Tag Archives: Avi Lewis

On the “need” to be excited about American primaries

Posted on by
3

I got a lot of comments over Bluesky yesterday after my post about Avi Lewis, so I thought I would make a couple of things clear. First of all, when I was talking about “big money” in Canadian elections, I was referring specifically to nomination contests (because Lewis was speaking about primaries) and elections. I am fully aware that big monied interests lobby the government and try to influence policy. That’s not the same thing as using money to influence election outcomes. You may think they’re the same thing because of the American framing and context, but it’s really not.

Secondly, the fact that he “needs” to be excited about “democratic socialists” making gains in the US is exactly what I was referring to about pandering to the extremely online crowd. He doesn’t need to be excited, because it has nothing to do with Canada. Nothing. The NDP, as supposed democratic socialists or social democrats (depending on which member of the party you ask) already exists here as a separate party from the Liberals. There is absolutely nothing to be gained in Canada by latching onto these supposed gains, which may very well be for naught. (These extremely online NDP voices were also really excited about the “gains” made by Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, and neither of them achieved any power, and the latter broke his own party and set his successor up for failure). In addition, the “democratic socialists” in the States are promising things that are the norm in Canada, like single-payer healthcare, or social programs that we already have. Being excited because they are trying to do things we already have is weird.

I get that there are people who are excited about Zohran Mamdani, but again, there is no possible application that this can have for Canada, particularly at the federal level, because again, we don’t have an intra-party struggle for ideological dominance happening. The NDP and the Liberals are separate parties. In addition, all of that “excitement” about Mamdani has led NDP leaders in different provinces and federally to take the wrong lessons. Mamdani’s success was as much about a campaign about fixing everyday things for ordinary people as it was about leftwing ideological purity. As a mayor, he can fix things that affect ordinary people, and that’s much, much harder to do at the federal level. Instead, we get Marit Stiles trying to emulate his video style, and Avi Lewis talking about government-run grocery stores with absurd levels of subsidies that don’t make any logical sense. This is just trying to ride on coat-tails for the extremely online crowd, but social media is not real life. I’m not sure that anyone with any authority in the NDP federally or in Ontario understands that, which again, is why I make the observations that I do.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-06T19:08:02.228Z

My Latest:

My column notes that with provincial RCMP contracts up for renewal in 2032, this is the perfect opportunity to end those contracts and dismantle the broken, toxic force.

Continue reading →

Avi Lewis more concerned about US primaries

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote a week ago about how NDP leader Avi Lewis is screaming to obscurity and irrelevance the longer he doesn’t get a seat, and lo, he proves to me that he continues to avoid learning a single gods damned lesson from his predecessor. To wit:

https://bsky.app/profile/avilewis.ca/post/3mse6qtrc3c2p

That’s right. He’s exhilarated by a US primary contest. Oh, and “big money” is not a factor in Canadian politics. We’ve had donation limits and have banned corporate money for almost a quarter century now.

Of course there are many factors shaping this shift, most unique to the US.But there is an underlying feeling that we share in Canada, and its importance cannot be overstated.

— Avi Lewis (@avilewis.ca) 2026-08-05T18:45:41.033Z

Yes, this is entirely unique to the US, because we don’t have primary contests, nomination contests are much, much smaller affairs, and WE DON’T HAVE BIG MONEY IN CANADIAN POLITICS!

People are furious with ultra rich, powerful elites.The social contract has been broken. People who work for a wage or salary (not a dividend or bonus) just can’t make the household math make sense.And we’re looking up at the unlimited wealth of the 1% and we are pissed.

— Avi Lewis (@avilewis.ca) 2026-08-05T18:45:41.034Z

Are they? Because a whole lot of Canadians decided they were just fine with Banker Daddy™, and his numbers keep rising in spite of his having proven himself to be a fraud on so very many files.

This groundswell of populist rage is legitimate, and it’s a completely predictable consequence of our economic system and how it has been managed for the last 50 years.The desire to push back against the smug arrogance and creepy impunity of elites is a defining force in politics today.

— Avi Lewis (@avilewis.ca) 2026-08-05T18:45:41.035Z

It will either be harnessed by progressive politics, to balance the scales of society and make a fairer economy for all…Or it will fuel fascism.That’s the choice. And happily, it's up to us!

