Remember when...

[Skoob]

Yes the leader defines the direction of the party.

The direction of the Liberal party is determined by Gerald Butts primarily.
After that the party determines the direction of the party.
The Liberal party determined that Trudeau would cost them the election so they had to put a different face on the party to fool people like you. The party made that determination.
It's the same party that has been responsible for ruining Canada for the past decade so nothing has changed there.

You're being played.

 

[nottyboi]

The direction of the Liberal party is determined by Gerald Butts primarily.
After that the party determines the direction of the party.
The Liberal party determined that Trudeau would cost them the election so they had to put a different face on the party to fool people like you. The party made that determination.
It's the same party that has been responsible for ruining Canada for the past decade so nothing has changed there.

You're being played.

I don't think Butts or Telford will have the same influence over Carney. Trudeau was somewhat out of his depth and relied more on advisors. Carney is more mature and has a vastly greater understanding of economics and geopolitics then Trudeau. I think he will set the path. I am not sure who orchestrated what, but its very possible that Freeland worked with Carney to blow up the govt and she ran for the leadership to disguise that fact. No doubt she will get a plum position.

 

[Skoob]

I don't think Butts or Telford will have the same influence over Carney. Trudeau was somewhat out of his depth and relied more on advisors. Carney is more mature and has a vastly greater understanding of economics and geopolitics then Trudeau. I think he will set the path. I am not sure who orchestrated what, but its very possible that Freeland worked with Carney to blow up the govt and she ran for the leadership to disguise that fact. No doubt she will get a plum position.

The same people who helped prop up Trudeau for a decade are the same ones that turned on him when it looked like their jobs were on the line. At that point, they abandoned policy, ideology and loyalty.
That's how Liberals roll.

 

[richaceg]

The cons lost...get over it. Peepee lost his riding...he might still be on the leadership role but it just shows you the Liberals will be for another term is Carney pivots from what Trudeau did... that was too close for them....

 

[nottyboi]

The same people who helped prop up Trudeau for a decade are the same ones that turned on him when it looked like their jobs were on the line. At that point, they abandoned policy, ideology and loyalty.
That's how Liberals roll.

There is backstabbing in politics, thats a reality. And yes there were several incidents of backstabbing during the Trudeau years and he did not survive the final on. PP faced backstabbing DURING the election. And now we shall see if they let him stay

 

[Skoob]

There is backstabbing in politics, thats a reality. And yes there were several incidents of backstabbing during the Trudeau years and he did not survive the final on. PP faced backstabbing DURING the election. And now we shall see if they let him stay

Difference is that the Conservatives haven't been running the country for a decade so whatever goes on within their ranks doesn't impact the country as much as the party who is leading it.

 

[nottyboi]

Difference is that the Conservatives haven't been running the country for a decade so whatever goes on within their ranks doesn't impact the country as much as the party who is leading it.

Meh there were not great differences in PP and Carney platform, other then some BS hopium economic growth numbers on the part of PP.

 

[Other Wanderer]

He didn't need US citizenship to move his business out of Canada.

Why would you support someone who would do that? Why do you trust him to have Canada's best interests at heart if he doesn't even keep his own business here?

I would think anyone, with any global business experience, would realize that you locate your businesses based on a variety of factors. Most of these factors have nothing to do with your love of country.
In many fields, you almost have to locate in a given country:

1. if you want to work with specific types of investors in that country,
2. if you want to qualify for certain regulatory exemptions to be in that country,
3. or, if you even want to be allowed to participate in transactions such as infrastructure purchases, which have a political sensitivity to them.

The idea that we should disqualify someone who is attractive as an executive to companies around the world (Bloomberg, Stripe, Brookfield, etc)
because they chose to solve problems for companies around the world is ... surprising ... coming from a party that claims to understand business.

Don't we want people who are actually successful at a global scale?

I think Carney put it best, in a very dry way, when he was asked about the difference between Poilievre and himself.
He responded simply "I know how the world actually works".

