Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[QV]

Carney has a legit majority government, but you’re right. He may have have had one sooner. Nonetheless, the way the CPC elected to politick makes their complaints ring hollow. Floor crossings were not an inevitability and are a downstream sign of bad leadership and lack of vision.

That's a narrow view. Floor crossing can also be a sign of individual ambition, and not necessarily in a moral way.

 

[brihard]

That's a narrow view. Floor crossing can also be a sign of individual ambition, and not necessarily in a moral way.

It would be a narrow view in isolation, but it’s far from my first reply on the subject in this discussion, so I’m not too fussed about how it comes across if stripped from the rest of the discussion.

 

[ArmyRick]

Floor crossings were not an inevitability and are a downstream sign of bad leadership and lack of vision.

Purely subjective and interesting note, NONE of the CPC floor crossers have taken any direct shots at Poilievre. Go and listen to what each of them had to say. Very much fluff but as far as I can tell not one of them took a shot at Pierre. MSM certainly did though.

 

[brihard]

Purely subjective and interesting note, NONE of the CPC floor crossers have taken any direct shots at Poilievre. Go and listen to what each of them had to say. Very much fluff but as far as I can tell not one of them took a shot at Pierre. MSM certainly did though.

I doubt any of them wanted to draw any more negative attention than was already inevitable. No need for them to be graceless about it.

 

[ArmyRick]

I doubt any of them wanted to draw any more negative attention than was already inevitable. No need for them to be graceless about it.

So all you have is it is your OPINION that it was Pierre's leadership and not any actual fact on that. Thats my point.

 

[brihard]

So all you have is it is your OPINION that it was Pierre's leadership and not any actual fact on that. Thats my point.

It’s not monocausal. His botched leadership of the CPC into its present dismal electoral prospects is one of them. His failure to maintain the confidence of his caucus is another, after the first couple left.

He’s the party leader; he owns their successes or failures- after all, that’s leadership, no? He has very clearly led them significantly farther from anything resembling success.

If you choose to believe his leadership is not a factor in shedding several MPs to cross the floor and bring PM Carney to a majority, that’s fine. My opinion, though, is grounded in a lot of evidence.

 

[CBH99]

“Coerced”? Are you suggesting he coerced any MP to cross?

I am indeed.

And by 'coerced' I am meaning the LPC obviously sought out & targeted specific MP's from the official opposition, obviously had backroom discussions with them about leaving the Conservative Party unannounced & joining the LPC, and offered them something of personal or professional benefit to entice them to betray the votes of their constituents and cross the floor...

I say obviously because that's exactly what seems to have happened?


Unless each one of those MP's just decided to cross the floor on a whim, without having been approached first?

And luck would have it each one of them suddenly decided to do so right when the LPC needed them most?



So, in my mind, they were either approached and "persuaded" by the LPC post-election, or they were plants from the start.

Either way, it seems there's been some back room games being played by Carney or by people employed by Carney

...

I am totally open to being wrong here, and I realize that maybe I am.

But I'm not an Ottawa insider, and I'm just going off of what the optics seem to suggest (to me anyway)

 

[ArmyRick]

If you choose to believe his leadership is not a factor i

His leadership MAY very well be the factor. Or it may not be at all. And it is case by case basis.

Your still offering up a subjective view and its your opinion. Bottom line.

So all the people who still stand by Pierre and the CPC? Your not in the heads of any of the CPC MPs, so you can not state with certainty why any of them stay or have left.

Marilyn Gladu goes from blasting the Liberals strongly and 8 days later she crosses the floor?

Matt Jeneroux states he is resigning and not crossing the floor and 2 months later he crosses the floor, stating carney's Davos speech "moved him"?

Michael Ma slams the Liberals and 6 weeks later he crosses the floor?

Chris D'entremount spent years tearing the Liberals apart and crosses the floor a few months after being shut down for going for deputy speaker again?

