Mark Carney rumour . . .

[Nefarious Banana]

It has been suggested on a local news station that perhaps Chrystia Freeland will be eased out of her Finance position to be replaced by Mark Carney . . . deck chairs/Titanic ?

[ExFlyer]

Does Mark Carney not have to be elected or at least come from the senate??

I think the local news does not know what they are suggesting LOL

This is not the US where the Prime Minister just picks civilians to sit in cabinet positions.

Edited July 11, 2024 by ExFlyer

[Legato]

Another Middle Earther. Frodo would be a little upset.

[Moonbox]

18 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

It has been suggested on a local news station that perhaps Chrystia Freeland will be eased out of her Finance position to be replaced by Mark Carney . . . deck chairs/Titanic ?

What I read was that Trudeau was trying to recruit Carney. 

My guess (or hope?) is that Carney is smart enough not to board this rotten, sinking ship. 

[ExFlyer]

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

What I read was that Trudeau was trying to recruit Carney. 

My guess (or hope?) is that Carney is smart enough not to board this rotten, sinking ship. 

From what I have seen (limited to a few interviews), Carney really likes Trudeau and what he is doing.

I would be wary if he was the leader, it would just be more of the same I think.

But, I think he would beat PP

[Army Guy]

17 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

From what I have seen (limited to a few interviews), Carney really likes Trudeau and what he is doing.

I would be wary if he was the leader, it would just be more of the same I think.

But, I think he would beat PP

I think voters have already made their minds up, Carney may attract some of the votes back to the liberals but at this point in time, whom ever takes over from Justin before the election is going to go down hard...Carney best hopes lies in taking over the party once justin ship is finished burning after the election and try to build his own brand.

The last thing we need in this country right now is someone to keep Justins dreams alive...Canadians want a change, not more of justin in another uniform.

 

[blackbird]

An unelected premier - an unelected cabinet?: Jim Prentice and the Westminster Wiggle

"The years was 1941, and Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King had a problem. Canada was at war, and King needed a strong, unified wartime cabinet to lead a strong, unified country through a time of crisis. The issue of conscription was hugely divisive, and King needed a respected Quebec lieutenant, willing to handle the conscription question. With no one in his cabinet willing or able to meet the task, King took a bold step: he appointed a respected, but unelected, lawyer, Louis St. Laurent, as his minister of justice. St. Laurent held the post, unelected and outside the House of Commons for three months, until he won an eventual by-election."

An unelected premier - an unelected cabinet?: Jim Prentice and the Westminster Wiggle | Edmonton Journal

So could Trudeau appoint somebody like Mark Carney to cabinet even if he is not yet elected?  Yes, of course he could.  It has been done in the past.

 

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

An unelected premier ....

So could Trudeau appoint somebody like Mark Carney to cabinet even if he is not yet elected?  Yes, of course he could.  It has been done in the past.

 

Federal. Not provincial

A cabinet appointment can only come from an elected person or from the senate.

[PIK]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

From what I have seen (limited to a few interviews), Carney really likes Trudeau and what he is doing.

I would be wary if he was the leader, it would just be more of the same I think.

But, I think he would beat PP

Not even close, the.liberal brand Is dead and a elitist banker is not going to change that.

[Moonbox]

8 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

From what I have seen (limited to a few interviews), Carney really likes Trudeau and what he is doing.

He certainly didn't like Trudeau's 2024 budget.  

I get the impression that it's less that he likes what Trudeau is doing, and more that he really doesn't like what PP is offering.  

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, Moonbox said:

What I read was that Trudeau was trying to recruit Carney. 

My guess (or hope?) is that Carney is smart enough not to board this rotten, sinking ship. 

There's no chance of him becoming finance minister i think but he definitely is recruiting him. It's been said that he's been seen talking to gerald butts several times.  And carney has floated some balloons. 

But there's no chance he's the NEXT leader and i doubt he'd be dumb enough to be finance minister, but i think he'd like to get handed a safe seat if he could so they may dangle that. 