— Avi Lewis (@avilewis.ca) 2026-08-05T18:45:41.036Z

Yes, it could fuel fascism, particularly because how the populist right and left define “elites” are very different, and it has nothing to do with money. And if he doesn’t realise that, well, that’s a problem.

Which is why I’m so grateful to be doing the work of rebuilding the NDP into a national fighting force for the working class, and to see so many people rushing through the wide-open doors of our movement.

— Avi Lewis (@avilewis.ca) 2026-08-05T18:45:41.037Z

You’re not going to turn the NDP into a federal fighting force without a seat. It’s just not going to happen. Eventually he’ll learn that lesson, and waste a year or two in the process before he does, and then wonder why he’s constantly trying to play catch-up. And then he’ll wonder why his message doesn’t resonate in Canada, because he continues to cater to a very small group of very online people obsessed with American politics, while offering absolutely nothing that is relevant up here. Had he paid the slightest bit of attention to the political fortunes in his own party for the better part of the past decade, he might recognise that fact, but as we can see, he has refused to learn any of those lessons, and so he’s going to keep repeating his predecessor’s mistakes, and wind up in the same place his predecessor did. Funny how that works.

My Latest:

My Loonie Politics Quick Take notes that we seem to have avoided emergency committee meeting season this summer (as the Liberals have a working majority).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking what advice on appointments?

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney once again said on Wednesday that Senate appointments will be made “in due course,” which doesn’t help when nearly ten percent of the Chamber’s seats are vacant or will be before summer is out, but for the first time, he indicated that he would be preserving the independent appointment committees. Sort of. (Currently only the federal members of these committees remain in place, and those for Nova Scotia, but none of the other provinces). “I will take into account the advice of the independent advisory committee that was established by my predecessor,” was what Carney said.

The problem is that’s not actually saying anything. Taking advice into account? Either these committees will be providing short-lists for appointments that Carney will choose from, or they won’t be. That was the point—they took the applications (which was always a mistake—they should have been doing the searching for worthwhile nominees to tap on the shoulder), vetted them, and honed them down to the short-lists, which Trudeau would then choose from, because he remains constitutionally responsible for those appointments. But what “advice” are they supposed to be offering if not a short-list of candidates? Will he look at their list and then decide to choose one of his friends from another hedge fund or big bank? Will he give them a list to do due diligence on? Maybe. None of this is clear, and it looks like he either doesn’t understand this responsibility that is part of his office, or he doesn’t care, and I’m not sure which is worse at this point when he’s been in office for a year now.

Meanwhile, Carney also said that he’s waiting on the joint parliamentary committee report before coming to any decision on the MAiD expansion for irremediable mental health issues, but it cannot be understated that said committee has been an absolute sham process. The two co-chairs are hostile to MAiD and have stacked the witnesses to be overwhelmingly against it, and have sidelined groups like major national psychological and psychiatric organisations who might actually argue that they can provide adequate safeguards. This is just going to result in more Charter litigation, and so many people will continue to suffer needlessly because a bunch of MPs and senators were too squeamish to actually listen to evidence that they didn’t want to hear.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-06T19:08:02.023Z

Ukraine Dispatch

In spite of Ukraine giving Russia an early start to their Victory Day ceasefire, Russia attacked several cities in eastern Ukraine, killing at least 27 people. The new Hungarian government returned to Ukraine the confiscated $82 million USD in cash and gold that was seized while transiting the country.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/2051983745297617183

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reading into the Spring Update

Posted on by

There was a bit of a dust-up, if we can call it that, online over the weekend, following Althia Raj’s weekend column, in which she calls out the fact that while Carney claims he’s protecting social programmes, he is in fact cutting them along with transfers to provinces. And she’s not wrong in the fact that there is a lot of sunsetting funding with no indication that it’s being renewed again, which makes it hard for provinces or organisations to plan on what their future funding will be. Enter Tyler Meredith, who was an economic advisor to Justin Trudeau (but who is now out of government), and he took issue with Raj’s assertions in this thread:

https://twitter.com/tylermeredith/status/2050715852773695646

And I take his point that no decisions have been made on any of this funding that is due to sunset, but I also think he’s being a bit overly generous with the government on some things, such as the creation of a personal support workers’ tax credit as “proof” that the government is being too bro-focused. One tax credit does not a care economy/women’s state make, particularly one that is that low. And to that end, Raj gave her own response in this thread:

