Trudeau more unpopular than popular for the first time since election: survey

[Ronaldoescobar]

I think the main questino is: When will JT be jailed for all the scandal?

[JM_]

28 minutes ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

I think the main questino is: When will JT be jailed for all the scandal?

if thats the main question, Scheer is going to be very disappointed. 

[Gurn]

45 minutes ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

I think the main questino is: When will JT be jailed for all the scandal?

Maybe, just maybe, if they find something illegal, and not just stupid?

[surtur]

Can we please just have our National Anthem back?

Out of all the stupid stuff this government has done this one pisses me off the most lol.

[RUPERTKBD]

Neil MacDonald thinks that Philpott and JWR are trying to bring down Trudeau (and apparently don't care how much damage they do to their party to make it happen)

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/at-this-point-the-philpott-wilson-raybould-end-game-is-obvious-—-destroy-trudeau/ar-BBVeBxS?li=AAggNb9

Spoiler

 

Perhaps Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott are acting entirely on principle, laying their bodies across the tracks to protect our democracy and rule of law. Perhaps.

That's their story, anyway. And it's a good one, too, no denying that. A politician cannot buy the kind of hagiography Philpott has enjoyed since she quit Justin Trudeau's cabinet in solidarity with Wilson-Raybould, who is herself now portrayed as single-handedly protecting the justice system's integrity from attacks by crude ward heelers in the PMO. A fellow political columnist suggested last week that Philpott should resign as a Liberal because she is so immensely competent, so strong, and so principled that her fellow party members simply aren't worthy of being in caucus with her.

Mmm-hmm.

In any case, Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are politicians who are being treated as though they aren't politicians, which is every politician's lustiest dream.

Certainly, the two of them have co-ordinated a most politician-like attack on their party leader. I've been in this dodge 43 years now, and I have never seen such exquisite destruction and perfectly timed execution.

And deflection. I assume there is an end game here, and I assume we will see it sooner or later, and I have my own notions about what it is, having once watched Brian Mulroney publicly pretend loyalty to Joe Clark while his operatives worked to bring down Clark's shaky Tory leadership, at one point distributing ABC (Anybody But Clark) buttons, which were to be worn inside the jacket lapel, invisible, but available to be flashed to those in the know. In 1983, Mulroney became leader.

Or having watched, from the media perch above the Commons, Liberal MPs working as operatives for the then-unelected Jean Chrétien in the late '80s, moving from desk to desk, working other members of caucus, as John Turner, the leader they were betraying, sat in his chair a few rows ahead, seemingly oblivious to what was going on just behind him. Chrétien became party leader in 1990.

Or even, that same year, having watched an angry Lucien Bouchard, convinced Quebec had once again been humiliated by the perfidious Anglos, storm out of Brian Mulroney's government, sputtering that a leader's word must be "as straight as the sword of the king,'' as he walked away.

Of those three players, Bouchard was the closest to doing any of it on principle, but even he had an end game. He established and led the Bloc Québécois, creating another political pole in Ottawa, then became premier of Quebec.

Philpott, though, explicitly denies any leadership ambition, or even any ambition to bring down her leader, and so does Wilson-Raybould, and for some reason, most of the parliamentary press gallery seems to be taking them at their word.

Instead of treating the Philpott/Wilson-Raybould moves as a power play, which is pretty clearly what they are, reporters have been swept along in the blast waves the duo created with their resignations and declarations. And please, let's stipulate that they are indeed a duo, not two ingenues who never imagined their principled actions would cause this sort of uproar.

Just last week, Philpott reluctantly and with a heavy heart granted Maclean's an exclusive interview, in which she said there is a lot more still to come in this scandal, despite the Trudeau PMO's attempts to suppress it. She couldn't, of course, say what is coming, because cabinet privilege prevents her from talking about a Jan. 6 discussion with the prime minister, just that the discussion was far more significant than previously reported, and that there is a lot more to the story.

Also, she just wants to make her party better, which is sort of what people who want to get rid of the leader always say.

