• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

For a time, a unit I worked in included the Minister's 'correspondence unit'. I had nothing to do with it but the lengthy and convoluted process of crafting the perfect letter - one that says absolutely nothing of substance - was a thing to behold.
Oh, the days of drafting and redrafting briefing notes on behalf of the boss while knowing full well that the boss's end state was to ensure a contentious decision could not be rendered on a particular topic until well after the boss was posted.
 
Oh, the days of drafting and redrafting briefing notes on behalf of the boss while knowing full well that the boss's end state was to ensure a contentious decision could not be rendered on a particular topic until well after the boss was posted.


Disgust Mouth Open GIF
 
Paul has an update:


To me it appears the government is doing this probe because it has to not because it wants to do it.
Oh absolutely.

Can we expect a government that has at least a scandal per week to want opposition parties or independent parties to probe their nonsense?

A narcissistic PM and Deputy PM who have run our country into the dirt partially our of intentional malice, and partially due to sheer incompetence aren't going to be thrilled about probes when they know their performance is piss poor, even if they do try to do something good.

(Call me skepticle, but it seems Iike anytime they've ever tried to do something good it has a sinister undertone to it...)
 
Oh absolutely.

Can we expect a government that has at least a scandal per week to want opposition parties or independent parties to probe their nonsense?

A narcissistic PM and Deputy PM who have run our country into the dirt partially our of intentional malice, and partially due to sheer incompetence aren't going to be thrilled about probes when they know their performance is piss poor, even if they do try to do something good.

(Call me skepticle, but it seems Iike anytime they've ever tried to do something good it has a sinister undertone to it...)
I mean, you did say you might be sounding like a conspiracy theorist 😏
 
Oh, the days of drafting and redrafting briefing notes on behalf of the boss while knowing full well that the boss's end state was to ensure a contentious decision could not be rendered on a particular topic until well after the boss was posted.
A few times I had to get involved in requests for funding from Treasury Board (I don't know what the feds called them). It was one thing if it was something we had been working on and had a fair bit of background detail, but a few times it was from an announcement out of the blue by the Premier or Minister because some Klingon in their office said it was a good idea. I learned very quickly that an acceptable reason for funding is not 'cuz the Minister said so'.
 
I used to meet with Dr Nipa Banerjee at the Embassy in Kabul. She was the resident head of CIDA and I ran the CIMIC project office out of Julien. She would have me watch out for interesting projects that CIDA would fund. All I needed to do was the feasabilty analysis, make sure it was geared toward women or girls and write up the proposal.

Long story short, after she read my first proposal, she asked a couple of questions and said something like, " We'll have tea and I will tell you how to write to senior government." The stuff she said was an eye opener. When I returned with the proposal she made me go and rewrite, it looked nothing like my original, but she accepted it.

Now, one of the thing she had me do was to change words like manhours and manpower to peoplehours and personpower. I had to degender everything. That was 15 years before we heard “We like to say ‘peoplekind,’ not necessarily ‘mankind,’ because it’s more inclusive.” at a town hall.
 
I used to meet with Dr Nipa Banerjee at the Embassy in Kabul. She was the resident head of CIDA and I ran the CIMIC project office out of Julien. She would have me watch out for interesting projects that CIDA would fund. All I needed to do was the feasabilty analysis, make sure it was geared toward women or girls and write up the proposal.

Long story short, after she read my first proposal, she asked a couple of questions and said something like, " We'll have tea and I will tell you how to write to senior government." The stuff she said was an eye opener. When I returned with the proposal she made me go and rewrite, it looked nothing like my original, but she accepted it.

