Today's News: Whew!

Had our Covid and flu shots today so I'm not feeling energetic right now. 

So here's a few items I found about Monday's budget news:

Artwork by Dave Davies

#CanadaBudgetVote Thanks to these five MPs, Canada won't be having a Christmas election! In favour - Green Elizabeth May Abstaining - Tories Matt Jeneroux & Shannon Stubbs + NDPers Gord Johns & Lori Idlout www.ipolitics.ca/2025/11/17/l...

[image or embed]

— Cathie from Canada🍁 (@cathiecanada.bsky.social) November 17, 2025 at 11:34 PM

In The Time Before Last Summer -- like on May 1 -- I said the minority Liberals were simply NOT going to lose a vote on their budget:

And here's news: the Liberals don't actually need another party to vote with them!
The Liberals have 169 seats while the Conservatives and the Bloc have 166 seats in total. Therefore the Liberals actually do have enough seats to pass budgets and laws on their own, even if the Cons and the Bloc vote against them, provided the NDP and Elizabeth May abstain. So ha ha!!!

The seat totals are slightly different now but still, the only thing Carney needed was a few abstentions. I'm glad May voted with the Liberals, so the budget got a little more than just a bare majority.

Here's a interesting observation about today's budget vote, from David Cochrane at CBC - who is such an excellent reporter:

View on Threads

And CBC's John Paul Tasker said this:

The NDP were up front about abstaining to avoid an election. The CPC raged against the budget but had Scheer & Reid abstain, then “blame” the app & vote No in the house once they knew the budget would pass. The CPC didn’t want to trigger an election but couldn’t bring themselves to admit it.

[image or embed]

— True Oak (@trueoak.bsky.social) November 17, 2025 at 8:54 PM

Evan Scrimshaw also reminds us about the situation the NDP are in these days:

...At the end of the day, there was never going to be an election call this week for a simple fucking reason - the NDP aren’t stupid enough to fucking do it. They’re not ready for an election. Are they ever? Who knows, but they’re certainly not now. They’re so lost, they don’t even know what winning would look like. They’re a broken party whose leader is trying to dash a fresh coat of paint on a car whose engine just blew up and half the front is destroyed. And they’re just hurting the people they claim to care about.

Likely the only Canadians disappointed about not getting a Christmas election are in the Ottawa press gallery:

Mark Carney wins a game of chicken to pass his budget #Opinion by the Star's @althiaraj.bsky.social

[image or embed]

— Toronto Star (@thestar.com) November 17, 2025 at 8:06 PM

As @neilforreal.bsky.social replied to this post on Bluesky:

Honestly, this article reads like something from the NY Times Pitchbot: "Mark Carney's government passes its budget and out-manoeuvres Pierre Poilievre -- here's why that's bad for the Liberals."

Coming up next will be the Conservative leadership review in January. 

Last week, political commentator David McLaughlin described the Conservative dilemma:

...Welcome to the “Poilievre gamble” facing Conservatives in January. It’s a simple gamble, simply stated: Do we keep the leader we want but Canadians don’t?
It’s a gamble because of an old political saying, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.” Poilievre’s first impression remains decidedly negative with most voters. An impression based principally on his style, tone and message. They will vote for him only if, and when, one of two things happen.
First, Poilievre needs Prime Minister Mark Carney and the Liberals to wear out their welcome with Canadians by failing to deliver. ...
Second, Poilievre needs to adjust his presentation to become less abrasive and more acceptable to Canadians in what he says and how he says it....
Therein lies the gamble. Ironically, it is the mirror opposite of Poilievre’s own campaign message of Conservatives as “change” and Liberals as “more of the same.”
The party’s dilemma is that neither it, nor its leadership, genuinely wishes to change. They rode to prominence as outsiders of unapologetically assertive conservatism centred around contemporary culture wars of identity politics fueled by populism, grievance and “owning the Libs.” To them, any change is compromise and any compromise is surrender.
They wish to not just win but win in their own way, to prove themselves right and the others wrong. They seek not only a mandate to govern, but a mandate for a vision of conservative change on their own terms.

I think its unlikely that Poilievre or his short-pants brain trust will rise to the occasion - they believe some funny stuff, like that Convoy Canadians represent the "real" Canada:

Finally, on a side note, can anyone imagine Poilievre ever doing such a relaxed interview as Carney did on Sunday at the Grey Cup?

View on Threads