If the Maclean's interview was intended as a bellows for an already superheated story, it worked. For weeks, reporters in Ottawa have been diving into the weeds, competing for the most incremental scrap.

On Friday, the main headline on the National Newswatch political aggregator was a CBC interview in which a former Commons law clerk declared that the parliamentary privilege Philpott enjoys as an MP frees her to say whatever she likes about her Jan. 6 chat with Trudeau, as long as she says it in the Commons or while sitting on a Commons committee.

Other journalists have observed that the order-in-council Trudeau created to allow Wilson-Raybould and other cabinet confidants to talk about her time as attorney general would apply to Philpott's Jan. 6 discussion, because Wilson-Raybould was still attorney general at that time.

And Trudeau himself seems to have clearly said Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are free to add whatever they wish to the public record concerning Wilson-Raybould's time as attorney general and her cabinet demotion in January. He's spoken about it publicly, and Gerald Butts, Trudeau's former principal secretary, testified in detail about it before the Commons justice committee.

Both ex-ministers, though, say they nonetheless remain constrained by honour and principle. They are not free to reveal misbehaviour by Trudeau and his aides, only to say it exists and tease future revelations. Wilson-Raybould followed up Philpott's interview by declaring she has more facts and evidence for the committee, and will be providing some of it in writing.

So, let's strop up Occam's razor and apply its austere logic to all this.

Might it simply be that Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are being coy because they want to inflict maximum damage on Trudeau from within his own caucus, which they know is the most effective place to do it? Might they intend to push for a leadership review after this fall's election, or, even better, before it?

Trudeau has haplessly insisted that Philpott's and Wilson-Raybould's torpedoes are just proof that the Liberals tolerate a diversity of views in their ranks.

Right. Sorry, but that sounds a lot like the line John Turner peddled when his own MPs were busy knifing him in the back: open party, grassroots discussion, lots of room for dissent, blah, blah, blah.

An old acquaintance who worked in Liberal backrooms a generation ago says he doesn't believe Philpott or Wilson-Raybould are ambitious. This whole thing, he thinks, is a "cascade of dominoes" resulting from principled acts, the purity of which gives the story such sting. There may be no end game, he said, simultaneously conceding that if there isn't, it's a first.

I found Sheila Copps's old-school advice to Trudeau more realistic: They're dangerous. Get rid of them.

At the very least, Wilson-Raybould and Philpott are now objective allies of the Opposition, and any sensible leader would treat them as such. Jean Chrétien absolutely would. Andrew Scheer too, I'd bet.

 

 

It's a bit of a long read, so I've put it in spoilers in deference to those who's intellectual acuity runs the gamut from memes to youtube videos....

[Gurn]

32 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

On Friday, the main headline on the National Newswatch political aggregator was a CBC interview in which a former Commons law clerk declared that the parliamentary privilege Philpott enjoys as an MP frees her to say whatever she likes about her Jan. 6 chat with Trudeau, as long as she says it in the Commons or while sitting on a Commons committee.

Other journalists have observed that the order-in-council Trudeau created to allow Wilson-Raybould and other cabinet confidants to talk about her time as attorney general would apply to Philpott's Jan. 6 discussion, because Wilson-Raybould was still attorney general at that time.

And Trudeau himself seems to have clearly said Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are free to add whatever they wish to the public record concerning Wilson-Raybould's time as attorney general and her cabinet demotion in January. He's spoken about it publicly, and Gerald Butts, Trudeau's former principal secretary, testified in detail about it before the Commons justice committee.

And yet I continue to hear that Trudeau won't let them speak. Fake news.

[Gnarcore]

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Neil MacDonald thinks that Philpott and JWR are trying to bring down Trudeau (and apparently don't care how much damage they do to their party to make it happen)

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/at-this-point-the-philpott-wilson-raybould-end-game-is-obvious-—-destroy-trudeau/ar-BBVeBxS?li=AAggNb9

  Hide contents

 

Perhaps Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott are acting entirely on principle, laying their bodies across the tracks to protect our democracy and rule of law. Perhaps.

