LPC leadership race - 2025

[brihard]

Another international politician tells Canada to run away from Carney. Lima is a city of 10 million people. Roughly a full quarter of our population.

LILLEY: Peruvian mayor issues warning about making Carney Canada's PM

The mayor of Lima, Peru has a message to Canadians: Think twice before making Mark Carney your prime minister.

torontosun.com

Lol, fun that the Sun just notes him as ‘mayor of Lima’ and doesn’t go into any of the rest of his politics at the federal level. This dude’s basically a Peruvian Christine Anderson, except that he actually leads the federal far-right party.

His motivation to comment on the selection of a new Liberal party leader in Canada is very questionable, to put it mildly. Responsible journalism by the Sun (I know, I know…) would have delved into this at least a little bit - or even just acknowledged it - rather than pretending it’s not there.

This is not a person that many persuadable voters are likely to pay any attention to.

 

[Jarnhamar]

but saying you resigned from your commercial activities and...doing so? Isn't it.

There's plenty of legitimate concerns, no one needs to be grasping at straws.

Speaking after this week’s English debate, Carney repeated to reporters that he “ceased to be a number of other things,” including United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Change, before he announced his leadership candidacy.
“I resigned all of my positions because I’m all in for Canada, all in for this leadership, all in during this time of crisis to build our great country,” said Carney.

Almost seems like a Christy Clark "Yeah well whatever, same thing".
He's saying one thing but means something else.
It may seem like a small detail to you, and maybe it is. I don't have a background in banking but I feel like small details matter there. Given the state of Canada I feel like small details should count for future PMs too, regardless how short they may potentially serve.

 

[YZT580]

Lol, fun that the Sun just notes him as ‘mayor of Lima’ and doesn’t go into any of the rest of his politics at the federal level. This dude’s basically a Peruvian Christine Anderson, except that he actually leads the federal far-right party.

His motivation to comment on the selection of a new Liberal party leader in Canada is very questionable, to put it mildly. Responsible journalism by the Sun (I know, I know…) would have delved into this at least a little bit - or even just acknowledged it - rather than pretending it’s not there.

This is not a person that many persuadable voters are likely to pay any attention to.

Does his own right wing allegiance mean that what he has to say is wrong? Of course not to answer my own question. Nor should it be accepted as gospel but simply as another factor to consider when assessing Carney's suitability to replace Trudeau. Canada has one chance every 4 years to select the direction in which we want our country to be steered. Too often we have chosen style over substance. And this time around there is a lot more riding on making the right choice than there has been in a long time so any information that will improve that decision making should be welcomed and not swept away simply because of its source.

 

[Halifax Tar]

She didn’t do overtime.
She has to quit telling the 4 year old girls story. It’s bloody embarrassing.

To liberal partisans she was good. To me I don’t think she did anything to improve her chances of beating Carney.

I will admit it's strange to be labeled a partisan Liberal lol

 

[brihard]

Does his own right wing allegiance mean that what he has to say is wrong? Of course not to answer my own question. Nor should it be accepted as gospel but simply as another factor to consider when assessing Carney's suitability to replace Trudeau. Canada has one chance every 4 years to select the direction in which we want our country to be steered. Too often we have chosen style over substance. And this time around there is a lot more riding on making the right choice than there has been in a long time so any information that will improve that decision making should be welcomed and not swept away simply because of its source.

As the article notes (to their credit), Brookfield bought the Peruvian asset in question in 2016. Carney didn’t join Brookfield as chairman until late 2020. The matter is being litigated in a few different courts; I can’t tell when the litigation started. Is there any evidence that Carney is personally knowledgeable about or complicit in any corrupt practices? I recognize that politics is a game of ‘gotchas’, often divorced from fact, but probably all sides want to be careful getting too free with the ‘guilt by association’ in business matters that are the subject of disputes.

I absolutely still believe the Peruvian politician’s motives in trying to push this narrative are quite questionable, and likely have a significant partisan motivation.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Lol, fun that the Sun just notes him as ‘mayor of Lima’ and doesn’t go into any of the rest of his politics at the federal level. This dude’s basically a Peruvian Christine Anderson, except that he actually leads the federal far-right party.

