I hadn't heard that this was likely to happen. Any Canadians here able to weigh on whether this was expected or is a normal procedure for your elected officials?
Generally, governments in Canada are voted out in roughly 9-year intervals. Trudeau took office in 2015, so nothing unusual there. Moreover, Trudeau is exiting with approval ratings just a percent below his predecessor, Stephen Harper (22% vs. 23%, respectively). So, in a wider sense, this is not so unusual. But we're facing a trade war with the States and less-than-joking threats of annexation, so it's a bad moment to have our leadership in a shakeup.
This is the crux of the issue honestly. Trudeau should have had the humility to read the writing on the wall in the fall, and stepped down so we could have a stable government to deal with the incoming US administration and give his party a fighting chance next election.
He could have rested on his laurels knowing history would likely forget his shortcomings & scandals, and be remembered as the prime minister who got us legal weed, navigated the covid pandemic, brought clean drinking water to FN reserves and advanced social programs (childcare, dental care).
Instead he's likely going to be known as the prime minister who had to be forcibly walked to the door by Canadians and his party, while leaving the country in a precarious position during tumultuous times.
Here's the primary problem with your argument: the current front-runner to win the next election is the Conservative Party of Canada, with Pierre Poilievre as leader, and pretty much a shoo-in for the next Prime Minister.
Poilievre is a career politician who's only professional experience has been as a politician, has no work history to speak of (don't take my word for it, his wikipedia entry details only a job as a collection agent, and that he started a business in 2003 focused on political communications, and then was elected in 2004).
Poilievre has spent the last several years in the lead up to becoming the party leader for the CPC cozying up to the alt-right, supporting the anti-vax movement, and hasn't published any meaningful policy documentation.
Poilievre is basically the last man standing from Stephen Harpers administration (in terms of policies and practices), and has failed to drive or pass any meaningful legislation or policy changes in his 20 year career. His victory in the 2022 CPC leadership campaign was a landslide, but also suffered from allegations of foreign interference from India and China. There is still an outstanding report on foreign interference due on January 31st.
Trudeau's greatest mistake was not implementing the electoral change he campaigned on, which likely would have marked a long term shift toward more left leaning social policies along side centrist fiscal policies, which have typically characterized Canadian society. Unfortunately, unless a very compelling alternative to the CPC emerges in the next 3 months, we will most likely get a government lead by a sock-puppet who lacks any real strength to negotiate with a presumably hostile incoming US administration, and the official party line from other Conservative groups in Canada appears to be appeasement and concession.
> Trudeau's greatest mistake was not implementing the electoral change he campaigned on
Agreed. In an over-simplification,
- first past the post is the best for the Conservatives. (It was best for the Liberals before the Reform & Conservatives merged).
- single transferable is the best for the Liberals
- mixed-member proportional is the best for the NDP
Trudeau thought the electoral commission would give him the STV he wanted, but it was going to deliver MMP that would pretty much guarantee that he would have to coalition with the NDP. So he nixed it. He ended up with an NDP coalition anyways, so he didn't gain anything through the nixing. Instead FPTP is going to result in a Conservative landslide in 2025.
I wish you and others had just considered the NDP platform which has always supported electoral reform (MMP) and cannabis legalization. Two planks the Liberals "stole" in order to win (and one which they then promptly threw away).
Mulcair was ahead in the polls first half of that election. Trudeau came out of third place to win with his lie about electoral reform and by refusing to answer the question about the religious discrimination laws being introduced in Quebec.
Things could have gone very differently. Mulcair was a much more competent politician than Trudeau, and the NDP platform was more balanced. Though it may have been a challenge for him to assemble a fully competent cabinet.
Look at the NDP party this last term for their true colors. A leader who in his own words votes against a no-confidence vote made up of his very own words. Is an equal partner in every decision the liberal government made this term with their coalition.
A wolf in sheep disguise. I didn't want PP to be the next prime minister for comments in parent of the thread, but who else is going to win this running now?
I guess I'm not sure how you can fully square the two statements here.