And she brings the receipts when it comes to what’s in the documents, particularly around how Carney’s rhetoric around things like pharmacare not matching the reality on the ground, where there is a half-assed programme in a few provinces, which has not been extended to all others in the past year, and which seems to be no closer to negotiating toward the creation of an actual national programme, beyond the things the NDP insisted on in the dumbest way possible. Which brings me to this point that Mike Moffatt made about the two exchanges:

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/2050943140949856708

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/2050945741221195827

The Carney government doesn’t like to give a lot of details, and relies an awful lot on saying “just trust me” to a whole lot of things, which it really shouldn’t do. And then for everyone to get upset because they we can’t read minds or scry into the future is a problem in trying to communicate to the public. We’re not getting good information out of this government, and that needs to change, and these exchanges are a perfect encapsulation of that.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone hit a bus in Kherson, killing two and injuring seven others. Ukraine struck the port of Primorsk, the largest oil export port on the Baltic Sea.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Thirteen cherry-picked charts

Posted on by

Ahead of the spring economic update, the National Post ran a story that contained thirteen charts that they claim were proof that Justin Trudeau delivered a “lost decade” to the Canadian economy. To absolutely no one’s surprise, the charts were awfully selective in how they presented the data, because everybody has decided that they have a vested interest in creating an image of how much Trudeau “doomed” the country. And to be perfectly fair, Mark Carney himself has engaged in these kinds of rhetorical games, which his insistence on using the “new government” moniker has been nothing more than an effort to disassociate himself with his predecessor.

To wit: yes, we fell behind the US on GDP per capita because we rapidly increased our population while the US didn’t, and that increase staved off an economic downturn post-pandemic, until everyone decided to start scapegoating those same immigrants for provinces under-investing in housing and healthcare capacity. The rise in business insolvencies? Mostly a post-pandemic correction when a lot of businesses that would not have survived did only because of those pandemic supports, and the levels are returning close to the pre-pandemic baseline. The number of self-employed freefalling? Again, this was because of the pandemic because a whole lot of those self-employed got stiffed by the companies they invoiced and they didn’t get paid, so they took salaried jobs. I can’t speak was much to the number of high-value start-ups fleeing Canada other than the fact that many of them specifically set themselves up to sell to American companies because that’s where the money was. Total investment per worker declining? My dudes, corporate Canada decided they don’t care about productivity because they only want to be rent-seekers, so that’s what they do. Climbing cost of living? The chart is without context to demonstrate how we compare internationally given the inflation spike late in the pandemic, where Canada did far better than most of our comparators. Home prices? The chart cuts off at 2015 so it doesn’t show that they also doubled under Harper, but this is mostly a provincial/municipal problem as the federal government has very few levers for the problems of charges and zoning. Public sector rising faster than private sector? What does that include? Does it include provinces? Does it include nurses or teachers? How does it compare to under-investment and cuts in the Harper years? Again, context matters. Federal deficits? Have you seen the state of the world? Healthcare wait times? That’s provincial—how are you trying to pin that on Trudeau? He gave plenty of transfers to provinces that got put on their bottom lines to pay down deficits rather than hiring nurses or expanding capacity. The rise in the violent crime severity index? The piece scapegoats this on immigrants, again without any context for how those figures are way down from historical highs.

It’s shitty journalism, but this is the kind of thing that the we’ve come to expect from the Post, simply in service of a narrative.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-27T13:17:49.975Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Odesa early Monday wound up injuring fourteen, and hit residential buildings and a hotel. A worker at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, still under Russian control, was killed in a drone attack.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Boulerice reaches for the exit

Posted on by

Multiple sources have confirmed to multiple news outlets that NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice is about to pull the plug and make the jump to provincial politics, running for Québec Solidaire in the upcoming election. Boulerice is the sole survivor of the 2011 “Orange Wave” that swept Quebec and made inroads into metro Toronto, but in many ways, Boulerice has been a reminder of the party’s failure to capitalise on the gains they made in that election, particularly in Quebec.

