I've said this elsewhere: Poliviere feels a lot like Social Credit 2.0; Prairie populism for a digital age. The 'evil bankers' message stays; social credit gets bumped for the magic inflation fighting magic of Bitcoin; and hardworking young couples can (something, something, gatekeepers) suddenly afford a lovely home in an area with lots of amenities. It didn't deliver what it promised in v1.0 and I'm not convinced v2.0 will be more successful.
If Canadian conservatism is going to thrive it really needs to have something meaningful to say about real issues a lot of people care about. Poliviere was his strongest on issues of affordability, but he doesn't seem to have any convincing solutions. Solutions are hard and take time and there seems to be large chunk of the electorate that is short on patience. Certainly, a rapidly changing economy, shifting demographics, Canada's place in a rapidly changing world, a changing climate -- all of these beg for sober policy solutions, not slogans. None of the candidates really approaches this standard, though.
Lucki says she regrets the way she handled the meeting with the NS Division. I think she regrets it going public for if she truly regretted it she would have contacted the Division the following day and apologized for her conduct and given the staff an “attaboy” for coping with the stress they were under.
As you said; in the podcast I believe, the government doesn't know what to do about the big problems so it invents small ones and fails to solve those. You're right that Lucki is finished, but this seems too close a parallel to SNC for me to give Trudeau any benefit of the doubt.
Poilievre plays for the photo op and the sound bite. Being a smart politician doesn't make you a smart leader, and the disaster area he might be taking over in 2025 requires a true leader. I'm not certain Canada currently has one, but he's not it....so far anyway. There is indeed great danger for his party as portions of it regale themselves with joy watching like-minded social conservatives ending American democracy. To think that mindset isn't a threat here would be quite naïve. But having American democracy fail in a span of 40 years is troubling to say the least. What happens there always comes here, and if living next to Trump was bad, I can only imagine what living next to a dictatorship is going to be like.
Matt was right...but "bonkers" is an understatement. Enjoy the time away.
I totally agree with your Trekki portion of the report. All those other suggestions such as For All Mankind, The Expanse and Westworld are outstanding shows. But you're forgetting The Orville and Star Trek Lower Decks, as well. All good quality sci-fi options.
I think as far as politics go there just seems to be no good choice, seems all involved care more about what other parties are doing wrong than what they could do to help the country we live in.
Re sci fi: And don't forget Foundation on Apple TV+. As a big fan of the book series I was struggling with the deviations but, for me, it all came together in the finale. I loved it. Really clever. Your mileage may vary.
Very Good advice. "...In short, we urge everybody to chill out. It’s not that we don’t think we have big problems. We definitely think that we have big problems. We’re just saying it would be better to respond in a way that doesn’t make them worse, is all... "
Regarding the Lucki affair. There seems to be two issues here. First, that Lucki was inappropriately rude in an emotional teleconference meeting around the traumatic tragedy in Nova Scotia. Second, there is a charge of improper political inference in a police investigation.
There seems to be no one, including Lucki, who disputes the first charge. It's not clear this warrants a public inquiry beyond the gossipy tweets that spin breathless and ephemeral before the prevailing winds of public attention. (No Trekky innuendo intended.)
Yes, but maybe we can establish a profitable narrative pattern in the public mind, said the communication guru to no one in particular.
Regarding political interference, one apparent topic of discussion in the meeting was information regarding the type of firearms used in the Nova Scotia shooting. The motive for gathering this information was apparently that the government would incorporate it in publicly addressing legislation regarding restrictions on gun ownership in Canada.
Now asking for such information does not, of itself, appear to imply improper political interference. The government is seeking to develop legislation and is seeking relevant info from law enforcement about types of weapons used in criminal activities.
[Note: As Matt noted in his reply below, this is not a correct characterization of the alleged impropriety. It is not a matter of the government pressuring the RCMP to get the information, but of the government pressuring the RCMP to publicize that information.]
Apparently, in this meeting, the issue is raised of needing to keep the particular Nova Scotia shooting incident info from the public to protect certain aspects of the investigation. If this is in fact the crux of the issue then unless it can be demonstrated that there was sustained efforts on the part of the government to demand such info despite the government knowing (the crucial point here) that the Nova Scotia RCMP wanted to keep it secret for operational reasons, then it's unclear that this meeting qualifies as creating a case of political interference, as opposed to just a meeting with competing agenda items. (And not to be confused with fistfuls of stinky salami flung, eyes closed, in a feisty partisan food fight.)
The government is not directly party to this meeting. Lucki is not the government. This appears as possibly just an awkward meeting moment set against the backdrop of internal RCMP squabbling hitting the juiced up headlines of Canuck politics.
Of course, the various partisans, inside and outside the RCMP, will use their own calculi to evaluate the headline worthiness of the effort to plant patterns in the public mind, said the communication guru to no one in particular.