 

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

He certainly didn't like Trudeau's 2024 budget.  

I get the impression that it's less that he likes what Trudeau is doing, and more that he really doesn't like what PP is offering.  

He's an environmentalist and a tax and spend liberal.  But - that still puts him right of trudeau. He's not going to like PP's desire to kill the carbon tax, that's for sure.  He's also a bit of an elitist and he does believe in the 'natural ruling class'.  Having said that he got on pretty well with harper. 

[Moonbox]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He's an environmentalist and a tax and spend liberal.

Maybe you can find some examples of his tax-and-spend liberal tendencies?  

Environmentally conscious, perhaps, but tax-and-spend liberal, after what he said about the 2024 budget?

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He's also a bit of an elitist and he does believe in the 'natural ruling class'. 

Yeah god forbid we aim for competence and credentials.  Three-word slogans are all we need for politics.   Axe...the...Tax!  

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Maybe you can find some examples of his tax-and-spend liberal tendencies?  

Sure - But no freak outs like last time i did that for you about this guy. 

At any rate. he runs the FSB. which has on numerous occasions stood behind gov't borrowing and increased taxes for cross border financial transactions and such. He's personally fully in support of the carbon tax and he's also the UN special envoy for climate change and finance and guess what he says will fix the climate? More taxes and the like.  He was also the uk pres for the cop26 climate change conference.  

This guy is no right winger when it comes to money.  As we'll see in a moment

 

Quote

Environmentally conscious, perhaps, but tax-and-spend liberal, after what he said about the 2024 budget?

Well i think we've addressed the 'environmentally conscious' portion - he's a staunch environmentalist who believes climate change is best fought with taxes and centralized control of the economy.  He's not 'environmentally concious", he's hugely invested in the climate change agenda. 

But  onto the budget. 

 He criticized but what did he say? Did he say there's severely too much tax? Did he say that trudeau needed to cut taxes dramatically or the like? 
Nope.  He critisized SOME of the spending, but he is reported to have said":

" Mr. Carney warned of the risks of “constant spending” and too much government subsidies, but he also congratulated the Liberals for their investments in housing and AI.

So he's fine with the gov'ts outrageously useless spending on housing - a crisis they caused. But didn't mention any incentive to get builders to build more. Or reducing immigration to reduce the strain on housing or anything. Just that gov't spending good.  And the gov'ts completely lacklustre ai spending- again rather than stimulate the free market to drive it 

He went on to say 

On his party’s spending plan unveiled last week, Mr. Carney said: “It was a budget about fairness, as we know, and it wasn’t necessarily a budget about growth and resilience – and we need both.”

As an example of a different choice he would make, Mr. Carney said instead of subsidizing one more battery plant, he would have directed the federal purse to pay for a million-plus heat pumps for people who need them most.

It was a budget about FAIRNESS!!!! I Seee- massive massive gov't overspending and borrowing but that's just about FAIRNESS you see 

AND - his solution wasn't to spend less or tax less - HIS SOLUTINO WAS USE GOV"T FUNDS AND TAX MONEY TO BUY EVERYONE AN AIR CONDITIONER. 

There's a tonne  of other examples. He believes in taxes and gov't spending. He's a tax and spend liberal. 

 

Quote

Yeah god forbid we aim for competence and credentials.  Three-word slogans are all we need for politics.   Axe...the...Tax!  

Wow the irony   You're referring in the first part to a man who hasn't served a day in gov't, and in the second part as your 'not competent" example  a guy with a very successful political career and strong accomplishments under his belt that has qualifications out the ying yang. 

Carney isn't qualified to run a gov't. Any more than Iggy was when the libs trotted him out. Any more than trudeau was when they trotted HIM out. He'd be qualified to do a good job as a finance minister perhaps, and give him 8 years or so in gov't in a cabinet position and he might turn out to be leadership material. 

But like everyone keeps trying to tell the liberals - prime minister isn't an entry level job.  Butts can help him a fair bit but only so much.   You don't start at the top in politics and turn out to be a good leader. 