That's their story, anyway. And it's a good one, too, no denying that. A politician cannot buy the kind of hagiography Philpott has enjoyed since she quit Justin Trudeau's cabinet in solidarity with Wilson-Raybould, who is herself now portrayed as single-handedly protecting the justice system's integrity from attacks by crude ward heelers in the PMO. A fellow political columnist suggested last week that Philpott should resign as a Liberal because she is so immensely competent, so strong, and so principled that her fellow party members simply aren't worthy of being in caucus with her.

Mmm-hmm.

In any case, Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are politicians who are being treated as though they aren't politicians, which is every politician's lustiest dream.

Certainly, the two of them have co-ordinated a most politician-like attack on their party leader. I've been in this dodge 43 years now, and I have never seen such exquisite destruction and perfectly timed execution.

And deflection. I assume there is an end game here, and I assume we will see it sooner or later, and I have my own notions about what it is, having once watched Brian Mulroney publicly pretend loyalty to Joe Clark while his operatives worked to bring down Clark's shaky Tory leadership, at one point distributing ABC (Anybody But Clark) buttons, which were to be worn inside the jacket lapel, invisible, but available to be flashed to those in the know. In 1983, Mulroney became leader.

Or having watched, from the media perch above the Commons, Liberal MPs working as operatives for the then-unelected Jean Chrétien in the late '80s, moving from desk to desk, working other members of caucus, as John Turner, the leader they were betraying, sat in his chair a few rows ahead, seemingly oblivious to what was going on just behind him. Chrétien became party leader in 1990.

Or even, that same year, having watched an angry Lucien Bouchard, convinced Quebec had once again been humiliated by the perfidious Anglos, storm out of Brian Mulroney's government, sputtering that a leader's word must be "as straight as the sword of the king,'' as he walked away.

Of those three players, Bouchard was the closest to doing any of it on principle, but even he had an end game. He established and led the Bloc Québécois, creating another political pole in Ottawa, then became premier of Quebec.

Philpott, though, explicitly denies any leadership ambition, or even any ambition to bring down her leader, and so does Wilson-Raybould, and for some reason, most of the parliamentary press gallery seems to be taking them at their word.

Instead of treating the Philpott/Wilson-Raybould moves as a power play, which is pretty clearly what they are, reporters have been swept along in the blast waves the duo created with their resignations and declarations. And please, let's stipulate that they are indeed a duo, not two ingenues who never imagined their principled actions would cause this sort of uproar.

Just last week, Philpott reluctantly and with a heavy heart granted Maclean's an exclusive interview, in which she said there is a lot more still to come in this scandal, despite the Trudeau PMO's attempts to suppress it. She couldn't, of course, say what is coming, because cabinet privilege prevents her from talking about a Jan. 6 discussion with the prime minister, just that the discussion was far more significant than previously reported, and that there is a lot more to the story.

Also, she just wants to make her party better, which is sort of what people who want to get rid of the leader always say.

If the Maclean's interview was intended as a bellows for an already superheated story, it worked. For weeks, reporters in Ottawa have been diving into the weeds, competing for the most incremental scrap.

On Friday, the main headline on the National Newswatch political aggregator was a CBC interview in which a former Commons law clerk declared that the parliamentary privilege Philpott enjoys as an MP frees her to say whatever she likes about her Jan. 6 chat with Trudeau, as long as she says it in the Commons or while sitting on a Commons committee.

Other journalists have observed that the order-in-council Trudeau created to allow Wilson-Raybould and other cabinet confidants to talk about her time as attorney general would apply to Philpott's Jan. 6 discussion, because Wilson-Raybould was still attorney general at that time.

And Trudeau himself seems to have clearly said Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are free to add whatever they wish to the public record concerning Wilson-Raybould's time as attorney general and her cabinet demotion in January. He's spoken about it publicly, and Gerald Butts, Trudeau's former principal secretary, testified in detail about it before the Commons justice committee.

Both ex-ministers, though, say they nonetheless remain constrained by honour and principle. They are not free to reveal misbehaviour by Trudeau and his aides, only to say it exists and tease future revelations. Wilson-Raybould followed up Philpott's interview by declaring she has more facts and evidence for the committee, and will be providing some of it in writing.