Many Canucks, of course, are thankfully off to camp. The public mind on vacation from the predatory mischief of communication gurus.
On the LEFT, ladies and gentlemen, our contender is a uniformed, public servant from a lightly-armed service, who asked subordinates in her public safety organization to support public safety legislation by releasing the same gun information they were so good at showing at Coutts. She was considered "disgusting".
On the RIGHT, our contender approached a uniformed public servant from a very heavily-armed service, (the ones really, really never supposed to get political), who widely popularized political opinions that the government was tyrannical in its public health measures, and must be opposed. Our contender feels this man deserves sympathy and support.
The battle for most-disgusting public official is on!
Also, there's Taylor Anderson's Destroyerman series, sort of alt history sci-fi. John Birmingham and the axis of time series that starts off with Weapons of Choice. Maybe these guys won't be to your taste, but l do like the military sci-fi type of fiction. Also, Jack Campbell is straight up sci-fi too.
I've also noticed what you describe as the intellectual bankruptcy of the CPC. I attribute it to them decisively losing every major cultural battle in my lifetime. Seriously. When you look at the competing visions for Canadian society offered by the Liberals and Conservatives in, say, the 90s, where have the Conservatives scored even a single victory?
1. Abortion.
2. Marijuana.
3. Gun control.
4. Gay marriage.
5. Climate change (existence of; cause of).
6. Public health care.
7. Immigration.
8. Cultural sensitivity (a bit of an umbrella, but I'm not sure how else to describe First Nations land acknowledgements, the MeToo movement, etc.).
When Canadian society has rejected your base's fundamental beliefs so resoundingly that saying them out loud is now seen as politically fatal, what's left to build on? What's left to run on? Conservative politicians are reduced to being vague and emotive in front of cameras (or bashing the Liberals, which gets lots of mileage) because concrete discussion of their actual values either sends centrist voters screaming in the other direction or makes the Conservative base reach for their pitchforks.
Great 'dispatch'! A couple of things though, 1) There is/was no 'Captain' Spock. It was Mr. Spock, the insouciant, perennially unreadable and coldly logical Vulcan foil for the flighty and sometimes downright silly Captain James Kirk.....the human. 2) I was done with 'Star Wars' in 1977, the best and never to be improved-upon grand distraction of a more hopeful time. The rest is feathers and fluff.
My fears and anxiety well summed up. Adding to them is a propensity among increasing numbers of the population to look for leaders with easy, simple - find a villain to blame - answers. Have a great summer!
I’m not sure if “Stranger Things” would qualify as Sci Fi but having binge watched the entire Season 4 last night, it continues to delight. I haven’t seen on screen chemistry between friends since watching the original Star Wars in 1977. Just offering that series as a consideration.
"It ain’t perfect, but it’s good." Is that where we're at now with Star Trek and Star Wars? If you kind of wince your eyes a bit, it's not that bad. As if our nostalgia from the 80s and 90s has that much more left to give. Studios pump a ton of money into these productions and are backed by talented writers, actors and producers - we should hold them to the highest standard.
The same approach should be taken with the politicians we elect, regardless of their political stripes. "It ain’t perfect, but it’s good" shouldn't be good enough especially with the big problems our country is facing.
I've said this elsewhere: Poliviere feels a lot like Social Credit 2.0; Prairie populism for a digital age. The 'evil bankers' message stays; social credit gets bumped for the magic inflation fighting magic of Bitcoin; and hardworking young couples can (something, something, gatekeepers) suddenly afford a lovely home in an area with lots of amenities. It didn't deliver what it promised in v1.0 and I'm not convinced v2.0 will be more successful.
If Canadian conservatism is going to thrive it really needs to have something meaningful to say about real issues a lot of people care about. Poliviere was his strongest on issues of affordability, but he doesn't seem to have any convincing solutions. Solutions are hard and take time and there seems to be large chunk of the electorate that is short on patience. Certainly, a rapidly changing economy, shifting demographics, Canada's place in a rapidly changing world, a changing climate -- all of these beg for sober policy solutions, not slogans. None of the candidates really approaches this standard, though.
Lucki says she regrets the way she handled the meeting with the NS Division. I think she regrets it going public for if she truly regretted it she would have contacted the Division the following day and apologized for her conduct and given the staff an “attaboy” for coping with the stress they were under.
As you said; in the podcast I believe, the government doesn't know what to do about the big problems so it invents small ones and fails to solve those. You're right that Lucki is finished, but this seems too close a parallel to SNC for me to give Trudeau any benefit of the doubt.
Poilievre plays for the photo op and the sound bite. Being a smart politician doesn't make you a smart leader, and the disaster area he might be taking over in 2025 requires a true leader. I'm not certain Canada currently has one, but he's not it....so far anyway. There is indeed great danger for his party as portions of it regale themselves with joy watching like-minded social conservatives ending American democracy. To think that mindset isn't a threat here would be quite naïve. But having American democracy fail in a span of 40 years is troubling to say the least. What happens there always comes here, and if living next to Trump was bad, I can only imagine what living next to a dictatorship is going to be like.