Here is my OPINION (in other words, I know none of this is cold hard facts), is all of these MPs were tempted by various means and for whatever motivation known only to them.

 

[Grunt_031]

It is one thing to have strong ideas and detailed plans, but there is a real disadvantage when those are not paired with proven skill in managing large organizations and people in a highly charged political environment. This gap becomes especially visible during moments of instability. Plans rarely survive first contact with reality, and when they falter, leaders must rely on judgment, experience, and managerial competence.

The last event of an MP crossing the floor to the Liberal government underscored this weakness. Floor crossings are rarely about policy alone; they often reflect internal dynamics—how effectively leaders manage relationships, maintain cohesion, and resolve conflict within their ranks. In this case, the event exposed the limits of a leadership style that prioritizes messaging over people management. It highlights the contrast between Pierre Poilievre’s relatively thin record of senior-level organizational leadership and Mark Carney’s demonstrated experience managing complex institutions under sustained pressure.

 

[ArmyRick]

It is one thing to have strong ideas and detailed plans, but there is a real disadvantage when those are not paired with proven skill in managing large organizations and people in a highly charged political environment. This gap becomes especially visible during moments of instability. Plans rarely survive first contact with reality, and when they falter, leaders must rely on judgment, experience, and managerial competence.

The last event of an MP crossing the floor to the Liberal government underscored this weakness. Floor crossings are rarely about policy alone; they often reflect internal dynamics—how effectively leaders manage relationships, maintain cohesion, and resolve conflict within their ranks. In this case, the event exposed the limits of a leadership style that prioritizes messaging over people management. It highlights the contrast between Pierre Poilievre’s relatively thin record of senior-level organizational leadership and Mark Carney’s demonstrated experience managing complex institutions under sustained pressure.

Still just an opinion

 

[ArmyRick]

Worth watching (in my OPINION)

 

[ArmyRick]

While I am making more friends here today,

Here is one you want to watch. Lilley and Kinsella, two old political stalwarts who know their game.

 

[Good2Golf]

Switch gears for a minute.

Did we ever get resolution or closure on these Liberal scandals from the same Liberal government in power (with a new boss)

If we didn’t yet get resolution on the Airbus scandal, probably going to be waiting a long time for resolution on your list of ‘only one side does bad things.’

 

[ArmyRick]

If we didn’t yet get resolution on the Airbus scandal, probably going to be waiting a long time for resolution on your list of ‘only one side does bad things.’

Only one side does bad things? Wait did I say that?

DAMN! How about the conservatives and their abuse of tax payers money on $16 Orange juice. There called out the other side.

Airbus scandal? Thats a long reach. Mulroney is in the grave.

These scandals have many people who supported it and tried to Move it along in committees, are still siting in parliament.

 

[Jarnhamar]

There's a big effort to pin MP's leaving the CPC on Poilievre. Bad leadership, bad Poilievre.
That's an over representation on one facet of why sounding leaves a job, or relationship. There are men and women who abandon their families in search of fame, power, and younger conquests.

Is that a reflection of a wife and mom who just couldn't satisfy her man? Or the man just being selfish. Plenty examples of women dling the same thing- rush the divorce, ditch the fam, then cry on social media about how much their life sucks.

Bringing it back to politics; Poilievre bad is one plausible reason, but the multitude of other reasons seemed purposefully ignored.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Canada's U.S. ambassador wants to set aside the 'bluster' as rhetoric around trade heats up

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-u-s-ambassador-wiseman-cusma-talks-9.7174897?shem=dsdf%2Csharefoc%2Cagadiscoversdl%2C%2Csh%2Fx%2Fdiscover%2Fm1%2F4

I get the feeling he won't have to retire like the Air Canada guy.

 

[CBH99]

It’s not monocausal. His botched leadership of the CPC into its present dismal electoral prospects is one of them. His failure to maintain the confidence of his caucus is another, after the first couple left.

