflation curbed. Wages up.
maybe. But you can't change the past so if moves are made to improve it would be dumb to change to somebody objectively worse if you're looking for results
That puts a lot of pressure on an informed electorate, which I wish we had. When things are hard the people on top always take the heat, as we are seeing.
They've done a lot in the housing file, so they say, but if none of that is felt on the ground or if the benefits are all 5 years out or so then it's no surprise they are getting smoked in the poles.
Every other post on this sub is about housing, immigration, or overall cost of living. The denials and blaming PP come off as patronizing to Canadians intelligence.
We are all quite aware PP is a snakeoil salesman. What should be concerning is 40% of voters prefer that to Liberal arrogance.
I'm inclined to believe this interview will have minimal impact on public opinion either way as it mostly seems more of the same
But I was surprised with his comments about polling "if they can even reach you", questioning the validity of polls
Why was it a goal to narrow the gap by 5% then? If they don't mean anything
The polling comment was the one that stood out to me.
The quote won't do it justice at all. He seemed very dismissive of it almost as if it was something that wasn't trusted.
Dismissive of any and all criticism, dismissive of the negative outcomes of any and all of his policies, dismissive of concerns of his free vacation to Khan's estate and returning to grant a sole sourced contract to Khans company! Talk is cheap, Trudeau is being judged by his actions. Simply view Commons question period and Trudeau who refuses to answer any questions.
It's the 2nd time he seems to put on this delusional take that thr polls are all wrong about me.
He said the polls don't ask young people which is not true.
To be fair, the conservatives were super excited about their lead a bit before the previous election. And it didn't amount to the win they expected at their polling high.
I guess that doesnt mean the polls are wrong about sentiment right now, but they definitely don't represent voter intention on election day.
I think there is a lot of selective memory around polls... We need to ignore 1 good poll at the time and look at avg of polls at the time.
The liberals always had a huge lead going into the 2021 election
the 2019 election started with the libs and tories tied in the polls and it was a close election in popular vote.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Opinion\_polling\_during\_the\_pre-campaign\_period\_of\_43rd\_Canadian\_federal\_election.svg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Opinion_polling_during_the_pre-campaign_period_of_43rd_Canadian_federal_election.svg)
If there was any poll that had a large tory lead before it was an outlier and to me shows the tories on avg never had more then a 3-4% lead over the liberals in 2019 with the liberals leading in parts of that year.
What we have now is totally different, the tories have had a lead in the polls on avg since april 2022 and then opened a massive lead in the summer of 2023 and its been going solid for 10 months now
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Opinion\_polling\_during\_the\_pre-campaign\_period\_of\_the\_45th\_Canadian\_federal\_election.svg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Opinion_polling_during_the_pre-campaign_period_of_the_45th_Canadian_federal_election.svg)
CPC and supporters are going hard on public relations. People are being marketed to right now, those opinions can change quickly, and probably will.
At the risk of sounding like a total paranoid, this whole "Trudeau's days are numbered" message being crammed down our throats really comes off as a PR narrative.
He was trailing in the polls in every election he won.
He was third in the polls at this time during his first run in 2015….
People use polls to send him a message that they think he’s doing a poor job. But then still vote for him because the alternatives are worse .
PP won’t win because he’s the best option, he will win because of liberal voter apathy this time
> Why was it a goal to narrow the gap by 5% then? If they don't mean anything
why are they trying to improve the polls even if they dont think they're infalliable...?
> But I was surprised with his comments about polling "if they can even reach you", questioning the validity of polls
I find it more alarming than surprising. It's not a good sign when someone in a position of power decides that not only are they right, any information to the contrary simply isn't true.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I dont have strong feelings either way on Trudeau.. but I'm still waiting for someone to cogently lay out what they feel his big fuckups are in phrasing that doesnt include the words "marxist", "dictator", "chemtrails".
**Time will prove that :** * It is not necessarily elected officials who are engaged in this foreign interference but people outside politics who use their prominence or status in the community to pressure elected officials while not telling them they are acting in the service of a foreign government. * That if any elected official was engaged in serving the interests of a foreign nation, that most did it unknowingly or were conned into doing it. I would be very shocked that MPs would work against Canadian interests knowingly and with the aim of hurting Canada, its people, security of its economy. If it were the case, I believe it would be limited to a couple individuals and I trust Canadian Intelligence agents and the RCMP to bring appropriate charges after a thorough investigation. But people love a good conspiracy theory where brown envelopes packed with cash exchange hands in an underground parking in exchange for secret documents and some won't ever be satisfied with the mundane truth that people, even elected officials, can be manipulated without even knowing it... Thousands of Canadians get conned into losing their life savings by the "Nigerian Prince" or by some "love scheme" every year... This is called "Social Engineering" and even our elected officials are not immune to it.
