Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[ArmyRick]

He’s clearing out the Trudeau fro t and centre people, the last of the main cast of characters.
Hopefully he’ll find some nice old fashioned Red Tories….

It will be good to see more Centered Liberals...but it will cost this new Liberal base. They will lose numbers.

 

[HavokFour]

Rumours of a cabinet shuffle are circulating. Joly, Freeland and Blair could be Europe bound. Safety Gary might be out leaving the door open for Prevost to get her shot at the front benches. Will McGuinty hold onto the expanded defence portfolio?

Right about on schedule. If I remember correctly back in I think May (?) he or someone in his circle said he'd be evaluating performances and dropping people if they didn't meet expectations.

EDIT: I think I found what my grey matter was trying to remember.

He is also short on patience and highly demanding of his advisers, senior bureaucrats and cabinet members while not afraid of calling out underperforming members of his entourage.

Whereas there was a sense among Trudeau’s entourage and office that he would give people “multiple kicks at the can” if they provided a sub-par briefing or weren’t on top of their files, sources say Carney is not so patient. Get it right the first time or risk not being called on for that topic again.

Carney filled half of his 28-member cabinet with new faces last week, but all the sources say no one’s job — not even veteran ministers — is safe. If ministers don’t perform to Carney’s expectations or fail to find ways to deliver on their mandates quickly, they may not last the year at the table.

“Carney will call out ministers if needed,” said one senior former Liberal who worked in both the Trudeau and Carney governments. “And he will probably call them personally to do it. Trudeau never called his ministers.”

One Liberal MP even theorized that there could be a cabinet shuffle in less than one year.

Inside Mark Carney's PMO where ministers get called out, punctuality matters and patience is on short supply

Two and a half months into Carney’s prime ministerial era, there are key differences in how the former central banker runs his office.

nationalpost.com

Archive

 

[IKnowNothing]

That's not what I wrote. Firstly, I'm skeptical of the vague idea of "enough" competition, but whatever amount there is does have explanations. Secondly, when I write "generally", it does not mean "exclusively", and I cited two, not one, reasons. The point I make is that if someone thinks there is not "enough" - leaving it to him to define "enough" - there are two common causes that don't require nefarious attributions. One is simply based on the efficiency of the incumbents and might have nothing to do with regulation - some markets just aren't that heavily regulated. The other is definitely founded in regulation.

So then your initial reply to @PrairieFella was essentially pointless pedantry, as we've agreed the end state of corporate competition might be environment that is no longer a fair market to the consumer

 

[Brad Sallows]

So then your initial reply to @PrairieFella was essentially pointless pedantry, as we've agreed the end state of corporate competition might be environment that is no longer a fair market to the consumer

I often provide more information and context than needed. I'm not contracted to focus my remarks as narrowly as you might choose. What's pointless is your conclusion, without a definition of "fair". The end state of corporate competition is usually a more favourable market for the consumer, because two things sellers must focus on is a better product (quality, features) and lower price. Both are "wins" for the consumer, because both enable the consumer to consume more (buy fewer things, replace them less frequently, spend less on each). But maybe first go ahead and provide a definition of "fair" if you think this needs to be another angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin exercise.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The end state of corporate competition is usually a more favourable market for the consumer, because two things sellers must focus on is a better product (quality, features) and lower price.

You just described a competitive market, not an end state one where successful business practice has resulted in a oligopic set of winners with supply chains firmly under their control and no realistic threat of new entrants.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I may have spoke too soon about Carney moving away from tit-for-tat politics.

He also seems a little thin skinned. Maybe people will find that appealing in a humanizing way or something

Carney says he made a mistake by dismissing Trump questions with 'who cares?'​

 

[Czech_pivo]

I often provide more information and context than needed. I'm not contracted to focus my remarks as narrowly as you might choose. What's pointless is your conclusion, without a definition of "fair". The end state of corporate competition is usually a more favourable market for the consumer, because two things sellers must focus on is a better product (quality, features) and lower price. Both are "wins" for the consumer, because both enable the consumer to consume more (buy fewer things, replace them less frequently, spend less on each). But maybe first go ahead and provide a definition of "fair" if you think this needs to be another angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin exercise.

That works when there is robust competition but when competition falters or ceases to exist and an oligarchy or monopoly occurs, then the consumer suffers. Case in point in Canada - the banking sector, the airlines and the telecom industry as prime examples in Canada.
Government meddling in those industries only serves to make the situation worse.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You just described a competitive market, not an end state one where successful business practice has resulted in a oligopic set of winners with supply chains firmly under their control and no realistic threat of new entrants.

Well, if that becomes a problem, knock yourself out deploring it.