The most obvious failure was the party’s inability to cultivate grassroots in the province. Riding associations in most of the province existed on paper only, and they had a habit of running paper candidates for the sole purpose of being able to say they ran candidates in every riding so that they could maximise their spending caps. In the 2011 election, you had a group of McGill students who were placed as paper candidates in several ridings they had never visited, as well as a bar manager from Carleton University, and because of the fluke of Quebec voting emotionally for “Le Bon Jack” after Jack Layton had his bout of cancer and he would wave his cane everywhere, these paper candidates won. But did they do the work of actually building grassroots organisations at this point? Nope. Because the NDP is a party where they consider their federal and provincial wings to be the same organisation, they tend to leave their provincial wings to do the grassroots organising, and well, there isn’t a provincial NDP in Quebec, and so they didn’t, and they paid for it when Quebec’s mood shifted.

The party did try to start up a provincial wing at one point, running candidates in a provincial election, but they failed miserably and got nowhere with it, in part because the NDP didn’t know what it wanted to be in Quebec, where there is already a crowded field that is complicated by federalist, separatist and (ethnic) nationalist convictions, and I seem to recall there was a whole issue of trying to discern just which Quebec NDP MPs were actually separatists. Suffice to say, that provincial failure still wasn’t enough of a lesson for them, and their only anchor in the province was Boulerice, and now he’s leaving. Avi Lewis has ruled himself out of running in that riding (which they will likely lose), and in Beaches—East York once Nate Erskine-Smith steps down in the coming weeks, meaning he is going to make himself irrelevant much the way that Jagmeet Singh did when he won his own leadership contest. If anything, this makes the job of rebuilding the party’s fortunes even harder, and there aren’t enough Zohran Mamdani gimmicks in the world that they can imitate to fix that.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone attack on Odesa early Friday killed an elderly couple and wounded more than a dozen others. There was a prisoner exchange yesterday, swapping 193 captured personnel on each side. President Zelenskyy was in Saudi Arabia to develop their new security agreement. Here is a look at the problems facing Chernobyl after drone strikes in the area.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney’s Forward Guidance

Posted on by

On Sunday morning, prime minister Mark Carney released a ten-minute piece on his YouTube channel called “Forward Guidance,” because he’s still doing his central banker shtick, and it was a direct-to-camera (with three other cameras intercutting) discussion about the place we find ourselves in. Most of this was not new, repeating the same lines from past speeches including the one at Davos, while promising to never sugarcoat things—but he kind of did. I also have to question why this had to be over YouTube and not a speech in the House of Commons, which is why there is allotted time every day for ministers to make statements if they so choose. This could have been done there.

Carney pointed to a “statue” of Isaac Brock that Mike Myers gave him, but by statue he meant two-inch figurine, and that led him to launch into a whole War of 1812 narrative about the people who built this country, which, okay, sure, but you’re not doing much to show you’re not just the second coming of Stephen Harper. When he talked about the building of big things in the post-war period, this is again where things got a bit sugar-coated because there was still complexity to these old projects, and usually practices that would be unacceptable today for good reason. (I also noted that he mentioned universities being built in this period, without mention of the fact that provincial governments are in the process of dismantling our university systems). He also spoke about protecting social programmes (except for letting the funding of a bunch of groups who deliver services lapse), and he mentions pharmacare like it’s not limited to two types of drugs in a handful of provinces. And further sugar-coating was essentially by omission—the fact that so many Canadian businesses have become apathetic to growth or increasing productivity because they have taken the lesson that all they need to do is become rent-seekers.

Predictably, Pierre Poilievre decided he was going to have something to say about this, and that it was all just an illusion because nothing has actually been built yet (because you can build things overnight). He railed about Carney just enriching “well-connected elites,” but Poilievre’s whole scheme is to double down on trickle-down economics, which by definition enriches a small group of elites because the money does not, in fact, trickle down. Melissa Lantsman put out her own rebuttal that included the incredulous and false claim that the Liberals have cost the economy a trillion dollars in the past decade, which is completely fiscally illiterate, but that’s how the Conservatives roll.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-19T23:08:01.392Z

Ukraine Dispatch

There was a massive overnight attack Saturday on Chernihiv which killed a sixteen-year-old boy, and wounded others. Ukraine is continuing its own drone strikes on Russian oil facilities in Samara, occupied Crimea, and the Baltic Sea.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The thing about windfall taxes

Posted on by

In the discussion over “pausing” the excise tax on gasoline and diesel, and the Conservatives’ demands that all other fuel charges be scrapped (including the clean fuel standard which is not a charge or a tax), versus the NDP’s call for a price cap and windfall tax, there hasn’t been a lot of discussion about what those will mean.