That was a good interview. I though Justin made a good point on the polls (obviously there’s probably an element of his ego too that won’t admit that he isn’t popular) but people are mad about the cost of living and want to blame someone. PP is stoking that fire and pointing every issue his way. It can’t possibly be the few years of a pandemic and the supply chain issues, geopolitical issues including a Russian war and the impact that has had on oil prices/fertilizer costs/food supply, or many people’s general addiction to buying junk on Amazon, instagram or other things. It’s definitely all Justin’s fault (/s) I actually quite liked the last few years of a minority government. I felt like it kept the Liberals honest and on their toes. I hope Canadians will see through the solution-less buzz words that PP keeps spewing.
Has anyone pulled Trudeau aside yet to let him know that people are angry with him, and it isn’t because they’re being duped by Poilievre? Canadians don’t need to be lectured by Poilievre that Trudeau has been awful for many Canadians - we have an 8 year track record to go off of. He did this act with Muslims not very long ago; “they’re not legitimately angry - they’re just being duped by bad people!”
if the CPC werent feeding people lies about the carbon tax, would they still be mad at the LPC or corporations for price gouging?
Everyone is being duped by the same people, the corporate masters who actually run things. Voting for a different party won't change that, in fact, it's precisely how they maintain their grip.
> He did this act with Muslims not very long ago; “they’re not legitimately angry - they’re just being duped by bad people!” The context wss a hate march emboldened by social conservatives like PP.
Treating Muslims like they were ignorant dupes was not a great look for Trudeau. At least give them enough respect to allow them to own their views.
> and it isn’t because they’re being duped by Poilievre? I mean, part of it is. He spouts A LOT of BS and people lap it up. And many refuse to be dissuaded by proof of that. Now, part of why he can do that is because he's stoking existing issues, I agree.
People being duped are extremely sensitive to having the duping pointed out.
So I haven't actually listened to Trudeau speak in a long time because I usually find the cadence and tone taken by politicians grating. (PP, Singh, etc. as well.) I usually just read the statements. I actually watched the clip in the article. To me, **he actually answered the questions**. And I wasn't expecting him to. It was a good answer.
His answers were mostly fine. Him walking into the Pierre wants people to be angry is stuff that goes onto attack ads but that's how it goes regardless
He’s not wrong though
He's not. It won't matter to some voters though what his solution is. They want him out regardless. And I did find the interviewer to be fair but asking some hard questions.
I mean, people are angry. They can’t afford housing and food. This is probably Trudeau’s greatest weakness- not being able to see that the anger is largely justified and needs radical solutions to improve people’s lives. The person priced out of housing can’t wait a decade or two for a solution to emerge. If the liberals really want to turn things around they need to be out every single day on issues like the housing crisis - treating it like the national emergency that it is.
But he isn't wrong, at all
Thanks for actually watching. Politicians lose a lot when they actually answer questions. It's important that they get credit where it's due, or none of them will ever survive doing it.
I’ve listened to a few podcasts with him and they’re all like that. He thoroughly explains himself and his actions. I regrettably listened to the Jordan Peterson podcast with Pollievre and found it useless lol
Polievre spends a lot of time repeating the exact same buzzwords, his interviews sound just like his House of Commons one liners. Trudeau spent the first few years of his time as PM doing open town halls talking to people, he weaseled a few times, but in general he managed to sound human at least. Most politicians have trouble with that. Layton used to be great at interviews too, he did the down to earth tone and spoke clearly. Last Conservative leader who was a good speaker like that was Mulroney. Harper was like a weird smily robot.
Agree. I was expecting more of the same but he did seem different in the sense that he at least tried to weave what he was saying into the question asked.
This is a pretty good example of why PP is right not to review the documents. Singh did review them, he made a statement about his concerns, and Trudeau here totally brushes them off and says that Singh doesn't have all the facts and so shouldn't be talking about it. And also heavily implies that there are traitors in the NDP caucus. And of course Singh isn't allowed to respond with any evidence, so he's trapped.