It is telling that the "party of business" in Canada, nominally Conservative, can't seem to understand that. But perhaps that's what happens
when a high school dropout like Jenni Byrne, runs the campaign of the guy she dated, even after she was wiped out in the last federal election
campaign she ran for similar ignorant sensibilities.

Your focus on Butts, who is yesterday's news relative to someone of Carney's gravity, vs. Byrne, who actually successful Conservatives in the public
and private sector despise completely, is remarkable.

Anyone other than the Poilievre/Byrne combo would have won the election by a landslide against Carney, because he's not a natural politician, and
the guy he succeeded had less than 20% support.

Maybe you should reflect on the absolute stupidity of trying to shove a moron into the highest elected office of the country under existential crisis,
and not on the logic of the voters who chose "anyone but Pierre" to fix it.

Or to employ one more word than Pierre usually uses, the Conservative Party needs to "Grow the fuck up".

In which case, it would win very easily.

 

[bver_hunter]

We are seeing the crocodile tears even within the Conservative Party itself. They are even blaming Dougie Boy for sabotaging Pee Pee's Election prospects:

Ford focused on ‘unity’ after Conservative MP accuses premier of sabotaging federal counterparts

Jamil Jivani, a Conservative MP who previously sat as Ontario’s first community opportunities advocate before he resigned in 2022, spoke to the broadcaster after winning re-election in Bowmanville—Oshawa North, calling Ford a “hype man” for the Liberals.

“I’m focusing on unity right across this country,” Ford said Tuesday in response to questions about Jivani’s comments.

“We have to bring this country together like we never have before.”

When asked if he had a message for Pierre Poilievre, Ford said the Conservative leader worked “very, very hard” despite a loss in his longtime Ottawa-area riding.

“It’s hard to run a federal campaign,” Ford told reporters. “The people have spoken. The people are never wrong. They have a reason why they vote the way they do, and I just want to move the province forward.”

During his media availability at Queen’s Park on Tuesday, Ford dodged questions about an ongoing rift between his party and the federal Conservatives, who were not successful in forming government on Monday night.

“I’m proud to be the leader of the PC Party. I don’t give two hoots about political stripes,” Ford said. “If there is a leader federally and they can help Ontario, then I’m going to work with them.”

Ford did not endorse Poilievre during the election campaign, suggesting that he would be staying on the sidelines to focus on mitigating the impact of Trump’s tariffs on Ontario’s economy.

Ford focused on ‘unity’ after Conservative MP accuses premier of sabotaging federal counterparts

Premier Doug Ford said he is focused on 'unity' in response to criticism from a Conservative MP and former advisor who accused him of sabotaging the federal Conservatives in an interview with CBC News on Monday night.

www.ctvnews.ca

But getting to the point of this thread and unlike Baby Scheer, Carney was very transparent about his various citizenships and renounced it:

Liberal leadership hopeful Mark Carney says he's written to the British and Irish governments to begin the process of renouncing his citizenship in both countries, leaving him solely with Canadian citizenship if the process is completed.

At a leadership event in Oakville, Ont., on Friday night, Carney told reporters his belief is that as prime minister, he should hold only one citizenship.

"I have already initiated the process to renounce my citizenships in both the United Kingdom and Ireland," he said.

Carney, who was born in Canada, has held Irish citizenship for decades. He became a British citizen in 2018, five years after he began serving as governor of the Bank of England.

The former Bank of Canada governor told reporters there are "several members of the House of Commons who have several passports," and there have been leaders of other federal political parties, like the Conservatives, who hold multiple citizenship.

"I'm not judging those other people," Carney said. "I'm saying as prime minister, I should only hold one citizenship."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-renounce-citizenship-1.7472421

The righties are really picking at plastic straws, oops and excuse the Pee Pee pun, when they compare Scheer to Carney and then call it "hypocrisy". Especially when in Scheer's case:

The revelation that Conservative leader Andrew Scheer holds dual Canadian-American citizenship raises several questions. First, why did he not disclose his status when he decided to enter politics? And why did he not do so when he was appointed Speaker of the House of Commons under Stephen Harper?

