Canada @lemmy.ca breakfastmtn @lemmy.ca 12h ago

Liberal leadership race: Mark Carney chosen as new Liberal leader

www.cbc.ca /news/politics/livestory/liberal-leadership-race-mark-carney-chosen-as-new-liberal-leader-9.6678061

Liberal Party members have chosen former central banker Mark Carney to be their new leader and the next prime minister of Canada.

Carney secured enough votes in the first round of voting to win the job, party president Sachit Mehra announced.

58 comments

Entirely expected, but still a relief. He is the most likely Liberal candidate to potentially take a win from the Cons or at least take away a majority from them.
- Explains why Conservative attack ads have been so focused on Carney lately. They're scared!
  
  Extremely.
  
  A lot of polls put the Cons ahead of the Liberals by a few points, but trailing if Carney was leader.
Good, but I won't sleep easily until the crypto-MAGAist Pierre Poilievre is on the ash heap of history.
- I too will love to see the knives out for PP once he loses the general election. He’s been such a sniveling Trunp toady no other party would support his party in a minority situation . All Carney has to do is prevent a conservative majority, my guess is that Carney has the potential to do even better than that.
- Hes into crypto?
  
  There is another use of that term, but a hyphen would have helped.
This was not a surprise
- Carney's win was not a surprise, but I think the margin that he won by was a surprise for many.
  
  I was amazed that no one else even got into the double digits.
Too bad for Chrystia Freeland. I think she would have been a great PM. I watched her speak a few times, and she is well-spoken, smart, and has that little edge like she'd really destroy you if you forced her to.

I would have voted for either, though, and I'm happy for Mark Carney. He'll do a great job.
- I think she's kinda like Harris in the US. She probably would have done a good job, but is too similar to (and tainted by) the person before. It's not worth the risk right now to choose her and lose to the cons.
- It's just not the time for her. I respect her deeply and thought she was great in the debate, and she did a great job last time Trump was in power.
  
  I just think she couldn't win the next fight (the general election), and frankly I think a PM who Trump completely loathes would become his punching bag instead of his foil. Freeland could take a punch for sure -- don't mean to imply she's weak, but I think it wouldn't help.
  
  I worry about Carney not being an outspoken and charismatic leader against Trump. Between Pollievre and Trump I think he's going to get dumped on, but I trust that he won't care because he'll be heads down enough on the technical sides of leadership it doesn't matter. We're already united, he can be a general and tactician.
  
  I just think she couldn't win the next fight (the general election)
  
  She's too closely associated with Trudeau. I think Trudeau's popularity turned around partially because he was leaving - his replacement wouldn't be able to use that.
  
  I’m actually not worried about Carney being thoughtful and considered while Trump is a loud mouth moronic idiot with no coherent plan. Let Trunp be who he’s gonna be and we’ll do our thing, separate from the US clownshow. I mean we’ll have to deal with them a bit but it’s like a toxic ex who you have to deal with because you have kids together but other then that, you lead a completely separate life.
- She will be invaluable to the country going forward.
  
  She negotiated the USMCA with Trump in his 1st term.
  
  I expect (if she runs again) she’ll be a minister.
- Politics is harsh. You have to have the personality to communicate effectively to the people. Chrystia just doesn't have that politician's personality. She isn't engaging at all.
  
  Not nearly as bad as PP. Every time I hear the guy speak, it's like he'd rather be doing something else.
The liberals chose well!
So we'll likely be heading into an election in June.
Reminder of the Liberal's record on proportional representation: "Liberals never wanted to “make every vote count.”… Electoral reform has become a bonbon offered at election. As far back as 1919, Liberals have campaigned on the promise of proportional representation"

Mark Carney's position on electoral reform: "open". However...

He’s an economist, and the mathematics pairs quite nicely with the mathematics of electoral systems.

His public persona is that he is intelligent. But when asked specifically about electoral reform and proportional representation, he says he’s uncertain and open to exploring options? Why would someone as smart as him be uncertain about ensuring every vote counts.
- Means he's unfamiliar with the issue, or doesn't want to take a position lol
  
  Given the Liberal's failings on proportional representation, I tend to think it's the latter: he doesn't want to take a position
There was never a chance a woman would win as leader. The Liberals claim to be feminist but have never had a female in charge running the Liberal party.
- I really don't think that had much to do with it.
  
  It should be no surprise that during an economic crisis, the candidate that successfully lead two central banks was selected.
  
  Carney had nothing to do with Canada's economy, it was Jim Flaherty. Carney did major economic damage to England and England was worse off when Carney left. He plans to bring in more taxes if he can't increase current sales taxes plus increase income taxes.
- Freeland has polled fairly poorly against Poilievre and this is what everyone i know voted on - who can defeat him. Then there's some of the bad takes she made. She sounded austerity-ish, made some anti-woke statements which play right in the cons' hands.
  
  Not to mention that she fiercely opposed electoral reform while Mark Carney gave a maybe.
  
  The broad Canadian public is against woke policies. People want meritocracy, not identity. Read the public polling of the amount of people who support same sex marriage, it's going down. Look at the polling numbers of the public turning against the ideology of transgenderism.
- The liberals have maintained preferential hiring for women in the public service for decades, even though they are not the minority, nor have they been the minority since the early 2000s. Their policies are often very heavily entrenched in DEI mentalities, with zero tolerance for discussion / debate. Their feminist and minority-centric policies have explicitly alienated a large number of young men, particularly young white men, as was highlighted even during the introduction of the Liberal speeches/presentations on the cbc coverage.
  
  Running a woman for leader is introducing a wedge issue in terms of voter opinion, at a time when the election results are really critical. Pretending like there aren't still a lot of voters who have some degree of sexism is not realistic -- and it's of utmost importance that the Liberals do everything they can to challenge PP. I would rather they ran a man, with a higher chance of winning, than pretended like Freeland could win while she was overtly continuing to alienate male voters right up to the end with the "Man eater" music. Like imagine if a male candidate came out grooving to a song about beating women.... what a stupid, divisive move.
  
  That sort of blindness to the reality of the voting public, is precisely why the NDP are sunk. They run an overtly Sikh guy, who cozies up to Sikh's at every public event he goes to... pretending like this isn't going to alienate a bunch of voters, and be a huge issue in places like Quebec (where they've banned overt religious symbols in the past). It's blind demographic politics optimism, with little serious regard to winning. Same goes for the Greens, when they put in that Black Lesbian Jewish Pro Palestine lawyer lady, who crashed and burned.

58 comments