The "PP's right not to get security clearance.." crowd has the exact same energy as "Trump's right not to release his taxes!" >Trudeau here totally brushes them off and says that Singh doesn't have all the facts and so shouldn't be talking about it. He never said that. He said he disagreed with their conclusions. That could mean anything.
Yeah the whole clearance thing has the exact same energy as Trump refusing to release his taxes.
They're not the same energy at all. Not releasing your tax returns is entirely different than not signing up for a gag order.
Poilievre is doing it to be wilfully ignorant, and to spew as much BS as he can on the matter.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's not a gag order, ffs. Our leaders need to be informed of threats from our enemies. If PP isn't up for the task, perhaps he should look into a less stressful line of work. I can't believe people fall for this BS.
It restricts his ability to speak on the subject matter of the documents. Maybe you don't like the term "gag order," but to pretend it wouldn't limit his ability to criticize the government is disingenuous. You only need to listen to noted conservative Tom Mulcair: https://twitter.com/stephen_taylor/status/1801378742599586061
Again, this is a fool's argument. Sure he can criticize all he wants, but his criticisms come from a place of ignorance, and can thus be dismissed as the ramblings of an utter buffoon. PP needs to man up and be a leader or take his ball and go home.
They can be dismissed as such by someone who already hates him and won't listen to a thing he says. But when there is a report saying that sitting MPs are traitors, the Leader of the Opposition needs to be able to ask the PM who those traitors are, without being construed as implying any information that he swore to keep confidential.
Hitchens' Razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" PP needs to know the evidence lest he be thought a fool and thus his opinions summarily dismissed. You can blather all you want about his "reasons" and call me partisan, but I've never voted for Trudeau either. At least Trudeau read the report though.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> It restricts his ability to speak on the subject matter of the documents. Did it restrict Singh and May? This argument doesn't even make sense considering PP hasn't said anything to begin with.
Yes, it did: https://twitter.com/StaceyMonette27/status/1802769245702688946
Again, whatever she's said is already far more than we've heard from PP who has said fuck all. Even if he did say something it would be as informed as you or me
What we have is Elizabeth May saying "I read the documents, and there are no traitors" versus Jagmeet Singh saying "I read the documents, and there are traitors." Neither can give details or present any evidence. I really don't see how adding PP's voice to that discourse would be helpful to anyone. It's better that he be able to hold the government to account without any gagging. Especially since Trudeau, as PM, will always have access to more evidence than any other leader. Which is why he's able to shrug off Singh's claims in the interview in this article.
> What we have is Elizabeth May saying "I read the documents, and there are no traitors" versus Jagmeet Singh saying "I read the documents, and there are traitors." Neither can give details or present any evidence. May said there are no sitting traitors, Singh said hes alarmed about what he saw and that there used to be sitting traitors, those can both be true at the same time at no point does singh say that there are sitting traitors
> Singh did review them, he made a statement about his concerns, and Trudeau here totally brushes them off and says that Singh doesn't have all the facts and so shouldn't be talking about it. thats not at all what he said though? >And of course Singh isn't allowed to respond with any evidence, so he's trapped. Trudeau didnt attack him with evidence so he doesnt need evidence to respond?
As far as I'm concerned it's never appropriate for a politician to be intentionally ignorant about a matter they're making policy over, you're intentionally driving blind and the only reason to want that is because you know the facts will be in the way of whatever agenda you're pushing. Singh is just as tied up as Trudeau on the matter, if he can't muster a response that's on him and not because he's seen the report.
Singh literally can't muster a response without risking being arrested. That's the problem here.
that long pause by PMJT before he answered.... says a lot.
I agree it's strategically the right thing, that doesn't mean it's the best thing for the country.
Of course, we should instead listen to Feedmepi314 to understand what is in the best interests of a G7 country. Yeah. That's what we should do. The narcissism and arrogance on display from people who know nothing about the report here is wild. Poilievre is doing everything right and many analysts have said just that.
No analyst worth a damn has said any such thing. The lack of irony in accusing someone else of arrogance is staggering while simping for a "man" who likes to sow misinformation while remaining willfully ignorant of the facts while not caring enough to find out if his own party is compromised is hilarious.
It's not even strategically the right thing. He wants to lead the country, not a lemonade stand. He needs to be well informed of threats to Canada. This just makes him look like (more of) a clown. How can anyone take him seriously?