He’s the party leader; he owns their successes or failures- after all, that’s leadership, no? He has very clearly led them significantly farther from anything resembling success.

If you choose to believe his leadership is not a factor in shedding several MPs to cross the floor and bring PM Carney to a majority, that’s fine. My opinion, though, is grounded in a lot of evidence.

All fair and valid points Brihard.

On the surface I don't think I disagree you, but I don't know if I fully agree with you either.


I've already made my general opinion known, in that...

- If an elected MP wants to cross the floor to another party, they should have to resign from the party they are leaving & be re-elected as an MP in the party they want to go to in the byelection

- Otherwise you have ridings that voted for A, but got B instead because their own MP basically decided to ignore the votes of the very citizens in their riding who elected them as an MP in the first place.

(If their respective ridings wanted a Liberal MP to represent them, they would have voted for such in the election. But they clearly didn't want that, hence them voting for a Conservative MP to represent them instead.)


I think it's a slap in the face as far as democratic principles are concerned, but I respect that we don't see eye to eye on this issue

...

But you mentioned a few things that I think deserve further scrutiny...

- True, perhaps his leadership style isn't for everyone, and that has perhaps played a factor...

- And true, perhaps some of them want to accomplish something specific that they believe in, and they believe working under the LPC banner will help them further those goals moreso than being a Member of Parliament in an opposition with no power...


But let that last part sink in... an official opposition with no power...

...

So the same political party that has tried constantly, for years, to pass pretty sketchy legislation via omnibus bills, that has more than doubled our national debt (we are now well passed that, and are on our way to triple the national debt)

That has engaged in blatantly criminal activity (we'll just use SNC Lavalin as an easy example here) and then fired their own Attorney General appointee for literally doing exactly what she's supposed to do...

Has passed all kinds of legislation & has proposed even more legislation that permits government censorship & government overreach...

And who has pissed away BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on stupid pet projects & government contracts that specifically benefit party insiders...


And now we have an opposition with no power to protect us.

...

Not because the citizenry voted for that or wanted that.

But because that same sketchy political party that is directly responsible for the last 11 years of Canada's clearly intentional "managed decline" has managed to bribe/persuade/entice people who had been elected to another party to say "F**k my constituents, their votes don't matter..." and cross the floor

(And while the NDP clearly destroyed itself when it's leader ignored the citizenry & kept the LPC in power just long enough for him to get his pension before he f**ked off - I can't help thinking the LPC was well aware they were slowly destroying one of the parties that could possibly threaten their agenda down the road)


Does this sound like a healthy democracy to you?

...

Pierre has been leader of the Conservative Party of Canada for almost 4 years. And prior to that he was still a very vocal, active, popular member of the party.

3 of the 4 MP's that crossed the floor have been with the party since 2015.

Our most recent national election was almost 1 year ago exactly (April 25, 2025)


If Pierre's leadership style is so off-putting, each one of these MP's could easily have ran for the LPC instead. But they didn't.



Anyways, all that just to circle back around to @MilEME09's comment that Carney isn't interested in games.

Respectfully I have to disagree. There seems to be plenty of games afoot, both domestically and internationally.

 

[ArmyRick]

ANother one from one of the parliamentary committees. CPAC just shows parliamentary clips, no reporters or journalist making comments

 

[CBH99]

If we didn’t yet get resolution on the Airbus scandal, probably going to be waiting a long time for resolution on your list of ‘only one side does bad things.’

He didn't suggest only one side does bad things...

He asked if we got any closure to any of the scandals that had been ongoing prior to the election.


And your reply didn't answer that question?

 

[Altair]

The CPC and those who support them have two choices going forward.

Stiff upper lip, chin up, accept that bad things have happened, and move forward determined to not let that define them.

Or they can whine and moan about it for the next 3 years the way losers whine and moan about losing at poker.

One path is serious. Another is infantile.