Enter economist Kevin Milligan, who has a good thread explaining the problem with windfall taxes, and why those advocating for them have a lot more explaining to do when it comes to just how they see them being implemented.

Adam asks a fair question here that has been bandied about. Let me offer two arguments against a windfall tax that I would wager FIN officials would make when advising cabinet on what to do. I'll also offer my own assessment of the two arguments.1/

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:15:37.601Z

Why would FIN argue against an oil/gas windfall tax?FIN Arg #1: Ideally we set taxes in advance and then let firms and people make their choices based on those taxes. Changing taxes <i>ex post</i> risks upsetting investors who would view this as a mark of an unstable unserious country.

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:17:39.157Z

My response: Yes, ideally we set taxes ex ante and let firms/people decide what to do. Changing that ex post is like reneging. All true. But I do think FIN overindexes on this argument. Every time we change taxes we literally 'renege' on the status quo./3

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:19:52.099Z

If you took the 'no tax changes ex post' argument completely as sacrosanct, it essentially argues for no tax changes ever. That's silly.I also note the "no ex post changes because we're not a banana republic" argument only gets hauled out when it's a tax *increase*. Why not symmetric? Hmmm…/4

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:21:48.449Z

Why would FIN argue against an oil/gas windfall tax?FIN Arg #2: How do you define a "windfall"? What is this year's profit? What is last year's profit? You realize these are accounting numbers, subject to lots of choice variables for shifting between tax years, right? /5

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:24:09.737Z

Fin Arg #2 cont'd: The concern is that you'd end up with a lot of accounting gaming and not as much revenue as you'd think. A lot of time/effort/dollars spent on creating the tax law to minimize gaming. A lot of time/effort/dollars spent by firms avoiding a windfall tax law./6

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:25:51.216Z

My take on accounting and windfall taxes:I recall reading historical precedents around WW2 (?) that outlined how much effort it was relative to the revenue. I recall that being persuasive. (Don't have the source at my fingertips….)But I take the windfall tax accounting issue seriously./7

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:28:08.463Z

So, my advice to those who advocate for a windfall tax? The thing you could do to overcome government resistance is to look seriously at the accounting issues involved.Chanting slogans is one thing. Overcoming implementation barriers is maybe less fun, but necessary to gettin stuff done./end

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:31:43.152Z

It only boils down to 'let the rich have their way' if you assume that windfall tax advocates aren't capable of getting their accounting shit together. Why be so defeatist?I outlined a path for advocates. If the response is 'gee that sounds hard' that's not my prob.bsky.app/profile/open…

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:40:14.904Z

I'm not here to blow sunshine and tell you that hard things are easy. Hard things are hard. If you're determined you can do them. But if you don't want to do the work then I'm not going to take the proposal seriously.

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:42:31.333Z

It’s clear that Avi Lewis hasn’t actually thought any of this through. He was on Power & Politics last night and kept trying to handwave away the questions about this plan, and it just kept boiling down to “oil companies bad.” I do think it’s a problem that we’re not seizing on this opportunity to make long-term investments to get off of our dependence on fossil fuels like the French did with their transition to nuclear in the seventies and eighties (because so much European power relied on Middle Eastern fossil fuels up until the oil embargo in the seventies), but nobody seems to want to have that conversation, and Carney has been pretty adamant that he thinks there is a future in the fossil fuel sector. It’s too bad we have no grown-ups who can have a serious conversation about this.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia fired missiles into Kyiv early this morning, killing thirteen so far including twelve-year-old child and wounding several others. This was after more missile and drone attacks were made through the day, which included hitting an apartment building in Odesa. Ukraine’s army has been introducing new drone infantry capabilities, which has resulted in retaking more territory from Russian occupation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A by-election sweep

Posted on by

The Liberals managed to win all three by-elections last night—University–Rosedale and Scarborough Southwest were handy victories, but Terrebonne was more of a squeaker but the Liberals pulled out in the end. A number of TV outlets held by-election specials just so that they could declare a “majority government” for Mark Carney (even though that’s not a real thing—government is government, meaning Cabinet, and it doesn’t change based on the composition of parliament, so it would be a majority parliament). Things won’t change right away—it’ll be a few weeks before the results are certified and they can take their seats, but the writing is now on the wall, which I’ll write more about in a longer piece.