His motivation to comment on the selection of a new Liberal party leader in Canada is very questionable, to put it mildly. Responsible journalism by the Sun (I know, I know…) would have delved into this at least a little bit - or even just acknowledged it - rather than pretending it’s not there.

This is not a person that many persuadable voters are likely to pay any attention to.

Face the facts though. Few people, unless they have an axe to grind, are going to delve into his background or research his stance.

a) The article is primarily about Carney and BAM. People will concentrate there.
b) Few people, on the left, who would even care to check, are mostly reading the Red Star and probably won't even see the article.
c) Most that read newspapers, read them on the fly. At break, on the bus, etc and really don't have the time or even the inclination to check the veracity of the articles. The Sun is their paper, they read it because it confirms their bias, they trust the staff to feed them what they want to know. Just like readers of the Star
d) There is zero reason to doubt what he's talking about, just because some may find his leanings not to their liking. Nobody in Canada is talking about how BAM operates globally. So insight from any outside source is worth it.
e) And no other paper or article, that I'm aware of, has gone down your route, in an attempt to cancel his opinion or facts, by doing an expose on him.

Rather than complain about his politics and assuming his narrative is wrong because of it, prove what he is saying is wrong. That would make for a better narrative than saying "It's all bullshit because he's politically aligned on the right."

 

[brihard]

W

Face the facts though. Few people, unless they have an axe to grind, are going to delve into his background or research his stance.

a) The article is primarily about Carney and BAM. People will concentrate there.
b) Few people, on the left, who would even care to check, are mostly reading the Red Star and probably won't even see the article.
c) Most that read newspapers, read them on the fly. At break, on the bus, etc and really don't have the time or even the inclination to check the veracity of the articles. The Sun is their paper, they read it because it confirms their bias, they trust the staff to feed them what they want to know. Just like readers of the Star
d) There is zero reason to doubt what he's talking about, just because some may find his leanings not to their liking. Nobody in Canada is talking about how BAM operates globally. So insight from any outside source is worth it.
e) And no other paper or article, that I'm aware of, has gone down your route, in an attempt to cancel his opinion or facts, by doing an expose on him.

Rather than complain about his politics and assuming his narrative is wrong because of it, prove what he is saying is wrong. That would make for a better narrative than saying "It's all bullshit because he's politically aligned on the right."

See my other reply.

Like I said- this is not something likely to matter to persuadable voters. Of course, it’s consistent with Lilley’s general approach to not being up front about potential partisan conflicts of interest in his reporting.

 

[FSTO]

I will admit it's strange to be labeled a partisan Liberal lol

I meant partisan liberals in general. I don’t think of you as a partisan. Of the Navy Supply Trade yes, the LPC? No way.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I meant partisan liberals in general. I don’t think of you as a partisan. Of the Navy Supply Trade yes, the LPC? No way.

Guilty on all accounts lol

 

[Fishbone Jones]

W

See my other reply.

Like I said- this is not something likely to matter to persuadable voters. Of course, it’s consistent with Lilley’s general approach to not being up front about potential partisan conflicts of interest in his reporting.

The oceans started with a single drop.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sounds like Carney, is being a tad hypocritical. IDK

Slash and sell

How financial giant Brookfield and its big bank backers profited from deforestation and the abuse of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Brazil

Slash and sell

How financial giant Brookfield and its big bank backers profited from deforestation and the abuse of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Brazil

globalwitness.org

Climate boss Carney's firm linked with deforestation

Climate boss Carney's firm linked with deforestation

Brookfield sold Brazil farms despite boss's call not to "walk away" from carbon-intensive assets

www.bbc.com

 

[ArmyRick]

Sounds like Carney, is being a tad hypocritical. IDK

Slash and sell

How financial giant Brookfield and its big bank backers profited from deforestation and the abuse of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Brazil

Slash and sell

How financial giant Brookfield and its big bank backers profited from deforestation and the abuse of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Brazil

globalwitness.org

Climate boss Carney's firm linked with deforestation

Climate boss Carney's firm linked with deforestation

Brookfield sold Brazil farms despite boss's call not to "walk away" from carbon-intensive assets

www.bbc.com

And waiting for the Carney defenders to come along and justify/explain this all away in 3..2..1..