[Moonbox]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

" Mr. Carney warned of the risks of “constant spending” and too much government subsidies, but he also congratulated the Liberals for their investments in housing and AI.

Yep, sounds like a real tax-and-spend Liberal. 🙄

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Yep, sounds like a real tax-and-spend Liberal. 🙄

Umm - yeah. It literally says in that quote you just provided that he congratulated them on gov't spending. 

And he warned of the dangers of 'CONSTANT" spending.  So  'almost constant but not quite constant' seems to be fine 

Further he didn't say they shoudln't be spending as much as they have, he said he'd  have spent it on other things.  "AIR CONDITIONERS FOR ALL MY FRIENDS!! "  LOL  so still very tax and spend. 

I can see the slogan now -  "Vote Carney, he's cool and you will be too!" 

But as usual you deny the very obvious and simple evidence. 

He's a tax and spend elite with no experience running the gov't. Just like the last one. 

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Yep, sounds like a real tax-and-spend Liberal. 🙄

Investments in housing are a waste of money. He should know that. The housing issue is not supply-driven but demand-driven, and the demand is caused by the government's importation of massive numbers of people through multiple streams of temporary workers.  He should know that, too. All the economists seem to. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Investments in housing are a waste of money. He should know that. The housing issue is not supply-driven but demand-driven, and the demand is caused by the government's importation of massive numbers of people through multiple streams of temporary workers.  He should know that, too. All the economists seem to. 

obviously, and even more so if he does believe that the solution is to build more houses then he should be looking for ways to stimulate the market to do so - not praising wasteful gov't expenditure that didn't even build a fraction of what's needed. 

But that's what tax and spend liberals do - they tax, they spend money on projects which wind up costing vastly more money than necessary and don't achieve what was needed in the end.  The guy is useless when it comes to gov't finance. 

 

[Moonbox]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Investments in housing are a waste of money. He should know that.

That's a pretty odd thing to say, considering all the money that people have been making on housing over the last 14 years.  

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The housing issue is not supply-driven but demand-driven, and the demand is caused by the government's importation of massive numbers of people through multiple streams of temporary workers.

Nothing is ever just supply or just demand-driven.  Our housing issue is a +10 year old problem that started getting ugly before Trudeau even became PM.  It was a failure of projecting and planning properly, and what Trudeau is guilty of is making it much worse, not causing it in the first place.  

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

  He should know that, too. All the economists seem to. 

Is that so?  🤔

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's a pretty odd thing to say, considering all the money that people have been making on housing over the last 14 years.  

Do you honestly need it explained to you that the gov't "investment" isn't actually an effort to make money? 

Quote

Nothing is ever just supply or just demand-driven.  Our housing issue is a +10 year old problem that started getting ugly before Trudeau even became PM.  I

 

Nope. Housing prices were tracking upward before then and it could be said that the roots of the issues come from that period but there really wasn't a problem before trudeau.  Harper had cooled the speculation market reversing a liberal initiated increase to the length of mortgages that would have driven costs up, and that stabilized things. 

It wasn't till after 2015 that problems started getting serious or 'ugly', right around the time we started increasing the number of immigrants.  There was no corresponding effort to stimulate housing growth. And then trudeau put the pedal to the metal and things rapidly got out of control. 

This is the liberal party. They campaigned in 2015 on making sure this woudln't happen back when it really wasn't a serious problem yet.  Then they turned it into a disaster of a problem.  

Edited July 14, 2024 by CdnFox

[I am Groot]

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's a pretty odd thing to say, considering all the money that people have been making on housing over the last 14 years.  

We're speaking of government investing in housing.

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Nothing is ever just supply or just demand-driven.  Our housing issue is a +10 year old problem that started getting ugly before Trudeau even became PM.  It was a failure of projecting and planning properly, and what Trudeau is guilty of is making it much worse, not causing it in the first place.  

