For my Canadian friends

[Shiftless2]

Brilliant little read from Brad Stuart that totally gets it. Sit down and learn a few things.

"If anyone’s wondering — I’ve voted Conservative, Liberal, and even NDP when the local representative was the best person running. I’ve always tried to vote for the person and the plan, not just the party.

Some of my old friends might be surprised by the tone of this post. Maybe even uncomfortable. That’s okay. I’m not here to convert anyone — I’m just offering some perspective from someone who’s seen governments come and go.

I’m not frustrated by disagreement — that’s healthy. I’m frustrated by the mindless reposting of memes, by empty slogans instead of actual solutions, and by the constant blame game that replaces responsibility with outrage.

Polls show that older Canadians are more likely to support the Liberals and there’s a reason for that: we’ve seen governments come and go. We remember the Petro-Canada era, the National Energy Programam backlash, the Mulroney cuts, the Chrétien surpluses, the Harper austerity, and the COVID-era interventions. We’ve lived through it — not just read about it online. What that history teaches you is that ....

MORE>

 

[Shiftless2]

Why Carney not Polievre, is winning over some Conservative MPs.

Conservative caucus members who privately (or quietly) wish for Mark Carney instead of Pierre Poilievre at the helm may seem to be aiming for an unlikely paradox — favoring a Liberal Prime Minister as their own leader. But when you peel back the layers, their unease with Poilievre’s style and a yearning for a more centrist, competent alternative helps explain it.

First, Poilievre’s combative, aggressive leadership style troubles more moderate MPs. Some see his relentless focus on populist messaging and culture-war rhetoric as a liability — polarizing, rather than building broad electoral support. According to reporting, Poilievre has resisted any softening of his “fight-for-affordability” persona, even in the face of caucus discontent. This rigidity, for some, risks isolating the party from voters who are less energized by confrontation.

Second, Carney represents the kind of experienced, steady economic stewardship that appeals to traditional conservatives. He has a background managing global financial crises, and many see him as someone who brings gravitas, credibility, and technocratic competence. In contrast, Poilievre, while a skilled campaigner, is perceived by some as weaker on policy nuance.

Third, public polling strengthens the case for Carney. According to Angus Reid, Carney outpaces Poilievre on key leadership metrics, especially on issues like handling the U.S. and the economy. The Ipsos data also suggest Carney is seen as less likely to capitulate to external pressures than Poilievre. For caucus members worried about electoral prospects, these numbers are hard to ignore.

Finally, for those tired of internal turmoil, Carney offers a vision of governance over grievance. Some Conservative MPs may feel that Carney’s more disciplined, collaborative approach could restore party credibility and broaden appeal — even if it means rethinking their loyalty to Poilievre.