- You don't want PP to be PM
- You're angry at the NDP for not voting to bring Trudeau down (and effectively make PP the PM)
I share your frustration with the NDP under Singh. But I'm not sure what alternative he has, tactically. Voting down the government at this juncture would only have led to an election that would have brought PP to power as PM. Which is notably not in the NDP's interests. (Or, I'd argue, the public's)
But, yes, I understand it tactically. But it's strategically inept. For 4 years the NDP has "won the battle but lost the war" -- all the policy planks they forced the Liberals to adopt will simply be dismantled by the conservatives now.
What they were hoping for is some recognition from the public that the progressive moves made by the Liberals in the last parliament were in fact NDP initiatives forced on them. Instead they're just tarred and feathered with the same image that Trudeau has.
Justin Trudeau was a ski instructor before becoming Prime Minister.
Ronald Reagan and Zelenskyy were ridiculed as an actor in their election campaigns.
Poilievre is a career politician and unproven at the highest office, but that by itself should not disqualify him. Knowing who to delegate to is 90% the job of a good leader -- the other 10% is public speaking and being charismatic.
Sure, Trudeau was a ski instructor. You will also note that I neglected to mention that Poilievre had a paper route; that's because paper routes aren't professional experience.
Trudeau was also a secondary school teacher, acted in a tv movie. He also reputedly worked as a bouncer and worked in various (heavily politically affiliated) non-profits. He had a career before politics.
That said, my primary point is that Poilievre hasn't been a particularly effective politician, and his reputation is largely that of a blowhard who's main appeal is that he is not Trudeau.
Trudeau should have resigned after getting a second minority government. I mean, actually he should not have run that election at all. But in general in our history, failure to get a majority can be forgiven once... but twice? The knives come out.
I'm amazed at the dominance he has over his party that has made it possible for him still to be hanging on. Even his resignation is slow motion.
Neither Freeland nor Carney want to be the next Kim Campbell. The Liberals are going to lose the next election badly whether or not Trudeau is leading it. I'm sure that Trudeau made the decision to step down ~6 months ago and is now just playing with the timing to maximum effect. Stepping down now basically pushes the election three months further out than it would otherwise be due to a prorogation to pick a new leader. That gives Pollievre 3 more months worth of rope and Trump time to sabotage Pollievre.
Yeah my expectation is this next leadership campaign will be half-assed and "fought" by people who know they will never be PM. Instead they'll expect 4-5 years of PP and somewhere in the middle another leadership campaign that they'll then try to win.
I do think Freeland is too tainted by Trudeau now to be a success. Very intelligent woman, but I think her political career is ending. (I should check back on this comment in 5 years)
I agree she's tainted which makes her a bad choice to be his successor. But people have short memories and I think in 3-4 years the Trudeau stains will have washed off. In that time she'll have a chance to make a name for herself.
I think if she wanted she could very well be a contender in the next election cycle.
This is an interesting statement in that, sadly, the person making the threats is not joking yet to those that have not drunk the kool-aid it is an utter joke of a concept.
the president is biden, and biden has not made such jokes. the president elect has made them, but he is not currently commander-in-chief. he may atop making those jokes once he has power
I like the use of technically here leaving the hint that some might not go along with those orders even if the technical commander did give them. This is more chilling with Kelly's revelations of Trump's desire to have a specific type of general
You mean both chambers that are now in control by his party?
Also, a president doesn't have to declare war to engage in military conflict.
"For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War." However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "declaration of war" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[2] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution. "
...unless they decide to just have Pentagon lawyers print up a lot of paper that says whatever they're doing falls under existing authorizations that consistently get renewed without debate.
Right, but even if the US actually wants to annex Canada, Canada would have to allow that to happen. That's what makes it insane. Russia wanted to annex Ukraine, and it didn't go so well. So playing the tape to the end, what do people think Trump is actually proposing? A war? A "special operation"?
A whole group of countries joined together and came to the aid of Kuwait when Iraq attempted to annex them.
Edit: are you suggesting that Europe would not come to the aid of Canada just because it's Canada or because they would be going against the US? The rest of the world could turn around and isolate the US with sanctions and tariffs at a minimum. Would that be worth it for the US?
Well... if we're living in a imaginary/video game world where US invades Canada it wouldn't be too far fetched to expect Britain and France to intervene? I mean which is more absurd?
Who in their right mind would not? If im the leader of a European country, and I see the US go rogue and annex their closest neighbour and longest ally, thats a clear message that the US can not be trusted.