 

[CBH99]

And waiting for the Carney defenders to come along and justify/explain this all away in 3..2..1..

Why does my mom have your phone number??

Give her a 10 count & I can basically guarantee ya she'll be defending the man!

Can't justify or explain it at all...but she'll come out swinging all the same!

 

[Haggis]

I saw a couple of Polievere targeted attack ads during the Global National newscast tonight. They were sponsored by an organization named "Protect Canada". I didn't see any obvious signs of LPC influence.

 

[dapaterson]

I saw a couple of Polievere targeted attack ads during the Global National newscast tonight. They were sponsored by an organization named "Protect Canada". I didn't see any obvious signs of LPC influence.

Given the nature of the CPC, who's to say it's not coming from inside the house.

 

[Remius]

I saw a couple of Polievere targeted attack ads during the Global National newscast tonight. They were sponsored by an organization named "Protect Canada". I didn't see any obvious signs of LPC influence.

PROTECTING CANADA: Who is behind the Poilievre smear campaign?

An anonymous anti-Pierre Poilievre campaign has been circulating on social media for the last three months, painting the Conservative leader as an anti-abortionist and pro-firearms enthusiast.

www.westernstandard.news

Some details here.

 

[YZT580]

I saw a couple of Polievere targeted attack ads during the Global National newscast tonight. They were sponsored by an organization named "Protect Canada". I didn't see any obvious signs of LPC influence.

They have been around for a while. They originally organized to attack O'Toole and have been laying in the grass since. Their website says they are a group of annonymous donors who are concerned about Canada and the direction that a conservative party would lead. Their spokesman was an NDP organizer for Mulcaire and one of their directors is very active on liberal pages.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I saw a couple of Polievere targeted attack ads during the Global National newscast tonight. They were sponsored by an organization named "Protect Canada". I didn't see any obvious signs of LPC influence.

They were truly awful. The Carney version are bad too.

I assume they've done their research on who they should target but just 'ugh' ...

 

[IKnowNothing]

Willing to ignore the last 10 years of Liberal behavior for someone who's already caught lying multiple times about insignificant things?

Moving to this thread to not sidebar to much from Tariff talk.

Willing to wait and assess for myself how relevant the last ten years are to what is on offer now.

A. A lot of ink was spilled on how autocratic JT was, the extent to which he was the LPC, how much power had been concentrated. That knife cuts both ways- and enables a hard pivot if it's enacted at the top. On this side of the fence- we saw how much the CPC changed going from O'Toole to Poilievre. New leader, (potentially) new party and direction.

B. On the P's of Poilievre

• Personality- he has crafted a patently dislikable (not the same as unlikeable) persona, far from stateman like, and while he is certainly not Trump, he certainly has borrowed some of his messaging both in style and substance, which further contributes to rubbing a lot of Canadians the wrong way
• Policy/Platform- he's early 00's Reformer and devout Flanagan school acolyte, whose views by his own admission (boast actually) haven't changed since undergrad. So he's unflinchingly and unwaveringly committed to an ideology and vision that while that's while neither "alt-right" nor "far-right", is as far right as you can go in the mainstream of the Canadian Overton window.

So the CPC is running an un-flexible and dislikeable leader, whose ideas and vision are solidly to one wing of what needs to be a big tent, and had their collective lunch eaten by a centre left version of the LPC 20 years ago before said tent broadening and shift centre with the PC merger. That's not a recipe for a win under any normal circumstance.

C. But- Pierre Poilievre is the farthest thing from a political idiot. This election wasn't set to be normal circumstances. After 9 years under very left wing malignant narcissist whose policy gaffe's were being compounded by global headwinds, whose scandals wrote their own attack adds? Canada is hungry for change, and specifically for a shift right/to the centre. This was an election Poilievre could win. Canadians didn't have to like him or really buy into his ideology- he just had to be the only viable option to take them in the general direction they wanted- away from Trudeauism.