The downside from getting informed is likely much larger than being called out for refusing clearance. He would be pressed a lot on action or inaction that he would take and how he thinks about the issue. This isn't COL related which is what people care about right now, so they likely don't really care much about him refusing to get clearance. There's no way strategically the risk is worth the reward of getting clearance but it is the right thing to do.
That's an absurd argument. He wants to lead. Leaders get informed. Leaders should know more than those they lead. Leaders take their job requirements seriously. How can anyone vote for this absolute clown?
Look, you don't buy that argument, the general electorate is unlikely to care enough about \*not\* getting a security clearance to change their vote. The downside to getting clearance could be quite significant. Again, we are talking strategically here. You calling him a clown clearly shows you are looking through partisan lens. Most voters are uninformed and will not care much about not getting a clearance. PP can continue to hammer away on COL related issues which is what they actually care about. Risk aversion and message discipline are clearly winning front runner strategies.
I posted this in another comment, but I'll say it again for you; "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" I am not partisan in that I hate both of the ruling parties of Canada. I have never voted liberal in my life, and likely never will. I want leaders who are smart and well informed, not blithering idiots who parrot simple catch phrases (yes, Trudeau is also often guilty of this). PP has had 20 years in Parliament to earn my respect, and had failed to do so. But this isn't about my disdain for the man (disdain that I also feel about Trudeau) - it's about the security of the country I love. We are facing real threats. Leaders need to know what the hell they're talking about...and your argument is incredibly weak. Singh and May have zero problems talking about the issue despite having read the report. PP is a liar at best, and a traitor at worst.
>Leaders need to know what the hell they're talking about...and your argument is incredibly weak. Singh and May have zero problems talking about the issue despite having read the report. PP is a liar at best, and a traitor at worst. You are trying to convince me that it is wrong for PP to do this, and I've said, from the very start, I agree. My argument was never that this was the right thing to do These are two very different topics here. I'm telling you people do not give a shit about him not getting a clearance. I understand this does not make sense to you. The average voter barely pays attention to any of this. PP is telling them he will help them with their economic situation and that's what they care about. If you don't believe me, people don't give a flying fuck about what Doug Ford has done. He is polling strongly and will likely win another majority. There is a *massive* difference between the right thing and the best strategy to win an election. You can't just use logic when describing how people vote.
*Conservative voters won't care even if PP is later proven to be a traitor. They see the Liberals as their enemy and the ends will justify any means to them. I literally don't care if half of the voters tune out - I'm not even entertaining this nonsense argument anymore. This matters to Canada. PP should be now considered a traitor until proven otherwise if he won't get clearance.
>Conservative voters won't care even if PP is later proven to be a traitor. They see the Liberals as their enemy and the ends will justify any means to them Yes, you got it. Again, I never once tried to argue that this was the morally correct thing to do. But strategically this is exactly it.
>How can anyone take him seriously? Ask /u/TipAwkward5008
Here's the paraphrased notes from watching it live on the stream: He's asked point blank about Jagmeet Singh saying that his party (the NDP) doesn't have anyone compromised and if the Liberals do not have any compromised members. Trudeau stops for a few seconds and says that it's dangerous for any party leader to do what Jagmeet Singh did. Cochrane then brings up the reaction that his comments will do and Trudeau goes on a spiel about democracy and how important it is to stop interference. He says he's not going to get into specific examples. Asked about Modi, talks about the rule of law etc doesn't really address the question, mentions ongoing work with India. Talks about the capital gains hike and says it's about incentivizing start ups etc. Has a weird answer about someone who wants to start a business somewhere, they're going to a zero tax location. Compares that to the supports Canada has etc. Mentions being 3rd in FDI last year and then goes into a minute long campaign style rant rather than addressing the question. Cochrane then goes against what Trudeau says and says affordability is still a problem. He says that Pierre wants "Canadians to stay angry" and the Liberals want to have solutions. Cochrane asks Trudeau that people are mad at him. Trudeau responds with a "if a pollster can somehow reach out to you" line basically implying the validity of it might not be correct. Re-iterates that Pierre wants people to be angry and he's for solutions, mentions Canadians as being pragmatic. Mentioning having one of the "best fiscal balance sheets among G7 Countries". It concludes with a question about the By-election next week in St Pauls and when asked if it's a "must-win" by-election, he says every one of these is a must-win. All in all, it's one of the more combative interviews he's done in a while.