Sure, but in that case you might be more preoccupied with securing your own position rather than risking intervention on a continent you have no foothold in.
Securing your own position is contingent on having a proper deterrence to US invasion or belligerence. Unless you are thinking of appeasing them, but I doubt that European defense minds would consider that.
You realize most European armies have tons of US equipment right? They are barely able to hold back Russia, with US help. Now they're supposed to build up their domestic DIB, hold off Russia, and fight a war on unfamiliar territory?
I doubt they'd adopt outright appeasement, but they would be walking very cautiously.
I do realize that. The war in Ukraine is not being supported by Nato. They are sending supplies but the alliance is not entering Ukraine against Russia so as to not create a wider conflict. Note that Ukraine is not a NATO signatory while Canada is.
In the case of the US annexing Canada,the strategic analysis would give two options. Either immediately oppose US aggression and form a bloc independent of them, or tacitly approve of it and leave yourself open to the same thing happening to you and your neighbours.
Sending munitions/equipment to one side means that you support that side ;)
I do not know what kind of mental gymnastics you make when you say NATO doesn't support the war in Ukraine, but it actually does - with the NATO SG going to Ukraine in a show of support.
AFAIK, there is no precedent to what will happen if a NATO country attacks another NATO country - we came close to that when the Turks and the Greeks almost started fighting a few years back.
Directly support as the commenter I was replying to was implying. Europe is not barely holding back Russia. Ukraine is. Article 5 would be invoked and the NATO states would decide what support to send. Greece and Turkey fighting over some islands isn't the same as the strongest nation in the world annexing its neighbours. There would be broad public support in Europe to oppose the U.S. simply on principle, let alone the security concerns.
Even more equipment if they force US troops to abandon their posts and their equipment as they are all now PNG from whatever country we have foreign bases.
Any country or group with a grievance. It would be open season. Lots of soft targets in the US that could give people pause in their support for Operation Canadian Bacon
The King of Canada would probably want to defend his people regardless of the cost.
The British Armed Forces swear an oath of allegiance to the King not the British government.
If he says go, they go.
It would be a gamble for even Trump that Britain can't launch nukes to defend a Commonwealth ally (obviously that would probably be the end of the UK but we've faced that before, eh).
> It would be a gamble for even Trump that Britain can't launch nukes to defend a Commonwealth ally (obviously that would probably be the end of the UK but we've faced that before, eh)
As I initially asked: would you be willing to end your own country just because you feel like you need to defend another country on another continent against an adversary you have no chance of beating?
The entire point of NATO and other treaties is that every signatory is willing to risk their country to protect the other signatories. It makes the game theory choice to attack stupid.
But it’s all academic anyways. The US military would eagerly lead a coup before willingly attacking the UK or Canada, particularly if non-conventional means are threatened.
Consider that nearly every officer has done several war games or exercises alongside UK or Canadian officers. This is true both of NCOs and senior leadership. Being friendly with their armed forces is institutional. It would be easier to convince the Marines to attack the Army than to convince them to attack their Canadian counterparts.
The us military is also too professional to consider following orders to attack Canada. They would not accept the risk and reputational damage that would come with breaking the NATO treaties and undermining the general security of the west.
Armed forces are friendly to who they are being ordered to be friendly. And they don't have a an issue with any other armed forces unless being ordered to have an issue.
Me personally? Doesn't matter what I'd do. I'm just some gobshite on the internet.
In this hypothetical situation the opinions that matter are those of the men in the subs that have just seen their family and friends wiped out.
They've got roughly 120 active warheads to play with and realistically no one is going to stop them all.
So if you add up the damage from that plus the loss of a major trading partner and military ally it kind of seems unlikely to be a profitable venture for anyone involved.
If the US were in this position, any country that had sanctions that were only there at the urging from the US would be dropped. Even if they were not dropped, those that were sanctioned would immediately start ignoring them. Hell, most of Europe would probably immediately starting buying oil/gas from Russia.
I dont think there would be a military intervention, and if there were, I dont think it would be verry successful. NATO would be crippled without the US.
They could invoke Article 5 of NATO; that would trigger Article 8;, expelling USA from NATO and requiring all remaining member to come to Canada's aid.