So, let's strop up Occam's razor and apply its austere logic to all this.

Might it simply be that Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are being coy because they want to inflict maximum damage on Trudeau from within his own caucus, which they know is the most effective place to do it? Might they intend to push for a leadership review after this fall's election, or, even better, before it?

Trudeau has haplessly insisted that Philpott's and Wilson-Raybould's torpedoes are just proof that the Liberals tolerate a diversity of views in their ranks.

Right. Sorry, but that sounds a lot like the line John Turner peddled when his own MPs were busy knifing him in the back: open party, grassroots discussion, lots of room for dissent, blah, blah, blah.

An old acquaintance who worked in Liberal backrooms a generation ago says he doesn't believe Philpott or Wilson-Raybould are ambitious. This whole thing, he thinks, is a "cascade of dominoes" resulting from principled acts, the purity of which gives the story such sting. There may be no end game, he said, simultaneously conceding that if there isn't, it's a first.

I found Sheila Copps's old-school advice to Trudeau more realistic: They're dangerous. Get rid of them.

At the very least, Wilson-Raybould and Philpott are now objective allies of the Opposition, and any sensible leader would treat them as such. Jean Chrétien absolutely would. Andrew Scheer too, I'd bet.

 

 

It's a bit of a long read, so I've put it in spoilers in deference to those who's intellectual acuity runs the gamut from memes to youtube videos....

In what world was that a long read?  

[RUPERTKBD]

9 minutes ago, Gnarcore said:

In what world was that a long read?  

In the world of people who think silly memes are an argument....I think you know to whom(s) I am referring...

[JM_]

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Neil MacDonald thinks that Philpott and JWR are trying to bring down Trudeau (and apparently don't care how much damage they do to their party to make it happen)

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/at-this-point-the-philpott-wilson-raybould-end-game-is-obvious-—-destroy-trudeau/ar-BBVeBxS?li=AAggNb9

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Perhaps Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott are acting entirely on principle, laying their bodies across the tracks to protect our democracy and rule of law. Perhaps.

That's their story, anyway. And it's a good one, too, no denying that. A politician cannot buy the kind of hagiography Philpott has enjoyed since she quit Justin Trudeau's cabinet in solidarity with Wilson-Raybould, who is herself now portrayed as single-handedly protecting the justice system's integrity from attacks by crude ward heelers in the PMO. A fellow political columnist suggested last week that Philpott should resign as a Liberal because she is so immensely competent, so strong, and so principled that her fellow party members simply aren't worthy of being in caucus with her.

Mmm-hmm.

In any case, Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are politicians who are being treated as though they aren't politicians, which is every politician's lustiest dream.

Certainly, the two of them have co-ordinated a most politician-like attack on their party leader. I've been in this dodge 43 years now, and I have never seen such exquisite destruction and perfectly timed execution.

And deflection. I assume there is an end game here, and I assume we will see it sooner or later, and I have my own notions about what it is, having once watched Brian Mulroney publicly pretend loyalty to Joe Clark while his operatives worked to bring down Clark's shaky Tory leadership, at one point distributing ABC (Anybody But Clark) buttons, which were to be worn inside the jacket lapel, invisible, but available to be flashed to those in the know. In 1983, Mulroney became leader.

Or having watched, from the media perch above the Commons, Liberal MPs working as operatives for the then-unelected Jean Chrétien in the late '80s, moving from desk to desk, working other members of caucus, as John Turner, the leader they were betraying, sat in his chair a few rows ahead, seemingly oblivious to what was going on just behind him. Chrétien became party leader in 1990.

Or even, that same year, having watched an angry Lucien Bouchard, convinced Quebec had once again been humiliated by the perfidious Anglos, storm out of Brian Mulroney's government, sputtering that a leader's word must be "as straight as the sword of the king,'' as he walked away.

Of those three players, Bouchard was the closest to doing any of it on principle, but even he had an end game. He established and led the Bloc Québécois, creating another political pole in Ottawa, then became premier of Quebec.