This is a time to come together so we can build a Canada strong for all.My statement on today's by-elections in University—Rosedale, Scarborough Southwest, and Terrebonne.

— Mark Carney (@mark-carney.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T04:29:06.436Z

Pierre Poilievre marked the occasion with a tantrum post, while his MPs are assuring journalists that no, they’re not planning on forcing him out, and they have all been making loud and obsequious declarations of loyalty over social media in the wake of those floor-crossings, just to drive home the point. He also has no intention of resigning, because that would require some introspection and he is clinically incapable of doing so.

He's totally not mad, you guys. So very not mad.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T03:42:21.056Z

Pierre Poilievre’s Personal Assistant Explains Why He’s Totally Not Mad About Carney’s Majorityyoutu.be/fkduTKAuLn8

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T01:49:05.787Z

Avi Lewis’ first day

On the first sitting day back since his leadership win, Avi Lewis was in Ottawa with a fresh demand for government in order to make it look like he’s springing into action—to force government to ban so-called surveillance pricing, even though it’s not really a thing in Canada, at least not in stores (online is a different story), but it was his demand. But in his first press conference, he got chippy with the journalists who wanted to ask about other issues of the day, and in particular to ask his foreign affairs critic, Heather McPherson, about the blockade in Iran, and he refused to let her answer. So that wasn’t good, and I’m amazed that there wasn’t an experienced comms person on hand to stop him from making such an ass of himself on his first time out. I also noted that Lewis said he would be in Ottawa “from time to time,” which is another mistake. Jagmeet Singh tried only showing up on Wednesdays for his first year, and it nearly buried him. So much for learning lessons from past failures.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-13T19:08:01.694Z

Ukraine Dispatch

One person was killed in the Donetsk region on Sunday in spite of the supposed “Easter ceasefire.” Russian drones attacked the port of Izmail overnight, damaging a Panama-flagged vessel.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The benefit of the doubt for Gladu

Posted on by

The Liberal convention is happening this weekend in Montreal, and it’s in part a way that prime minister Mark Carney is putting his stamp on the party now that he’s been leader for a year. It’s a different kind of convention—claimed to be the largest policy convention in the party’s history, and there are no American Democrats giving keynote speeches for the party faithful to fangirl over for a change—the keynote was Canadian Rick Hansen, which again, is a marked shift from years past.

Of course, so much of the oxygen is being taken up by the recent floor-crossers, Marilyn Gladu most especially, and while you have news stories talking about a “mixed reaction,” there is nevertheless a sense that pervades the quotes across news stories that delegates are Carney fans, and that they’re giving him the benefit of the doubt for welcoming them into the party, particularly if it gets them to a majority parliament that will being some stability. Chris d’Entremont and Matt Jeneroux have made comments of their own about feeling secure in their decisions, while progressive Liberals like Karina Gould and Stephen Guilbeault are couching their reservations about Gladu into an optimism that she knew what she was signing up for when she crossed over. For her part, Gladu is also talking about how she hopes this move will benefit her riding, though governments aren’t really supposed to favour only ridings they hold (even though it happens, especially provincially).

As for policy, it has been noticed that there isn’t much talk about Trump, even though he continues to dominate the political airwaves and is giving Carney much of his raison d’être for what he’s doing. There are policy resolutions on banning social media for minors, or limiting use of chatbots (but nobody seems to understand the massive problems associated with age verification).

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that they are facing pressure both military as spring arrives, but also diplomatically as allies want them to stop hitting Russian oil and gas facilities as prices are so high. Farmers in Ukraine are now being hit by high fertilizer prices thanks to the Iran conflict.

Continue reading →