>In the case of any contradiction with other international obligations (with the exception of the United Nations, which by Article 7 supersedes NATO), or in military conflict of two NATO members, Article 8 comes into force. This is most important in cases should one member engage in military action against another member, upon which the offending members would be held in abeyance of the treaty and thereby NATO protection as a whole.
Words on a page don't put boots on the ground. The treaty would be invoked, US would be expelled (and sanctioned), and nobody would dare try to break the blockade.
The only meaningful resistance would come from within the US military, or maybe China would finally venture out of their sphere of influence (although it's more likely they'll use the opportunity to pursue more regional concentration of power).
Even if they achieve it, the reputational damage would be hard to understate. I think anyone with a bone to pick with the States would happily and repeatedly point to us Canadians as an example of what happens when you trust Americans. And that would be enough to achieve a lot of their regional policy goals, if not much more. Mexico would probably seek other political partners to make sure they're not next.
These are good points, but I have to comment that all of these suggest the physical resistance to an annexation would come from domestic actors rather than international.
If Poilievre gets elected, will he willingly join the USA? It seems that the world is more and more aligned by political spectrum rather than national allegiance.
I think the Overton window has become much easier to slide around with social media influence campaigns. If someone powerful wants something -- even if it's against everyone else's interests -- it's now much easier for them to drum up popular support for it through underhanded tactics. Remember that Brexit started as a joke.
Did it? Stickers or posters saying "keep our Pound!" were common on bus stops and street lights as a kid in the Home Counties in the 90s. Newspapers ran (mostly untrue) stories about market fruit stands needing to sell bananas by the KG rather than by the lb. Both the Tories and Labour had Euroskeptic wings since the 1970s.
Rightly or wrongly, the undercurrent of Brexit was there from the start of the EU and ebbed or flowed based on events of the day.
That's a great point; I'm glad you added that context and I'll take back that characterisation. I was mostly speaking through the lens of Farage's antics, and lacked the viewpoint of someone from the UK proper.
Everyone gets manipulated one way or another. It’s up to the person to carry the weight and responsibility of their actions.
When it comes to US - Canada relations, if Canadians decide to be a part of the states, then it’s their will. I don’t support it, but if super majority changes their minds… well, we live in a democracy, and such is the will of people.
Frankly, I think US is in a panic mode as they realize they can’t outcompete China anytime soon by themselves. So they’re trying every possible thing to see what sticks to increase their chances.
China is also in panic mode because of internal issues that stem from the younger generation’s dissatisfaction. Natural fix is to claim some wins to rally and unite people. So the ideas of reunification, playing to win in manufacturing, showing how much better they can overcome the economical problems using their 1B population are on the play now.
For whatever reason, I think the common lives of people who live in countries that play for both sides will be the only ones that get elevated. And frankly, I think, Canada should do the same.
This is my analysis too. Trump is all about brinkmanship. Scare everyone else and bring them to the edge of the precipice that you know they dont want to go over. Then extract concessions. Its desperation, not sustainable, but it works as long as you have the upper hand.
Agreed, it definitely works. But given the absolute numbers of population in other countries, I’m not sure how long it can last. Alienate the allies, make them get together, and join the competitor, as you’re being very unreliable.
I think he understands quite a bit. People on his team are very far from being stupid. They’re all playing the “populist game in the streets” to garner support, but it doesn’t seem like they have a strategy laid out to confront the upcoming problems.
If this is true and Canada has not arrested O’Leary then they’ve already shown how weak they are to naked sedition and it’s only a matter of time before something terrible happens.
As far as I'm aware we have no laws about going and making a moron out of yourself advocating for giving the country away. Nor do I particularly think we need any, morons can be morons, the rest of us can ignore them (and I say this as someone strongly against the idea of joining the states).
Naked sedition would be promoting an actual invasion, not just floating the idea of Canada joining as the 51st state voluntarily and figuring out the logistics of how that could happen (which as far as I can tell is all this is).
We don't have an equivalent of the American Logan Act that would make this illegal.
I don't think there's any need to arrest anyone as a show of strength. I don't feel the threat of an actual American invasion and I like living in a free society that doesn't go around arresting people for political show. Most of us are offended by Kevin being a self appointed negotiator on behalf of Canada but it's not like government is bound by anything he says so if he wants to talk in private with Trump as a private citizen so be it.
