It's rigged. The Liberal leadership 'race'. It was over the minute Carney announced he was running. I believe the Liberal Party establishment convinced him to run by telling him he was a shoo-in.
That's the conclusion I have come to after watching the 'debates', which were actually carefully choreographed non-debates.
Other data points:
- By late January Carney had already received the endorsement of more than 50 Liberal Caucus members and most of the Cabinet, including the most high profile members.
- Carney has reportedly raised an astounding $4 million, mostly from big money Liberal donors.
- Liberal Party advisers and pollsters have been appearing on TV for weeks saying the contest was over.
- We've started hearing about the results of polls that say the Liberals are within striking distance of the Conservatives, and even leading them, with Carney at the head. A massive turn around. No mention of how they would do with Freeland or the other candidates as leader.
And most of this before Carney, who is basically an unknown in Canadian politics, made a single major public appearance (except on John Stewart's show, oddly).
What's the point of having a 'debate'? Oh yeah, a coronation always attracts a large TV audience.
It's clear the federal election campaign has already started. The leadership was decided weeks before Donald Trump upended the game by threatening Canada's sovereignty. It's too bad.
I watched both 'debates.'
The French event was a snorer. With the exception of Frank Baylis, a Montrealer, the candidates struggled to express themselves. Owing to low or no expectations, I'd say Baylis performed the best. Freeland and Gould were at least comprehensible and did fine. I could barely understand a word Carney was saying.
The English broadcast last night was much more interesting owing to the candidates linguistic comfort. Carney shows little in the way of having a personality, and he communicates like a technocrat, as one might expect from his CV. He said nothing worth repeating (unlike the night before when he mangled his French into seeming to support Hamas). Baylis outperformed expectations again, bringing fresh ideas and detailed plans to the table. He demonstrated a command of policy and has thought carefully about his proposals. His problem, beside being a former backbencher and Party outsider, is that he lacks charm, charisma and that certain energy that a leader needs to inspire others. Gould was refreshing. She spoke clearly and energetically, but I found her youthfulness off-putting. She was a bit too touchy-feely when she repeated that her approach would always be about 'people' not 'policy and programs'. I can not imagine her as Prime Minister, and certainly not the PM who would have to stand up for Canada against the likes of Donald Trump. To my mind, only Freeland struck the exact balance of tone and content required. She demonstrated her mastery of subject matter and communicated accessibly, clearly, at times personally, as well as with precision and pugnacious energy. There was no doubt in my mind that Freeland had outperformed the others by a mile.
Imagine my surprise when the panel re-convened on the CBC post-debate show, and barely mentioned Freeland once. Only veteran political broadcaster Rosemary Barton mentioned, almost in passing, that she thought Freeland did well. The entire discussion was about whether Carney had done 'enough' and the consensus appeared to be that Gould 'held the stage', as the Liberal advisor on the panel put it. It was as if everyone was conspiring to sideline Freeland, and to focus on the 'frontrunner' Carney, and promote Gould because she's no threat to Carney but appeals to young voters which is a demographic the Liberals desperately need to bring back into the fold. The Liberal panelist at one point referred to Gould's shining moment when she talked about how policy affects farmers. I thought to myself, hey wasn't it Freeland who said that? I remember it distinctly because she mentioned that she was raised on a farm (Gould was brought up in Burlington Ontario and talked about being the daughter of a small business owner). That was the moment I realized it's all been rigged against Freeland.
And why should it be rigged against Freeland? The only reason I can think of is that she betrayed Trudeau (after he betrayed her) in the way she resigned (before being demoted). Behind the scenes, I can imagine Trudeau marshalling all his support and connections within the Party - can it be coincidence that Anand, Blair, Leblanc and Jolie, all top Trudeau loyalists, immediately came out in support of Carney - to make sure Freeland wouldn't have a chance. A final act of political retribution before he departs the stage. Call me cynical, but politics is a dirty, spiteful game.
This morning I voted for Freeland. Damn them all.
No comments:
Post a Comment