Philpott, though, explicitly denies any leadership ambition, or even any ambition to bring down her leader, and so does Wilson-Raybould, and for some reason, most of the parliamentary press gallery seems to be taking them at their word.

Instead of treating the Philpott/Wilson-Raybould moves as a power play, which is pretty clearly what they are, reporters have been swept along in the blast waves the duo created with their resignations and declarations. And please, let's stipulate that they are indeed a duo, not two ingenues who never imagined their principled actions would cause this sort of uproar.

Just last week, Philpott reluctantly and with a heavy heart granted Maclean's an exclusive interview, in which she said there is a lot more still to come in this scandal, despite the Trudeau PMO's attempts to suppress it. She couldn't, of course, say what is coming, because cabinet privilege prevents her from talking about a Jan. 6 discussion with the prime minister, just that the discussion was far more significant than previously reported, and that there is a lot more to the story.

Also, she just wants to make her party better, which is sort of what people who want to get rid of the leader always say.

If the Maclean's interview was intended as a bellows for an already superheated story, it worked. For weeks, reporters in Ottawa have been diving into the weeds, competing for the most incremental scrap.

On Friday, the main headline on the National Newswatch political aggregator was a CBC interview in which a former Commons law clerk declared that the parliamentary privilege Philpott enjoys as an MP frees her to say whatever she likes about her Jan. 6 chat with Trudeau, as long as she says it in the Commons or while sitting on a Commons committee.

Other journalists have observed that the order-in-council Trudeau created to allow Wilson-Raybould and other cabinet confidants to talk about her time as attorney general would apply to Philpott's Jan. 6 discussion, because Wilson-Raybould was still attorney general at that time.

And Trudeau himself seems to have clearly said Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are free to add whatever they wish to the public record concerning Wilson-Raybould's time as attorney general and her cabinet demotion in January. He's spoken about it publicly, and Gerald Butts, Trudeau's former principal secretary, testified in detail about it before the Commons justice committee.

Both ex-ministers, though, say they nonetheless remain constrained by honour and principle. They are not free to reveal misbehaviour by Trudeau and his aides, only to say it exists and tease future revelations. Wilson-Raybould followed up Philpott's interview by declaring she has more facts and evidence for the committee, and will be providing some of it in writing.

So, let's strop up Occam's razor and apply its austere logic to all this.

Might it simply be that Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are being coy because they want to inflict maximum damage on Trudeau from within his own caucus, which they know is the most effective place to do it? Might they intend to push for a leadership review after this fall's election, or, even better, before it?

Trudeau has haplessly insisted that Philpott's and Wilson-Raybould's torpedoes are just proof that the Liberals tolerate a diversity of views in their ranks.

Right. Sorry, but that sounds a lot like the line John Turner peddled when his own MPs were busy knifing him in the back: open party, grassroots discussion, lots of room for dissent, blah, blah, blah.

An old acquaintance who worked in Liberal backrooms a generation ago says he doesn't believe Philpott or Wilson-Raybould are ambitious. This whole thing, he thinks, is a "cascade of dominoes" resulting from principled acts, the purity of which gives the story such sting. There may be no end game, he said, simultaneously conceding that if there isn't, it's a first.

I found Sheila Copps's old-school advice to Trudeau more realistic: They're dangerous. Get rid of them.

At the very least, Wilson-Raybould and Philpott are now objective allies of the Opposition, and any sensible leader would treat them as such. Jean Chrétien absolutely would. Andrew Scheer too, I'd bet.

 

 

It's a bit of a long read, so I've put it in spoilers in deference to those who's intellectual acuity runs the gamut from memes to youtube videos....

saw that this morning. Man Neil is salty in semi-retirement 

 

he makes a good argument tho. Otherwise Philpott nuked her political career for nothing. My wife's theory is that this is misguided #metoo "justice" so that could explain it as well. 

[JM_]

16 hours ago, surtur said:

Can we please just have our National Anthem back?

Out of all the stupid stuff this government has done this one pisses me off the most lol.

if thats your biggest issue you are one lucky guy. 