I feel like a single word should explain it, but I know HN abhors single word responses. Trump has threatened tariffs and has mentioned annexing Canada. He's also mentioned buying Greenland, trading Puerto Rico for Greenland, and a bunch of other notions.
It seems to me that he really wants to do some empire building, but hasn't figured out a way that people would actually accept (and isn't interested in the modern version of treaty based "empires").
In fairness, the US paid for the Panama Canal and have continued to sustain it despite no "ownership".
Panama is only relevant because of the US investment in the Canal and they claim ownership when it suits them and then cry poverty every time investments need to be made.
Panama is currently playing with fire by courting foreign interest that doesn't align with the US, who are effectively their paymasters.
It's not a sudden "empire-building" move by the US. The fact that the canal exists at all has always been because of the US Empire. Panama is playing a dangerous game of FA&FO.
You can replace Panama with Ukraine, or Taiwan. The double standard is getting out of control. Respect for Trump for laying it as it is without all the BS.
To me, the canal thing is the only thing he's mentioned that is possible. There's a stipulation that does allow for that, just like there's a stipulation that the crown can do away with parliament in the UK. Doesn't mean it's an unlikely provision to be invoked without a lot of negative baggage to the point they are not likely to happen.
Greenland actually makes a lot of sense. I think if every citizen there was offered $5million they’d vote yes. And it’s entirely reasonable from the USA perspective as it’s not that much overall for the US.
Probably wouldn’t make a state but treat like Puerto Rico where they continue to self govern and citizens can freely move to the USA as they’d have USA passports.
For USA very strategic naval passages and mineral extraction.
It’s not that crazy really and I think there’s a deal that’s mutually beneficial where everyone wins and is better off long term.
Normal people would try to negotiate trade relations. Megalomaniacs would decide to just take something even if they try to soften the taking with money.
> I think if every citizen there was offered $5million they’d vote yes. And it’s entirely reasonable from the USA perspective as it’s not that much overall for the US.
More than made up for in 'savings' from killing off Medicare. But realistically, you don't really need to balance a budget sheet when you can just print more of that principle currency on demand.
Particularly look at the projected Liberal seat count.
This gov was propped up by a supply agreement with the NDP in order to maintain parlimentary confidence. The NDP leader becomes eligible for a generous pension scheme if he stays an MP to some point in February. As such the timing for all this is no coincidence, and people have been expecting this for a while, but it is shocking just how shamelessly self serving it all is.
All the Canadians that I talk to (including some CBC news employees) have been insistent that this was an eventuality and also that he would drag it out to do it as embarrassingly as possible.
As others have said, this came after historically significant low popularity and mounting political pressures. His government faced criticism over falling poll numbers, by-election losses, and a broken agreement with the NDP. Tensions with the US and internal dissent within the Liberal party added to his challenges.
One of the final nails in the coffin was the resignation of Chrystia Freeland, his last standing ally and Finance Minister.
At earliest, May 5th (March 24th parliament comes back, instantly votes no confidence, governor general issues writ the same day, the shortest possible campaign period is 37 days and election day must fall on a Monday).
At latest, Oct 27th (regularly scheduled election is Oct 20th, but that might be delayed by 7 days due to scheduling conflicts - see Bill C-65).
Likely somewhere in between there. All the opposition parties have been signalling that they intend to vote no confidence. Assuming that doesn't change though, there's likely at least a few days lag between parliament coming back, and that happening. The campaign period is likely not to be as short as possible (with an allowable range of 37 to 51 days).
Yes. It's pretty normal in the Westminster system and more generally in Parliamentary systems.
Was it expected? Eh - kind of. In the last few weeks much of Trudeau's cabinet has resigned or voiced their disapproval. NDP has signaled they would support bringing down the government.
Its been expected since before the Christmas break. There was a cabinet reshuffle, and its come out he's lost the support of his finance minister Chrystia Freeland, wasn't able to replace her with Marc Carney his top choice as Carney seems to be distancing himself from the current Govt on top of public support being at an all time low.
Both the opposition Conservatives and the supporting NDP parties (NDP in particular was holding up the Liberal Minority Govt) have been planning non-confidence motions this month that would result in a new election.