Is that so?  🤔

“Despite many commendable efforts, in no version of reality can housing supply respond to an almost overnight tripling in the run-rate of new bodies. This is (still) the case of a demand curve running loose.” 

https://betterdwelling.com/canadas-immigration-plan-is-not-viable-in-any-version-of-reality-bmo/

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's a pretty odd thing to say, considering all the money that people have been making on housing over the last 14 years.  

Nothing is ever just supply or just demand-driven.  Our housing issue is a +10 year old problem that started getting ugly before Trudeau even became PM.  It was a failure of projecting and planning properly, and what Trudeau is guilty of is making it much worse, not causing it in the first place.  

Is that so?  🤔

Actually not.

Do we, as a country or government at any level want to become the nations largest rental agency??? Do we want to own all those homes and have to maintain then?

My city already has nothing but issues with the low income housing it owns. Problems with tenants, problems with damage. Problems with constant maintenance and upgrades. Is that what you want? More of that?

Landlords all over are selling their rental units because of the grief tenants give them and then we make laws and rules to protect tenants that have no skin in the game.

Who is going to "invest" if there is no profit or income in the end? I am very sure you are not investing in rental units...and think that you are smart enough to not do that.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Do we, as a country or government at any level want to become the nations largest rental agency??

Well, even tho what you said there is quite correct there's another problem.  There won't be enough homes to rent either. 

When there's enough homes rental and housing tend to work together to keep prices reasonable.  If housing is too high rental absorbs the people who would have bought, sales go down and housing prices undergo downward pressure, making them affordable.  Likewise if rents get too high it tends to push people into buying a house. 

When BOTH are through the roof as a result of too many people and or not enough homes then you get this weird double-pressure where people will pay anything just to have a roof over their heads, and for the bottom end of the wealth spectrum even that becomes all but impossible. 

[ExFlyer]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well, even tho what you said there is quite correct there's another problem.  There won't be enough homes to rent either. 

When there's enough homes rental and housing tend to work together to keep prices reasonable.  If housing is too high rental absorbs the people who would have bought, sales go down and housing prices undergo downward pressure, making them affordable.  Likewise if rents get too high it tends to push people into buying a house. 

When BOTH are through the roof as a result of too many people and or not enough homes then you get this weird double-pressure where people will pay anything just to have a roof over their heads, and for the bottom end of the wealth spectrum even that becomes all but impossible. 

I live in Ottawa. The downtown core is abandoned because the government is allowing the public service to do nothing at home (as opposed to doing little, but supervised) in the office.

The government owns a lot of buildings downtown and it planing on turning many of the office buildings int apartments. The cost of renovations seems to be astronomical and then of course, the upkeep of these 12 to 14 story buildings would be outrages. All to help the housing crisis.

The problem is that downtown , any city, has no infrastructure to support folk, let alone families. No grocery, no stores, no parks, no schools etc. There are hotels that used to be used by bruises when they needed to do workk with the government but if there is no government downtown, they will go out of business too (as some already are) and they are essier and more apt to become apartments.

I do not agree that the government, at any level become landlords and all the associated costs and issues that come with that.

It is interesting that while there is so much banter about cost of housing, there is still a shortage of homes and rentals even at the  prices they are today. Someone is buying and someone is renting...driving up prices. The market seems to be deciding.

[Moonbox]

On 7/14/2024 at 1:36 PM, ExFlyer said:

Actually not.

Do we, as a country or government at any level want to become the nations largest rental agency??? Do we want to own all those homes and have to maintain then?

I'm not sure why you automatically went to that as the only option.  

On 7/14/2024 at 1:36 PM, ExFlyer said:

Who is going to "invest" if there is no profit or income in the end? I am very sure you are not investing in rental units...and think that you are smart enough to not do that.

Again, this is a strange and binary line of reasoning, supposing that the only option the government has is to be come the nations largest rental agency, and that getting involved is going to somehow make private sector investment automatically unprofitable.  There's not much to work with here for forming a response.  😐

Edited July 15, 2024 by Moonbox