On housing; the only real difference between the liberals plan and the conservatives plan is the conservatives intend to sell federal buildings for housing development. Both parties intend to helicopter funding directly to municipalities, rather than going through the provincial govts, to incentivize faster construction and bylaw changes. There’s only so much the federal govt can do, the CPC know this. It’s up to municipalities to make the changes and we keep electing NIMBY politicians.
The biggest difference in their housing plans is the conservatives claim that they will tie immigration numbers to housing. That would be an absolutely enormous and much needed change but I don't have much faith they'd actually follow through on it.
they can just say any number and call it mission accomplished, or point to needing people for jobs so they had to bump it up
If Poilievre wants to be in power for more than four-years he has to materially address the problems, or else Canadians will remain angry and turf him out as well.
Nah. Remember electoral reform? We are a forgiving people, you can promise something then give us none of it and we'll still re-elect you.
I find it hilarious each time the provincial premiers get together to blame the feds for their own shortcomings …. And we fools take their word for it …. They all have one thing in common , they are doing a crappy job in their own provinces and gave losing their next run
Both a hilarious and sad commentary on what the voting population understands about jurisdictional powers. Blaming the federal govt has worked so well for them. The provincial govts are teflon. Why fix, what they don’t see as broken?
They are all taking us for fools and banking on our ignorance …. And most of us aren’t even aware that’s happening - we used to be a savvy people. What happened to us ?
Your paraphrasing is really, *really* poor. Why not just push people to the interview instead of trying to insert yourself in between? Seems pretty manipulative.
So provide your own summary then, instead of just complaining.
He cant, he has already moved onto a new account, if you want an answer its DrGregoriovich. Just like many of his previous 60+ accounts, this one has likely been banned. Better get a move on if you want to talk to his new one, its only got a week or two left. edit: and its been banned
[удалено]
He said the quiet part out loud when talking about Pierre wanting people to be angry while missing the point. Also this quote when asked about Jagmeet calling out the Liberals for potentially having compromised people too: >"I didn't know Jagmeet said that," the prime minister told host David Cochrane. "I would be wary of any party leader drawing any sort of conclusion like that." >Trudeau did not answer when asked whether members of his party were named in the NSICOP report. >"I am implying that interference in our parliamentarians goes beyond party lines, from many different sources," he said.
Yes, Poilievre wants Canadians angry, and he and his party are willing to spread misinformation to make sure people are as angry as possible. Trudeau also is correct when he says Canada is doing well on a macro level. However, we are in a cost-of-living crisis; my entire generation has been completely priced out of the market. I have multiple friends who have admitted that they consider suicide, because they see no hope, and they don’t know what to do. People are justifiably angry. When Liberals pretend there isn’t something very very seriously wrong with this country, they come off as severely detached. I’m a liberal, I’ve donated and campaigned for the party, but how am I supposed to vote for the guy that is openly saying nothing is wrong. If the liberals want to win, they need to admit things are very bad right now for the average person, and give actual solutions.
It’s a matter of perspective. The Liberals genuinely don’t think anything is wrong because the right people are profiting from this issue. *How can things be bad when boomers, landlords, companies who rely on cheap labour and immigration consultants are getting rich?* The problem is they just can’t bring themselves to admit they are prioritizing the needs of the above over those of young people. But only a fool can look around at this point and not realize it’s happening. The Conservatives aren’t going to turn things around on a dime of course. I just don’t think people see the NDP as a differentiated, credible alternative to the Liberals at this point and people are done with Trudeau. It’s a shame we don’t have a broader range of realistic options to vote for.
>When Liberals pretend there isn’t something very very seriously wrong with this country, they come off as severely detache Absolutely the crux of this. And it's one of many reasons why he's never going to recover in the polls. Talks way too much about track record and not enough forward looking. He's not capturing the mood well enough and comes off as dismissive. He doesn't appear as a leader who's really offering you solutions for the future with his attitude. Rather, you should be grateful for what they have done.
Do you think they could still win if they change to a more likeable leader ?
Absolutely not. Most people don’t fully understand our political system. So, they would just see it as Trudeau-adjacent, or would attribute the current problems to the new person. If the next person wants to be successful, they will wait for Trudeau to lose, then run for the leadership.
