I was simply agreeing with the statement that any Canadian who would laugh at Boris simply hasn't been looking at Trudeau.

Personally, I don't give a toss about Trudeau... But he does seem to have a knack for c*cking up on international relationships that are fundamental to Canada diversifying its markets. I give you India, I give you China. I give you his 'cake and eat it stance' on oil pipelines. He is equally as ridiculous as figure a Boris, seemingly captive to ideology more than reality, and bolstered by the fact Trump got elected in the US. Had Obama been elected instead, golden boy would barely have got a mention.

As for Chretien, if only Trudeau had a part of his instincts...

I'm not worried, and you know us Canadians don't get those cryptic UK insults anyway. Scheer was my member of parliament in Regina and he's a dink, even as torys go. If you're still cleaning stuff up lose only needs one o.

Since we're spellchecking, the plural of Tory is Tories.

Some wit pointed out that Johnson was elected PM with 92,000 votes. Boaty McBoatface won with 124,000 votes but that was overruled because it was stupid.

If there was a league table with points awarded for international embarrassment; national embarrassment; lies; insulting behaviour; illegal behaviour; contradicting oneself within a matter of days; close association with convicted criminals; rudeness towards other world leaders; displays of immaturity etc
Trudeau wouldn't even be on the same fixture list as Premier League competitors Johnson and Trump.

Indeed. Doug Ford might make it to the Championship but, AFAIK, he's personally a bit weak the areas of ill advised bonking and child neglect. I don't think foreigners seeking influence invite him to parties in castles or rent rooms in his hotels so he also struggles in terms of personal corruption. He's strong in criminality though, background in drug dealing, crackhead brother, lots of exposure there. Oh, and he's personally out of shape, disheveled and seems like someone you would move away from on a bus before you caught a whiff of them; very like Trump and Boris in that regard.

Very well put, and as I said, I truly think Trudeau actually means well! ...but he just isn't up to the job, so Canadian's are not in a position to point and laugh at Boris with Trudeau as PM of Canada! I guess "peoplekind" are starting to see this now though... shocker!...

It would be splendid if you could give us some indication of why you think Trudeau is "not up to the job" beyond the silly tropes of the attack ads the Cons are gearing up to wheel out again in this election cycle. They clearly didn't work for the last election, and I'm surprised Scheer - the consummate political nonentity - has the gall to sanction their use this time around. That's a tactic that could backfire horribly; Sheer's clearly genuinely not up to the job of leading his own party, as he appears to be entirely subservient to the two loudest Provincial premiers in Kenny and Ford.

On edit to bring things somewhere close to back on topic: Boris is interested in nothing except the perception of his own success. He has no principles whatsoever, so if it looks as though public sentiment is in favour of abandoning Brexit altogether, he'lll stuff his entire Brexit-themed Cabinet and claim to be fighting "for the will of the people" as he triggers the motion to rescind Article 50. I don't think that'll actually happen (although nothing wrong with a bit of fanciful wishful thinking), but if Johnson thought it would make him more popular, he'd argue that the moon is made of green cheese.

My main criticism of Trudeau is that he won't censure Israel for their policies regarding Gaza or their failure to obey UN sanctions regarding the occupied territories. Even as the UN was warning Israel a few years ago that they may be committing war crimes by their bombardments of civilian neighbourhoods, even President Obama wouldn't say more than "It is concerning." Somehow I had hopes that the rule of law would count for more than the party line. He isn't as blatant or obnoxious about it as Harper was (they threw fruit at John Baird when he went over there) but it's still disappointing.

What you say may be true but isn't that true of most politicians?
UK political history is littered with those who put their own personal gain ahead of the general good, and there have been one or two who've been applauded because of it.
Within recent living memory we have Blair, Thatcher and of course Churchill.
It remains to be seen whether Johnson's approach will result in an injection of common sense into the issue, for example the backstop wouldn't have been necessary if a framework for future trade could have been agreed beforehand but EU rules prohibited this so we have irresistible forces and immovable objects. Where personal reputations are concerned common sense takes a back seat.
I know a few drunks who could have sorted this out over a few pints and glasses of wine and the cost would have been less than just one of those Brussels' lunches.

"Peoplekind" was a joke he should not have made. He overestimated his audience.

No, and the idea that it is true demeans the political process and excuses the likes of BoJo. Many politicians do well financially from politics but that does not make them equivalent to those, such as Trump, who are solely concerned with themselves. Thatcher, for example, was not motivated by personal gain; she genuinely thought she was serving the country.

His government is running huge deficits despite the fact that the economy is doing well, well in excess of those he campaigned on;
The children that are benefitting from the huge amounts that are being paid to their parents via Canada Child Benefit (why a family with an income of $150,000 needs any such benefits is beyond me) will likely be lumbered with having to pay it all back when they become liable for taxes in the future;
The way that he has completely failed to deal with the issue of climate change (I accept he has imposed a carbon tax but that will do little to deal with the issue);
The way his office handled, is still handling, the SNC Lavalin affair;
The way he despatched 2 prominent ministers simply because they refused to bow to his wishes;
The way he has handled the fact that two Canadians are being held by China; and
His total lack of response when China decided to make ridiculous arguments regarding imports from Canada.

I would put it another way, other than the huge amounts he has given to those that really don't need it (see CCB comments above), what has he done in his 4 years that you would deem to have been a success?

I am obliged to acknowledge that the new government is not without merit:


https://www.itv.com/news/2019-07-26/...uide-to-staff/