The Canucks weren’t on the tube Tuesday so, in order to get my appropriate dose of angst and frustration, I watched the federal Liberal leadership debate.
It was a rough-and-tumble affair with haymakers thrown and landed all night. Hold on … stupid AI bot is writing about the hockey, not the Liberal leadership debate.
The Liberal leadership debate was … well, not rough-and-tumble. It was pretty sedate, as one would expect. The leaders don’t want to get involved in a raucous dust-up as that only serves the Conservatives. In addition, their views on most things weren’t that different, as expected, given that they’re all cut from the same political cloth.
So, who won the big debate?
There really wasn’t a clear winner. But more importantly, at least for the Liberals, there wasn’t a clear loser. And, there were no duds. Often in these types of races there is a candidate or two who really shouldn’t be there. No so this time.
Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland are, hands-down, the favourites. However, Karina Gould and Frank Baylis proved they are not out of place on that national stage. All four have their strengths: Carney has the economics background; Freeland has the political experience and is usually the smartest person in the room; Gould, being a good 20 years younger than the other candidates, brings the voice of a generation needed to win the election; Baylis brings a successful business background with well-thought out plans of what we need to be doing.
Whoever wins I hope they encourage the other three to seek office because we would be well-served to have all of them working on our behalf. That is, of course, provided the Liberals win the looming federal election. That result is still unlikely but Conservative majority is no longer a fait accompli.
Different polls, one by Ipsos and the other by Ekos, put the Liberals slightly ahead in the polls.
But back to the Liberal debate, which was more of a discussion than a debate. A lot of it dealt with who was best positioned to deal with U.S. president Donald Trump. A valid question. Frankly I got tired of them boasting who was best to “stand up” to Trump and “stand up” to bullies. What they should be talking about is who is best to suited to deal with four years, or more, of chaos from south of the border.
The tariff war might fade, but Trump will be on us for something else as long as he is in power. Carney, at least, mentioned ‘crisis management.’ We will be in crisis management for the next four years and we need a leader who can deal with that.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre will tell us he is best suited for that job. However, his dropping fortunes in the polls suggest Canadians think someone else might be best suited for the job.
Of the four Liberal contenders, I feel Freeland is our best bet to represent us south of the border. Does that mean she will be the best prime minister? I don’t know. But if she doesn’t win, we should put her on in charge of all things U.S. Trump already hates her, which is a badge of honour in this country. She is a strong, smart woman and we all know what Trump thinks about that.
We’re past the age of diplomacy. Do we need to continue engage with the U.S.? Absolutely. But we also need a leader who wants to forge a Canada that is not beholden to anyone but ourselves.
Born and raised in Fernie, Bill Phillips is an award-winning journalist and columnist. He was the winner of the 2009 Best Editorial award at the British Columbia/Yukon Community Newspaper Association’s Ma Murray awards, in 2007 he won the association’s Best Columnist award. In 2004, he placed third in the Canadian Community Newspaper best columnist category and, in 2003, placed second.
Photo: CBC News
