[Doctorfever]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tom-...sors-1.7066217

Interesting piece from Mulcair on why PP is attacking Joly and Carney, and why it may not work. Also illustrates why Joly may not have wanted to condemn genocidal chants like “‘from Palestine to Lebanon, Israel will soon be gone’ and ‘there is only one solution: intifada, revolution,’”

Commemorating the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas on October 7th should have been an emotional moment for agreement on all sides in the House of Commons. Instead, Canadians got a front-row seat to the fear now raging in Conservative ranks as they face the possibility that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will be replaced prior to the next election.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s blistering personal attack against Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly(opens in a new tab) will continue to play out in the House even though Speaker Greg Fergus has now asked him to apologize.

The real political fallout will be outside the House as the Liberals begin to jostle to replace Trudeau. On that front, as fierce, personal and unparliamentary as Poilievre’s attack on Joly has been, he was trying to strike a chord that would resonate with voters who’ve watched the Liberals’ unguided approach to the complex issues of the Middle East.

The Conservatives are doing preventive maintenance with their withering assaults against prospective opponents, attacks that include, of course, those on Mark Carney(opens in a new tab). He is logically seen by Liberal insiders as having the inside track to be their new leader. Poilievre, strutting his Trump side, even invented a nickname for Carney: “Carbon tax Carney”!
Conservatives have invented “conflicts of interest” and flung them at Carney, who should see those attacks as a form of acknowledgment that he’s the frontrunner in the as-yet-undeclared race to replace Trudeau.

It’s not as if Joly‘s utterly incomprehensible positions on the Israel-Hamas conflict can’t be debated.
From early mixed messaging on a ceasefire to the indecipherable Canadian position in response to South Africa’s genocide accusations before the International Court of Justice, there’s been a lot to discuss and debate about the Liberals’ policies.
When I spoke with Joly about the Liberal reaction to the South African position she said something that floored me: “Thomas, have you seen the demographics of my riding”? I know that “all politics is local,” but I was astonished to hear such a candid admission that very local politics were playing such a role in shaping Canada’s foreign policy on this highly complex and sensitive issue.

I know this game first hand. As Deputy House leader in the National Assembly in Quebec City and, later, as House leader and then Leader of the NDP, I understand that going after your opponents is a key part of the game. But when that game becomes pure, unhinged inside baseball, you lose voters’ interest because you’re clearly only taking care of your own interests.
The dramatic side to Poilievre, his tendency to play everything to the hilt, could well become his undoing.