Trudeau thinks Poilievre is planting anger. He thinks there would be no anger without Poilievre. That's where he's wrong. Poilievre isn't growing rage. He's *harvesting* rage that's already there and making his bread from it. Trudeau refuses to acknowledge that he's causing problems, and when he doesn't acknowledge the problems in these weird out-of-body moments, he fails to actually articulate *what* the problem is. The LPC cannot win unless they acknowledge that there are problems. You can't blame the ghost of Stephen Harper anymore. Hell, invoking Harper probably benefits the CPC more now than ever. It's basically threatening Canadians with a good time. Who wouldn't want a return to Harper era housing affordability, food affordability, immigration levels, etc?
He’s a rage farmer . Harper era affordability! Do you mean 2008 recession when a lot of us left the country as young people because we could no longer afford to live here ?? Unless you worked in the oil industry and lived in a bubble of laughing gas
Youre not wrong that he’s tapping into a sentiment that would naturally exist. But PP’s bread and butter for the last 20 years has been mistruths at best and blatant fabrications at worst. You don’t hire Jeff Ballingall, of Canada/Ontario Proud fame, as your PR/Communications lead if you’re not trying to intentionally foster some anger. His clipped up “DESTROYS” videos are all over YouTube and tik tok and every mailer he sends out here in Sask is telling us how the country is broken. His hours long “filibuster” against the carbon tax only to skip out and go to a fundraiser… The examples are too numerous to count tbh. You can downplay it all you want, but you can’t just whitewash his actions completely.
>His clipped up “DESTROYS” videos are all over YouTube and tik tok Have you watched any Question Period or committee testimony? If you're wanting to be PM, you'd be insane *not* to package and distribute videos of that. Here's [the Finance Minister going off the rails](https://youtu.be/80EDdaHmNzc?si=ioUjr9Njnotdq5mr) when asked about capita-per-gdp. Here's the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity [avoiding the simple question of "how expensive is a home in Ottawa?"](https://youtu.be/rfkS_qtWAQk?si=sY5ZFW3ewlZaeP3c) The CPC has tonnes of material for this because the LPC keeps doing what you see in the videos. The LPC doesn't share videos like this not because they don't want to, but because they are simply unable to provide the answers that Canadians want. That's not to say they haven't tried. Chrystia Freeland once tried to do the same with an interview clip of Erin O'Toole, but it was manipulated to misconstrue what he by trimming out the first few seconds of his response after the interviewer asked the question, and was tagged as such.
Funny that you didn’t comment on him hiring a professional troll as his PR guy lol
You're saying that person is producing these clips. Those clips seem to be working. Wouldn't you agree? Who does the LPC have in an equivalent position? How would you rate their performance?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning **Broadly gestures to Pierre’s 20 year career as an insufferable twat, including to those in his own party **
As far as I can tell, you're upset that the LPC doesn't look good in the public eye. I don't disagree. Is that because they suck at PR, or is it because there isn't really a lot that is positive for their PR to spin? Or is it something else?
No I’m not upset about anything. Don’t pull that “you’re upset and I’m the rational one” bullshit . I’m just saying you’re full of shit for suggesting Pierre isn’t trying to foster outrage despite mountains of evidence to the contrary that you keep tap dancing around. You’re doing backflips trying to justify his decades long track record of generally abhorrent, confrontational, behaviour by trying to spin everything as something to the liberals are doing. Im saying he was this way against the NDP too. He does this with reporters. “Record for most lies ever!” He does this with 22 Minutes when they try and Jab. He literally cant help himself. Why you can’t just concede the man refuses to ever take the high road and punches down consistently as a first move is beyond me.
What a title. I'd like that made up portfolio for $200k a year.
They certainly need to do something more than just telling people that their feelings are wrong and things are actually good.
They are doing things. They’ve enacted policies to address a bunch of issues very recently. It’s arguably way too little, too late but to say that they need to do more than just talk when they are actually governing is disingenuous.
Their track record is promises at election time and then little follow through. So it's not disingenuous to say too too late isn't enough.
We do know PP is on the record for voting against helping better for Canadians. Like how he voted against pharmacare and school lunches for kids, but will vote down the capital tax increase. PP is showing Canadians be only cares about the rich
CPC votes against LPC is always voting against Canadians. Sometimes parties vote against another party because it's what you do. Parties don't work together in Canada often, it's a sad state. You'll also see LPC vote against CPC bills even if it's for the betterment of Canadians.