Now, one of the thing she had me do was to change words like manhours and manpower to peoplehours and personpower. I had to degender everything. That was 15 years before we heard “We like to say ‘peoplekind,’ not necessarily ‘mankind,’ because it’s more inclusive.” at a town hall.

mike speaking GIF by South Park
 
... For a time, a unit I worked in included the Minister's 'correspondence unit'. I had nothing to do with it but the lengthy and convoluted process of crafting the perfect letter - one that says absolutely nothing of substance - was a thing to behold.
Oh, the days of drafting and redrafting briefing notes on behalf of the boss while knowing full well that the boss's end state was to ensure a contentious decision could not be rendered on a particular topic until well after the boss was posted.
Even better: a motivational speaker came by a GoC office (a regional office, part of, yet far away from, a Borg-like HQ in the 613/819 area code) to pep up the troops a bit.

One of the things he told the group was that if we saw something was not right, or that needed improving, hell, write to the Minister and tell them if you really feel strongly enough about it!

What he didn't know was that in that particular system, the correspondence request would (with at least 85% probability) come back to whoever wrote it (or someone in their unit) to craft the response.
 
Toronto Star Tonda MacCharlesOttawa Bureau Chief -3 Feb 24

A former Canadian ambassador to Washington says Justin Trudeau should ditch the anti-Trump “MAGA Conservative” rhetoric directed at the Liberals’ Canadian political rivals.David MacNaughton, who cochaired the Ontario campaign for Trudeau’s 2015 election victory, says it’s neither a wise domestic political strategy nor is it smart for Canada-U.S. relations.

In an interview Friday, MacNaughton said the prime minister is taking a risk by being seen to take swipes at Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, in a U.S. presidential election year.MacNaughton — who Trudeau hailed as key to Canada’s successful renegotiation of NAFTA with the Trump administration — worries there could be “blowback” if Trump wins and decides to set his sights on Canada.

Taking indirect shots at Trump would make it a lot harder to fight against Trump’s promised 10 per cent tariffs on U.S. imports, or to persuade a new Trump administration that the Trudeau government is a trusted partner on defence and security, he suggested.“I would be trying to make sure that there weren’t any huge blowups in our relationship with the Americans between now and our (Canadian) election,” he added...Moreover, MacNaughton said there’s no indication that drawing such a contrast would be a winning electoral strategy for the Liberals here at home.

Public opinion research suggests a large percentage of Canadians feel the country is taking the wrong direction or that it’s time for a change in government, MacNaughton said. He drew a comparison to the electorate’s mood in 2015 when people “were tired of (Conservative prime minister) Stephen Harper. They wanted a change.”At that time, MacNaughton said, Trudeau was offered all kinds of advice on what kind of campaign to run.

The reality, however, was that the public mood was such that Trudeau “didn’t have to be spectacular, he just had to be a change from what Stephen Harper was,” he said.“Well, you know what? We’re almost in exactly the same situation.”Attacking Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre “by itself isn’t going to work anyway,” he said. “And secondly, trying to draw a comparison with Donald Trump … why would you run the risk?”

In MacNaughton's opinion, the bigger challenge for the Trudeau Liberals is to persuade Canadians that they understand the world has changed dramatically since their 2015 election, and even since the most recent election in 2021.
He said they need to demonstrate they understand the economic pain and anxieties that stem from a changed global order, and are prepared to make changes to how they govern — not that they will continue to do more of the same. He suggested if Harper had admitted to mistakes and promised to govern differently in 2015, it may have posed a "dilemma" for the Trudeau campaign back then.

The Liberals have announced a revival of what they call a “Team Canada” approach to getting ready for whoever wins the next U.S. election, but MacNaughton’s view, first reported by Politico, is that the Trudeau government should “do the strategy. You don’t talk strategy.”

When MacNaughton departed the ambassador post in 2019, Trudeau praised him as a “trusted adviser, friend, and counsellor … whose honesty, moderation, and wisdom were pivotal to Team Canada in our successful renegotiation of NAFTA.”
He said the reality now, even with a Democrat currently in the White House, is that it is a time of "increased isolationism and protectionism" and Canada is "vulnerable.”

“We need to be seen by the Americans as a trusted friend, ally, partner and, you know, right now, I don't think that feeling is as strong as it has been," he said. "And that's not just this government’s fault. That’s been going on for some time.”