There was no path to victory for Trudeau after that, so the next best move is to resign and hope the liberals can pick a new leader before the next electoral cycle is too far along and avoid the issue the Democrats had by rushing to select a replacement candidate and alienating some portion of voters by doing so.
Yup, I hear the top candidates to replace him are Chrystia Freeland or Marc Carney (maybe known to this community since he's on Stripe's board). These top candidates might not accept to play this round though as the chances of winning are slim in the current circumstances. Some people are calling the next leader of the party a "sacrificial lamb".
Its very possible the next candidate inherits the overall sentiment and is indeed a 'sacrificial lamb'. The anti-Trudeau sentiment is high, but if he steps back its an open question if the left wing/ABC crowd and centrists revisit their support for the liberal party.
IMO Chrystia Freeland would be a great pick for the country. She was firm and capable during the NAFTA/USMCA renegotiations, and seems to have stood up against political games from the current administration to her eventual detriment of losing her cabinet position.
Marc Carney certainly has appeal, but I can't help but see him as Ignatief 2.0 and that didn't go well with many Canadians.
Then again I'm on the fence on Freeland, as are most of my circle as anecdotal as that is. Our issues with Trudeau don't completely extend to her, and if she differentiates herself well enough along a few lines she might get more support than traditionally expected from a Trudeau cabinet member.
Or maybe that's wishful thinking. Our alternatives haven't done much in the way of proposing a viable alternative path and have focused almost explicitly on criticizing Trudeau and the parties actions. Its appealing to the "fuck trudeau" flag flyers but I do wonder if centrists will find the CPC appealing without a change in direction and messaging now Trudeau is leaving.
There is no term limit for PM or members of parliament.
They stay on until they lose the support of their party.
He lost the support of his party due to his extreme unpopularity and the impact it will have on the future election. As seen by polls and bye elections.
More often the leader loses party support after an election loss.
However in this case, a loss is so likely and expected to be so bad that his party would rather go to the polls with a different leader.
This was definitely expected, people within and outside of the party have been calling for Trudeau to resign for a while and that chorus has been getting louder and picking up more prominent figures.
I suppose standard procedure in a Westminster parliament is to have a non confidence vote and an election - which is what the opposition parties said would happen when Parliament sits again. Poroguing parliament and having a leadership race is probably a way to try and avoid that or at least go into the election with a less unpopular leader.
Proguing parliament is probably the best thing for the liberal party to avoid an election with an unpopular leader. But I don't think it's good for Canada as it states down Trump's tariffs
>I hadn't heard that this was likely to happen. Any Canadians here able to weigh on whether this was expected or is a normal procedure for your elected officials?
For many months liberal backbenchers have been calling for him to resign. Though obviously not 'likely to happen'
Only weeks ago(mid december) Trudeau refused his own caucus' call to resign. Saying he was staying on to fight for Canadians. Freeland quit with a flaming public letter and he still said he's staying in the game.
Didnt really do much, it took weeks more before he finally resigned yesterday. Despite this, still no resignation. Now parliament has been mostly suspended due to the liberal's failure to submit documents. A significant scandal.
The reason his caucus is upset is because the vast majority of them will lose in the next election. Polling suggesting they hold onto ~20 seats in an Ignatief level of fail. Resignation will still be quite unlikely. From a strategic point of view, taking the L election night and then letting a new liberal leader rebuild their reputation over 4 years is the right move.
You'll now have a leadership race where nobody wants the career ending job. The rats that try to fight for it just want their name as prime minister.
Yet here he finally resigned. Change Control dictates it was the gun ban.
The polls post-gun ban put the liberals in single digit seats. It was over for him. The gun ban ended Trudeau.
Canadian here. It's certainly not normal. News broke yesterday that this was coming. The opposition kept tabling no confidence votes and trying to get an early election called... and Trudeau's approval rating is so low that it might even be the lowest of any Prime Minister in history (though I don't know so if someone does by all means fact check that).
However, our upcoming election is this year. It certainly does not surprise me that Trudeau is stepping down from leader of the Liberal party in light of the polling, since the polls are predicting that if an election were called today, the conservatives would win in such a landslide that I don't think many countries have even seen that before. Of course polling and actual election results are two very different things... but I think the Liberal party sees the writing on the wall. If they hope to have any shot of getting re-elected, they can't do it with Trudeau at the head.