D. But, but- he's not going to get that election now. What we have shaping up isn't: Hard right Attack dog vs hard left, moist speaking punching bag with zero economic credibility wearing all of Canadians' difficulties from the last 4 years, it's now: hard right attack dog vs left/centre left (as yet undetermined) congenial statesman with economic credibility, and a potentially clean slate. Both options (potentially) represent change. That's a much harder fight to win man vs. man, ideology vs. ideology.

E. We have seen the early indications of B and D. bare out in the last few weeks. Poilievre's support evaporated at the mere prospect of another viable option to bring us back rightward / that wasn't Trudeau.

which brings us to

F. The CPC is 100% all in on convincing people that the election is that of C. rather than D. that Carney is a continuation of Trudeau rather than a shift back right to the centre-left. They need that to be believed, whether it is true or not- and as such, I'm not going to take them at their word. Especially with them having demonstrated complete willingness to lie in significant ways about it- such as the nature of the BAM HQ "move"

 

[Remius]

Moving to this thread to not sidebar to much from Tariff talk.

Willing to wait and assess for myself how relevant the last ten years are to what is on offer now.

A. A lot of ink was spilled on how autocratic JT was, the extent to which he was the LPC, how much power had been concentrated. That knife cuts both ways- and enables a hard pivot if it's enacted at the top. On this side of the fence- we saw how much the CPC changed going from O'Toole to Poilievre. New leader, (potentially) new party and direction.

B. On the P's of Poilievre

• Personality- he has crafted a patently dislikable (not the same as unlikeable) persona, far from stateman like, and while he is certainly not Trump, he certainly has borrowed some of his messaging both in style and substance, which further contributes to rubbing a lot of Canadians the wrong way
• Policy/Platform- he's early 00's Reformer and devout Flanagan school acolyte, whose views by his own admission (boast actually) haven't changed since undergrad. So he's unflinchingly and unwaveringly committed to an ideology and vision that while that's while neither "alt-right" nor "far-right", is as far right as you can go in the mainstream of the Canadian Overton window.

So the CPC is running an un-flexible and dislikeable leader, whose ideas and vision had their collective lunch eaten by a centre left version of the LPC 20 years ago before a tent broadening and shift centre with the PC merger. That's not a recipe for a win under any normal circumstance.

C. But- Pierre Poilievre is the farthest thing from a political idiot. This election wasn't set to be normal circumstances. After 9 years under very left wing malignant narcissist whose policy gaffe's were being compounded by global headwinds, whose scandals wrote their own attack adds? Canada is hungry for change, and specifically for a shift right/to the centre. This was an election Poilievre could win. Canadians didn't have to like him or really buy into his ideology- he just had to be the only viable option to take them in the general direction they wanted- away from Trudeauism.

D. But, but- he's not going to get that election now. What we have shaping up isn't: Hard right Attack dog vs hard left, moist speaking punching bag with zero economic credibility wearing all of Canadians' difficulties from the last 4 years, it's now: hard right attack dog vs left/centre left (as yet undetermined) congenial statesman with economic credibility, and a potentially clean slate. Both options (potentially) represent change. That's a much harder fight to win man vs. man, ideology vs. ideology.

E. We have seen the early indications of B and D. bare out in the last few weeks. Poilievre's support evaporated at the mere prospect of another viable option to bring us back rightward / that wasn't Trudeau.

which brings us to

F. The CPC is 100% all in on convincing people that the election is that of C. rather than D. that Carney is a continuation of Trudeau rather than a shift back right to the centre-left. They need that to be believed, whether it is true or not- and as such, I'm not going to take them at their word. Especially with them having demonstrated complete willingness to lie in significant ways about it- such as the nature of the BAM HQ "move"

Even Fox News seems to have picked up what you are saying.

Trump’s threats against Canada boost Trudeau's Liberal Party in the polls as new tariffs set to begin

Concern over Trump’s tariffs and annexation has found Canadians leaning Liberal with the prospect of a new leader who is set to take over from Trudeau in the next few days.

www.foxnews.com