MacNaughton has shared his view with senior Liberals, but is at a loss to explain why Trudeau — who has criticized Poilievre’s “ideologically driven MAGA Conservatives” in Parliament — thinks the attacks will work.
“I don’t understand it,” he said.

The Star has reported on polling data that also suggests Canadians are not persuaded by the Liberals' Trump-Poilievre comparisons.

The Conservatives did not respond Friday to a request for comment.
Conservative MP Randy Hoback, who has long worked on Canada-U.S. issues, recently said the Canada-U.S. relationship is too critical to be jeopardized in order to score “domestic political points.”

“Trudeau and his caucus must end their repeated jabs south of the border … His actions are hazardous to our economy and to our national security,” Hoback wrote in an online post.

Trudeau is not the only Canadian political leader to take shots at Trump.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, the Liberals’ governing ally in Parliament, last month warned that a Trump election victory would be bad for Canada. Trump is “openly running on an egomaniac, vengeance-filled motive to become the president, and it is incredibly disturbing to watch this," Singh said.

"Donald Trump frankly, is in a … world of his own. The things that he has done, the things that he says, the type of person he is, there is no other comparison to someone who is as bad for democracy, as bad for people, as bad for the planet as Donald Trump.
 
Toronto Star Tonda MacCharlesOttawa Bureau Chief -3 Feb 24

A former Canadian ambassador to Washington says Justin Trudeau should ditch the anti-Trump “MAGA Conservative” rhetoric directed at the Liberals’ Canadian political rivals.David MacNaughton, who cochaired the Ontario campaign for Trudeau’s 2015 election victory, says it’s neither a wise domestic political strategy nor is it smart for Canada-U.S. relations.

In an interview Friday, MacNaughton said the prime minister is taking a risk by being seen to take swipes at Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, in a U.S. presidential election year.MacNaughton — who Trudeau hailed as key to Canada’s successful renegotiation of NAFTA with the Trump administration — worries there could be “blowback” if Trump wins and decides to set his sights on Canada.

Taking indirect shots at Trump would make it a lot harder to fight against Trump’s promised 10 per cent tariffs on U.S. imports, or to persuade a new Trump administration that the Trudeau government is a trusted partner on defence and security, he suggested.“I would be trying to make sure that there weren’t any huge blowups in our relationship with the Americans between now and our (Canadian) election,” he added...Moreover, MacNaughton said there’s no indication that drawing such a contrast would be a winning electoral strategy for the Liberals here at home.

Public opinion research suggests a large percentage of Canadians feel the country is taking the wrong direction or that it’s time for a change in government, MacNaughton said. He drew a comparison to the electorate’s mood in 2015 when people “were tired of (Conservative prime minister) Stephen Harper. They wanted a change.”At that time, MacNaughton said, Trudeau was offered all kinds of advice on what kind of campaign to run.

The reality, however, was that the public mood was such that Trudeau “didn’t have to be spectacular, he just had to be a change from what Stephen Harper was,” he said.“Well, you know what? We’re almost in exactly the same situation.”Attacking Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre “by itself isn’t going to work anyway,” he said. “And secondly, trying to draw a comparison with Donald Trump … why would you run the risk?”

In MacNaughton's opinion, the bigger challenge for the Trudeau Liberals is to persuade Canadians that they understand the world has changed dramatically since their 2015 election, and even since the most recent election in 2021.
He said they need to demonstrate they understand the economic pain and anxieties that stem from a changed global order, and are prepared to make changes to how they govern — not that they will continue to do more of the same. He suggested if Harper had admitted to mistakes and promised to govern differently in 2015, it may have posed a "dilemma" for the Trudeau campaign back then.

The Liberals have announced a revival of what they call a “Team Canada” approach to getting ready for whoever wins the next U.S. election, but MacNaughton’s view, first reported by Politico, is that the Trudeau government should “do the strategy. You don’t talk strategy.”

When MacNaughton departed the ambassador post in 2019, Trudeau praised him as a “trusted adviser, friend, and counsellor … whose honesty, moderation, and wisdom were pivotal to Team Canada in our successful renegotiation of NAFTA.”
He said the reality now, even with a Democrat currently in the White House, is that it is a time of "increased isolationism and protectionism" and Canada is "vulnerable.”