After all, even as an ordinary MP Scheer was required to swear allegiance to Her Majesty. As we know, American citizens owe no such allegiance. In fact, they renounced the monarchy in 1776. By taking the oath, he was untrue to his duty as an American citizen, right at the start of his political career.

When Scheer was named Speaker, he was no longer just an MP or a back bencher; he was an integral part of Her Majesty’s Parliament, with significant duties and perquisites. Why didn’t he disclose his status at that time?

Instead, by suppressing his American identity, he seems to have treated his oath of allegiance to the Queen as a mere formality and paid only lip service to a solemn and time-honoured ritual. This is unacceptable and hypocritical for someone who wants to lead this country.

Today's letters: Andrew Scheer and dual citizenship

Friday, Oct. 11: Writers are not impressed with Andrew Scheer neglecting to declare his dual citizenship. You can write to us on this or other issues, at: letters@o…

ottawacitizen.com

 

[bver_hunter]

 

[Skoob]

I would think anyone, with any global business experience, would realize that you locate your businesses based on a variety of factors. Most of these factors have nothing to do with your love of country.
In many fields, you almost have to locate in a given country:

1. if you want to work with specific types of investors in that country,
2. if you want to qualify for certain regulatory exemptions to be in that country,
3. or, if you even want to be allowed to participate in transactions such as infrastructure purchases, which have a political sensitivity to them.

The idea that we should disqualify someone who is attractive as an executive to companies around the world (Bloomberg, Stripe, Brookfield, etc)
because they chose to solve problems for companies around the world is ... surprising ... coming from a party that claims to understand business.

Don't we want people who are actually successful at a global scale?

I think Carney put it best, in a very dry way, when he was asked about the difference between Poilievre and himself.
He responded simply "I know how the world actually works".

It is telling that the "party of business" in Canada, nominally Conservative, can't seem to understand that. But perhaps that's what happens
when a high school dropout like Jenni Byrne, runs the campaign of the guy she dated, even after she was wiped out in the last federal election
campaign she ran for similar ignorant sensibilities.

Your focus on Butts, who is yesterday's news relative to someone of Carney's gravity, vs. Byrne, who actually successful Conservatives in the public
and private sector despise completely, is remarkable.

Anyone other than the Poilievre/Byrne combo would have won the election by a landslide against Carney, because he's not a natural politician, and
the guy he succeeded had less than 20% support.

Maybe you should reflect on the absolute stupidity of trying to shove a moron into the highest elected office of the country under existential crisis,
and not on the logic of the voters who chose "anyone but Pierre" to fix it.

Or to employ one more word than Pierre usually uses, the Conservative Party needs to "Grow the fuck up".

In which case, it would win very easily.

Cool story bro!
If a Conservative running for office did the same you guys would be setting cars on fire.
At the very least, accept your hypocrisy rather than trying to justify nonsense.

Carney's campaign convinced their supporters that Carney can "stand up to Trump". No mention of how. No differentiation between other candidates. They used their supporters' fear and offered then a fantasy.

That and adopting Conservative policies.

 

[Other Wanderer]

Cool story bro!
If a Conservative running for office did the same you guys would be setting cars on fire.
At the very least, accept your hypocrisy rather than trying to justify nonsense.

Carney's campaign convinced their supporters that Carney can "stand up to Trump". No mention of how. No differentiation between other candidates. They used their supporters' fear and offered then a fantasy.

That and adopting Conservative policies.

In this case, literally nobody would give Poilievre a company to run, so your proposition is purely hypothetical.

Most of my closest friends are actually Conservative ... in the real definition of the word .... suggestion from them is the internal debate is not "if" Poilievre is thrown out, but "when".

One camp wants him gone "now" because he can't sit as Opposition Leader for awhile and the Liberals might drag the by-election call for a bit.

Another wants him gone at the mandatory review after a loss.

Unlikely he survives apparently... good for them for adapting to reality when they bounce him.

As for Carney, let's see if he can achieve anything with Trump.