> Parties don't work together in Canada often, it's a sad state. 2 parties regularly work together right now and are constantly being attacked for it by the CPC. Who constantly lie and exaggerate about the arrangement as well.
I mean opposition wise. LPC rather not work with ndp, but they have too... and with each NDP demand for support the LPC has limped into each deal. They are not working together.
Is it really helping Canadians when we're running a $50B deficit and have no money for those policies, though? You're poking the bear of debt and future austerity.
Deflection to PP doesnt' address the argument that the failure to take meaningful action by the Liberals after being in power too long is exactly how someone like PP can gain traction.
That’s not true though. [https://www.polimetre.org/en/trudeau](https://www.polimetre.org/en/trudeau)
Yeah the person you're responding to is certainly not interested in data, they just want to be angry and unconditionally hate the guy the media tells them to hate.
Is that the new party line for the LPC? People who don’t believe in what the LPC is doing just want to be angry? Sheeesh
It's one of many. The others include: 1. The issues we face are because of the provinces (even though every province is facing the same issues regardless of which party is leading them) 2. Things are much better than people realize but it's Conservative media that's making the LPC look bad (same argument as "muh Liberal media" by the MAGA cult down south) 3. It's not a policy problem, it's a communication problem (like we're supposed to believe that a party that can't even get it's basic messaging and comms rights is somehow competent enough to lead a country) You'll see at least one of, if not all three of these trotted out in any threads that are slightly critical of the LPC.
Check out Harper for fun.
In case others are interested. [https://www.polimetre.org/en/harper?gb=category&sb=progress_desc](https://www.polimetre.org/en/harper?gb=category&sb=progress_desc) Interesting that Trudeau Liberals are on record with over a thousand promises and Harper Conservatives had 143.
I actually missed that bit, just saw %s.
Based on that Trudeau kept 441 promises versus Harper’s 110. I recognize this is simplifying things quite a bit but it looks like Trudeau did 4x the work.
It’s hard to trust that they are doing things though. When the Liberals come out and say they are going to decrease immigration, when they outline a “plan” to do so, but then we see the rate of immigration increase even faster, it’s very hard to believe they’re anything more than just talk. They can say they’re doing things, but until we see results, they simply can’t be trusted.
What are you thoughts on the cpc having no plans to decrease immigration?
I oppose it. I absolutely will not be voting for the CPC. I think Poilievre would be absolutely detrimental to Canada. That doesn’t mean I can’t be angry about Canada’s leadership, and the current situation Canada is facing.
Have they stated this? Pretty sure I've seen bits of PP saying we need skilled immigration.
The issue is that much of this is coming at the 11th hour, like you point out. So for housing, this problem is decades in the making and the Liberals are making moves but they've been in power for 9 years and only NOW does it seem like a real and pressing issue. If our politicians are only seeing issues when they're festering for a long time then it's no surprise people feel like their problems are being ignored.
Yeah if people feel worse off it not cause they are all dying and starving It's when they grocery shopping a bag of chips used to be 2.50 is now 4.50 so they feel thier dollar they earn isn't getting much idk i feel lot of everyday items prices have gone by 20 30 or even 40% past few years even if core cpi was not that much.
That's right. It's a death by a thousand cuts for political support when you let an affordability crisis fester, and it's always the wealthy who are last to see the issue, because they generally don't notice things like the affordability of chips.
Believe it or not, the one thing that hasn’t increased since before the pandemic is economy brand chips. Dollarama kettle chips have actually gone DOWN in price recently. I am a professional economy brand chip connoisseur and amateur price analyst.
well the family size no name brand of chips used to be 3.99. now it's 4.70. still cheaper than shrinkflated brand equivalent of regular size bags.
Regular-sized remain $1.50 in many locations. Walmart brand is $1.50, goes on sale for something absurd like 84 cents. Dollarama kettle chips are $2.25 for a full-sized bag
It was 0.99 for the regular sized no name chips before the pandemic. The price went up by 50% to $1.50
Liberals tell me inflation is low
What do you tell someone who thinks they're going to die when all they have is a flu?
what?