“We need to be seen by the Americans as a trusted friend, ally, partner and, you know, right now, I don't think that feeling is as strong as it has been," he said. "And that's not just this government’s fault. That’s been going on for some time.”

MacNaughton has shared his view with senior Liberals, but is at a loss to explain why Trudeau — who has criticized Poilievre’s “ideologically driven MAGA Conservatives” in Parliament — thinks the attacks will work.
“I don’t understand it,” he said.

The Star has reported on polling data that also suggests Canadians are not persuaded by the Liberals' Trump-Poilievre comparisons.

The Conservatives did not respond Friday to a request for comment.
Conservative MP Randy Hoback, who has long worked on Canada-U.S. issues, recently said the Canada-U.S. relationship is too critical to be jeopardized in order to score “domestic political points.”

“Trudeau and his caucus must end their repeated jabs south of the border … His actions are hazardous to our economy and to our national security,” Hoback wrote in an online post.

Trudeau is not the only Canadian political leader to take shots at Trump.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, the Liberals’ governing ally in Parliament, last month warned that a Trump election victory would be bad for Canada. Trump is “openly running on an egomaniac, vengeance-filled motive to become the president, and it is incredibly disturbing to watch this," Singh said.

"Donald Trump frankly, is in a … world of his own. The things that he has done, the things that he says, the type of person he is, there is no other comparison to someone who is as bad for democracy, as bad for people, as bad for the planet as Donald Trump.

We are so screwed...

Canada is preparing for a second Trump presidency. Trudeau says Trump ‘represents uncertainty’​



Trump as president called Trudeau “weak” and “dishonest” and attacked Canada’s vital trade. He threatened tariffs on cars and imposed them on steel. The unprecedented tone against one of Washington’s closest allies left a bitter taste, and most Canadians were relieved that Trump was defeated in 2020.

“Whether it was his attacks on farmers across Canada, whether it was his attacks on steel and aluminum workers, or whether it was his determination to tear up the free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, we were able to stand strong and renegotiate NAFTA,” Trudeau said. “That was difficult.”

Canada is one of the most trade-dependent countries in the world, and Trump’s move to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement and call for the imposition of a 25% tariff on the auto sector posed an existential threat. More than 75% of Canada’s exports go to the U.S.

 
Toronto Star Tonda MacCharlesOttawa Bureau Chief -3 Feb 24

A former Canadian ambassador to Washington says Justin Trudeau should ditch the anti-Trump “MAGA Conservative” rhetoric directed at the Liberals’ Canadian political rivals.David MacNaughton, who cochaired the Ontario campaign for Trudeau’s 2015 election victory, says it’s neither a wise domestic political strategy nor is it smart for Canada-U.S. relations.

In an interview Friday, MacNaughton said the prime minister is taking a risk by being seen to take swipes at Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, in a U.S. presidential election year.MacNaughton — who Trudeau hailed as key to Canada’s successful renegotiation of NAFTA with the Trump administration — worries there could be “blowback” if Trump wins and decides to set his sights on Canada.

Taking indirect shots at Trump would make it a lot harder to fight against Trump’s promised 10 per cent tariffs on U.S. imports, or to persuade a new Trump administration that the Trudeau government is a trusted partner on defence and security, he suggested.“I would be trying to make sure that there weren’t any huge blowups in our relationship with the Americans between now and our (Canadian) election,” he added...Moreover, MacNaughton said there’s no indication that drawing such a contrast would be a winning electoral strategy for the Liberals here at home.

Public opinion research suggests a large percentage of Canadians feel the country is taking the wrong direction or that it’s time for a change in government, MacNaughton said. He drew a comparison to the electorate’s mood in 2015 when people “were tired of (Conservative prime minister) Stephen Harper. They wanted a change.”At that time, MacNaughton said, Trudeau was offered all kinds of advice on what kind of campaign to run.