... but that doesn't necessarily mean that we all saw him resigning as PM incumbent coming. He's also proroguing parliament until March. This is probably a move to get the other parties to step back and "STFU"; to not pass any motions during the party shift (particularly related to calling an early election etc).
Lastly, as others have said, the PM position is usually held for an average of 9-10 years (and that's multiple terms .. most incumbents just get re-elected into second and third terms). Trudeau was elected in 2015 so he's about due to exit anyway if we go by averages (though some have served longer).
(slightly off topic: I have no idea why tf my comment got down-voted. I'm not even expressing any personal opinions about Trudeau or politics. I'm just answering the question as factually as I can from the point of view of a Canadian who is observing what is going on.. I have data and sources for everything I said .. including how low Trudeau's approval rating is as well as the polling... the only thing I wasn't sure of is how his rating compares to that of previous PMs. Thing is, I even know people who have voted Liberal their entire lives, and plan to in the upcoming election regardless of who the leader is, and even they can't shut up about how much they despise him. So regardless of your partisan affiliation, I don't think I even said anything that most Canadians would find the least bit controversial).
Prorogued means parliament will not meet, and so cannot hold any votes. Right now it is purely being used to prevent such a vote since there is a majority in parliament that would now vote against the government in such a situation, which in turn provokes an election.
During his delusional ramblings (and that is no exaggeration) Trudeau said that the GG was persuaded to prorogue to the 25th March because of the no confidence vote held back in December which he survived because the NDP supported him. The NDP no longer will support the Trudeau gov (announced in writing about 10 days after the last vote), coincidentally just as their leader qualifies for a nice parliamentary pension scheme.
The whole thing is a horrible exercise in the worst stereotypes of champagne socialism.
Tying NDP support to their leader's pension is silly/lazy.
As part of their deal with the Liberals, the NDP had some real power to implement legislation. If an election happened tomorrow the NDP would lose that power.
Unhitching from Trudeau at this moment is a good move for the NDP, they want to distance themselves from Trudeau's unpopularity before the next election. That Trudeau is now leaving benefits them even more, they could conceivably continue to support the government now that it's missing its most unpopular member, or they could pull the plug right away if they think they can steal away some Liberal votes during a snap election
> Tying NDP support to their leader's pension is silly/lazy.
It really isn't - the alternative is it's the most unbelievable happy coincidence.
You have to wonder how blatant the personal moneygrabbing by Lib and NDP leaders has to be before their respective support bases actually accept what is going on in their faces. Those leaders see the parties purely as a way to secure power to use to gain personal wealth at the expense of the populous.
> the alternative is it's the most unbelievable happy coincidence
It's not though.The NDP were faced with two choices:
1) Support the Liberals and get some of their policies pushed through
2) Support the Conservatives wish to call an early election in which the Conservative are sure to win a majority leaving the NDP powerless
The reason why the NDP choose this moment to pull their support is that it's an election year, so there's little chance any more NDP policy would be passed. One person's pension (a relatively wealthy person at that) is just a fun partisan talking point for Conservatives.
1% below Stephen Harper, which is bad, but not unprecedented bad.
I think if the liberals can delay the election until October, their results won't be so bad, especially if Trump keeps saying dumb things down in America (as he is prone to do), making alignment with the conservatives less popular (they will still win, just not the huge landslide that they can take now).
The approval rating seems like an unhelpful metric here if the actual resulting election is such a landslide.
Also I think there is a bit of a different here between Harpers Conservatives and Tredeaus Liberals.
In 2015 people were actually really excited and hopeful about Justin Trudeau (sounds weird to say but it is true). He was voted in "positively" based on legalizing cannabis & election reform.
2025 is a very different spot, Pollieve is not a particularly popular politician. The singular reason they will win in a land slide is that people HATE Trudeau in a way I haven't seen in my life.
The liberals really should take a long hard look at themselves and re-evaluate. On a more local level the Ontario Liberals actually just collapsed a while ago and haven't even been relevant in politics ever since.
Yeah, he pretty much had no choice. Most of his party had given him the ultimatum. This has happened a bunch of times outside of the Trudeau Harper Chrétien eras, it’s normal.