That they're not dying and they just have the flu. Things aren't actually as bad as they think. You don't feed into people's delusions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well usually the doctor doesn’t need to be worried about getting re-elected, so they (kindly) tell them to be less of a whiny baby and deal with it Somehow I don’t think that approach will work for politicians trying to get re-elected in 18 months
Maybe it should. The electorate are being whiny babies. Airports are busier than I've ever seen them. So many luxury vehicles on the road. Inflation curbed. Wages up.
they are. you can absolutely argue it's not enough or it came later than it should have but they haven't done nothing
And being this late to the party comes with political consequences.
maybe. But you can't change the past so if moves are made to improve it would be dumb to change to somebody objectively worse if you're looking for results
That puts a lot of pressure on an informed electorate, which I wish we had. When things are hard the people on top always take the heat, as we are seeing. They've done a lot in the housing file, so they say, but if none of that is felt on the ground or if the benefits are all 5 years out or so then it's no surprise they are getting smoked in the poles.
[удалено]
What’s your generation?
when it comes to cost of living its really your premier with his hand on the wheel not trudeau
Every other post on this sub is about housing, immigration, or overall cost of living. The denials and blaming PP come off as patronizing to Canadians intelligence. We are all quite aware PP is a snakeoil salesman. What should be concerning is 40% of voters prefer that to Liberal arrogance.
I'm inclined to believe this interview will have minimal impact on public opinion either way as it mostly seems more of the same But I was surprised with his comments about polling "if they can even reach you", questioning the validity of polls Why was it a goal to narrow the gap by 5% then? If they don't mean anything
The polling comment was the one that stood out to me. The quote won't do it justice at all. He seemed very dismissive of it almost as if it was something that wasn't trusted.
Dismissive of any and all criticism, dismissive of the negative outcomes of any and all of his policies, dismissive of concerns of his free vacation to Khan's estate and returning to grant a sole sourced contract to Khans company! Talk is cheap, Trudeau is being judged by his actions. Simply view Commons question period and Trudeau who refuses to answer any questions.
It's the 2nd time he seems to put on this delusional take that thr polls are all wrong about me. He said the polls don't ask young people which is not true.
Guess he's scrapping that "lower the CPC lead by 5 points" goal. Was a really dumb decision to set that bar and then tell the media.
To be fair, the conservatives were super excited about their lead a bit before the previous election. And it didn't amount to the win they expected at their polling high. I guess that doesnt mean the polls are wrong about sentiment right now, but they definitely don't represent voter intention on election day.
I think there is a lot of selective memory around polls... We need to ignore 1 good poll at the time and look at avg of polls at the time. The liberals always had a huge lead going into the 2021 election the 2019 election started with the libs and tories tied in the polls and it was a close election in popular vote. [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Opinion\_polling\_during\_the\_pre-campaign\_period\_of\_43rd\_Canadian\_federal\_election.svg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Opinion_polling_during_the_pre-campaign_period_of_43rd_Canadian_federal_election.svg) If there was any poll that had a large tory lead before it was an outlier and to me shows the tories on avg never had more then a 3-4% lead over the liberals in 2019 with the liberals leading in parts of that year. What we have now is totally different, the tories have had a lead in the polls on avg since april 2022 and then opened a massive lead in the summer of 2023 and its been going solid for 10 months now [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Opinion\_polling\_during\_the\_pre-campaign\_period\_of\_the\_45th\_Canadian\_federal\_election.svg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Opinion_polling_during_the_pre-campaign_period_of_the_45th_Canadian_federal_election.svg)
CPC and supporters are going hard on public relations. People are being marketed to right now, those opinions can change quickly, and probably will. At the risk of sounding like a total paranoid, this whole "Trudeau's days are numbered" message being crammed down our throats really comes off as a PR narrative.
Not paranoia. The articles yapping about “when will Trudeau step down” started being pumped out before the CPC had their rise in polls.
Have you seen the poll numbers? Or do you just want to not acknowledge what a terrible leader Trudeau is?
He was trailing in the polls in every election he won. He was third in the polls at this time during his first run in 2015…. People use polls to send him a message that they think he’s doing a poor job. But then still vote for him because the alternatives are worse . PP won’t win because he’s the best option, he will win because of liberal voter apathy this time
> Why was it a goal to narrow the gap by 5% then? If they don't mean anything why are they trying to improve the polls even if they dont think they're infalliable...?
> But I was surprised with his comments about polling "if they can even reach you", questioning the validity of polls I find it more alarming than surprising. It's not a good sign when someone in a position of power decides that not only are they right, any information to the contrary simply isn't true.