[RUPERTKBD]

32 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

saw that this morning. Man Neil is salty in semi-retirement 

 

he makes a good argument tho. Otherwise Philpott nuked her political career for nothing. My wife's theory is that this is misguided #metoo "justice" so that could explain it as well. 

What I can't figure out is why they both plan to run again as Liberals. After pretty much destroying the brand from the inside, now they want to be back benchers in the opposition?

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

What I can't figure out is why they both plan to run again as Liberals. After pretty much destroying the brand from the inside, now they want to be back benchers in the opposition?

that was Salty Neils point - they may either 1. have an eye on the leadership, or 2. a bigger role in a new government not run by Trudeau. But they already had important roles, which leads us to my wife's theory about misguided #metoo punishment of Trudeau. 

 

But backbencher is an easy gig, one hell of a pension is attached to that sucker after only 2 terms. 

[RUPERTKBD]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

that was Salty Neils point - they may either 1. have an eye on the leadership, or 2. a bigger role in a new government not run by Trudeau. But they already had important roles, which leads us to my wife's theory about misguided #metoo punishment of Trudeau. 

 

But backbencher is an easy gig, one hell of a pension is attached to that sucker after only 2 terms. 

I guess....

 

But to me, it's kind of like Anson Carter deciding to sign with a lottery team and play on the third line, instead of staying with the Sedins....

[Shift-4]

17 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

What I can't figure out is why they both plan to run again as Liberals. After pretty much destroying the brand from the inside, now they want to be back benchers in the opposition?

The liberals won't lose.

[RUPERTKBD]

1 minute ago, Shift-4 said:

The liberals won't lose.

Are you sure about that Shifty? I'd be willing to bet that Strome can show you a poll that says otherwise....

[Shift-4]

On 3/26/2019 at 12:37 PM, RUPERTKBD said:

Are you sure about that Shifty? I'd be willing to bet that Strome can show you a poll that says otherwise....

Like this one?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trudeau-now-has-a-lower-approval-rating-than-trump-with-tories-way-ahead-ipsos-poll/ar-BBVkpyo?li=AAggFp5

 

I'm still not buying it.

My reasons would be the leaders of the NDP and Conservatives. I would post their pictures but no one would recognize them.

[JM_]

18 minutes ago, Shift-4 said:

Like this one?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trudeau-now-has-a-lower-approval-rating-than-trump-with-tories-way-ahead-ipsos-poll/ar-BBVkpyo?li=AAggFp5

 

I'm still not buying it.

My reasons would be the leaders of the NDP and Conservatives. I would post their pictures but no one would recognize them.

I'm still thinking Liberal minority at best at this point. I think the polls as they stand today are probably pretty accurate tbh, but its also at a low point where Trudeau has taken a massive "social justice" blow by JWR and Philpott. It remains to be seen how he climbs out, I suspect he will somewhat as people really consider their choices.

 

Like always the election campaign itself and the tv debates will be critical, people really need to ask themselves if they want to vote for baby-Harper directly, or vote split by voting green or NDP just because they're upset over JWR.

 

If people on the left choose "outrage" and vote split and they end up with Scheer.... well, you get the government you deserve. 

 

 

[RUPERTKBD]

1 hour ago, Shift-4 said:

Like this one?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trudeau-now-has-a-lower-approval-rating-than-trump-with-tories-way-ahead-ipsos-poll/ar-BBVkpyo?li=AAggFp5

 

I'm still not buying it.

My reasons would be the leaders of the NDP and Conservatives. I would post their pictures but no one would recognize them.

I don't know about that, but I agree that they're both poor choices. Problem is, it seems like many have decided that Trudeau's slip ups are so egregious, that even a guy like Andrew Scheer is preferable.

[Shift-4]

6 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I don't know about that, but I agree that they're both poor choices. Problem is, it seems like many have decided that Trudeau's slip ups are so egregious, that even a guy like Andrew Scheer is preferable.

Devil they don't know can work in politics

[RUPERTKBD]

1 minute ago, Shift-4 said:

Devil they don't know can work in politics

True dat. Problem is, they should know, but their distaste for JT is blinding them...