The reality, however, was that the public mood was such that Trudeau “didn’t have to be spectacular, he just had to be a change from what Stephen Harper was,” he said.“Well, you know what? We’re almost in exactly the same situation.”Attacking Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre “by itself isn’t going to work anyway,” he said. “And secondly, trying to draw a comparison with Donald Trump … why would you run the risk?”

In MacNaughton's opinion, the bigger challenge for the Trudeau Liberals is to persuade Canadians that they understand the world has changed dramatically since their 2015 election, and even since the most recent election in 2021.
He said they need to demonstrate they understand the economic pain and anxieties that stem from a changed global order, and are prepared to make changes to how they govern — not that they will continue to do more of the same. He suggested if Harper had admitted to mistakes and promised to govern differently in 2015, it may have posed a "dilemma" for the Trudeau campaign back then.

The Liberals have announced a revival of what they call a “Team Canada” approach to getting ready for whoever wins the next U.S. election, but MacNaughton’s view, first reported by Politico, is that the Trudeau government should “do the strategy. You don’t talk strategy.”

When MacNaughton departed the ambassador post in 2019, Trudeau praised him as a “trusted adviser, friend, and counsellor … whose honesty, moderation, and wisdom were pivotal to Team Canada in our successful renegotiation of NAFTA.”
He said the reality now, even with a Democrat currently in the White House, is that it is a time of "increased isolationism and protectionism" and Canada is "vulnerable.”

“We need to be seen by the Americans as a trusted friend, ally, partner and, you know, right now, I don't think that feeling is as strong as it has been," he said. "And that's not just this government’s fault. That’s been going on for some time.”

MacNaughton has shared his view with senior Liberals, but is at a loss to explain why Trudeau — who has criticized Poilievre’s “ideologically driven MAGA Conservatives” in Parliament — thinks the attacks will work.
“I don’t understand it,” he said.

The Star has reported on polling data that also suggests Canadians are not persuaded by the Liberals' Trump-Poilievre comparisons.

The Conservatives did not respond Friday to a request for comment.
Conservative MP Randy Hoback, who has long worked on Canada-U.S. issues, recently said the Canada-U.S. relationship is too critical to be jeopardized in order to score “domestic political points.”

“Trudeau and his caucus must end their repeated jabs south of the border … His actions are hazardous to our economy and to our national security,” Hoback wrote in an online post.

Trudeau is not the only Canadian political leader to take shots at Trump.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, the Liberals’ governing ally in Parliament, last month warned that a Trump election victory would be bad for Canada. Trump is “openly running on an egomaniac, vengeance-filled motive to become the president, and it is incredibly disturbing to watch this," Singh said.

"Donald Trump frankly, is in a … world of his own. The things that he has done, the things that he says, the type of person he is, there is no other comparison to someone who is as bad for democracy, as bad for people, as bad for the planet as Donald Trump.

Any comparing of Trump and PP as being the same or similar is unwise. People aren’t stupid or blind.

If the LPC wants to be convincing they just need to highlight PP politics not Trump politics.
 
Any comparing of Trump and PP as being the same or similar is unwise. People aren’t stupid or blind.

If the LPC wants to be convincing they just need to highlight PP politics not Trump politics.

I understand that some Canadians agree with Pierre Poilievre.
 
Any comparing of Trump and PP as being the same or similar is unwise. People aren’t stupid or blind.

If the LPC wants to be convincing they just need to highlight PP politics not Trump politics.
Justin Trudeau seems to be modeling himself after the Scorpion, of Scorpion and the Frog, lore. Still intent on crossing the river, he won’t make it, not for lack of the Frog’s trying, but his inherent nature that cannot be changed.
 
Well, I never said they would follow my advice lol…hardcore JT or PP believers won’t be swayed one way or another.

Indeed. Definitely the mark of increased polarization across all regions of the political spectrum in Canada. No one party is holding a monopoly on being set in their ways to the exclusion of considering those concerns that keep the majority of Canadian’s awake at night.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top