Matt was right...but "bonkers" is an understatement. Enjoy the time away.
I totally agree with your Trekki portion of the report. All those other suggestions such as For All Mankind, The Expanse and Westworld are outstanding shows. But you're forgetting The Orville and Star Trek Lower Decks, as well. All good quality sci-fi options.
I think as far as politics go there just seems to be no good choice, seems all involved care more about what other parties are doing wrong than what they could do to help the country we live in.
Re sci fi: And don't forget Foundation on Apple TV+. As a big fan of the book series I was struggling with the deviations but, for me, it all came together in the finale. I loved it. Really clever. Your mileage may vary.
Very Good advice. "...In short, we urge everybody to chill out. It’s not that we don’t think we have big problems. We definitely think that we have big problems. We’re just saying it would be better to respond in a way that doesn’t make them worse, is all... "
Regarding the Lucki affair. There seems to be two issues here. First, that Lucki was inappropriately rude in an emotional teleconference meeting around the traumatic tragedy in Nova Scotia. Second, there is a charge of improper political inference in a police investigation.
There seems to be no one, including Lucki, who disputes the first charge. It's not clear this warrants a public inquiry beyond the gossipy tweets that spin breathless and ephemeral before the prevailing winds of public attention. (No Trekky innuendo intended.)
Yes, but maybe we can establish a profitable narrative pattern in the public mind, said the communication guru to no one in particular.
Regarding political interference, one apparent topic of discussion in the meeting was information regarding the type of firearms used in the Nova Scotia shooting. The motive for gathering this information was apparently that the government would incorporate it in publicly addressing legislation regarding restrictions on gun ownership in Canada.
Now asking for such information does not, of itself, appear to imply improper political interference. The government is seeking to develop legislation and is seeking relevant info from law enforcement about types of weapons used in criminal activities.
[Note: As Matt noted in his reply below, this is not a correct characterization of the alleged impropriety. It is not a matter of the government pressuring the RCMP to get the information, but of the government pressuring the RCMP to publicize that information.]
Apparently, in this meeting, the issue is raised of needing to keep the particular Nova Scotia shooting incident info from the public to protect certain aspects of the investigation. If this is in fact the crux of the issue then unless it can be demonstrated that there was sustained efforts on the part of the government to demand such info despite the government knowing (the crucial point here) that the Nova Scotia RCMP wanted to keep it secret for operational reasons, then it's unclear that this meeting qualifies as creating a case of political interference, as opposed to just a meeting with competing agenda items. (And not to be confused with fistfuls of stinky salami flung, eyes closed, in a feisty partisan food fight.)
The government is not directly party to this meeting. Lucki is not the government. This appears as possibly just an awkward meeting moment set against the backdrop of internal RCMP squabbling hitting the juiced up headlines of Canuck politics.
Of course, the various partisans, inside and outside the RCMP, will use their own calculi to evaluate the headline worthiness of the effort to plant patterns in the public mind, said the communication guru to no one in particular.
Many Canucks, of course, are thankfully off to camp. The public mind on vacation from the predatory mischief of communication gurus.
On the LEFT, ladies and gentlemen, our contender is a uniformed, public servant from a lightly-armed service, who asked subordinates in her public safety organization to support public safety legislation by releasing the same gun information they were so good at showing at Coutts. She was considered "disgusting".
On the RIGHT, our contender approached a uniformed public servant from a very heavily-armed service, (the ones really, really never supposed to get political), who widely popularized political opinions that the government was tyrannical in its public health measures, and must be opposed. Our contender feels this man deserves sympathy and support.
The battle for most-disgusting public official is on!
Also, there's Taylor Anderson's Destroyerman series, sort of alt history sci-fi. John Birmingham and the axis of time series that starts off with Weapons of Choice. Maybe these guys won't be to your taste, but l do like the military sci-fi type of fiction. Also, Jack Campbell is straight up sci-fi too.
I've also noticed what you describe as the intellectual bankruptcy of the CPC. I attribute it to them decisively losing every major cultural battle in my lifetime. Seriously. When you look at the competing visions for Canadian society offered by the Liberals and Conservatives in, say, the 90s, where have the Conservatives scored even a single victory?
1. Abortion.
2. Marijuana.
3. Gun control.
4. Gay marriage.
5. Climate change (existence of; cause of).
6. Public health care.
7. Immigration.
8. Cultural sensitivity (a bit of an umbrella, but I'm not sure how else to describe First Nations land acknowledgements, the MeToo movement, etc.).
When Canadian society has rejected your base's fundamental beliefs so resoundingly that saying them out loud is now seen as politically fatal, what's left to build on? What's left to run on? Conservative politicians are reduced to being vague and emotive in front of cameras (or bashing the Liberals, which gets lots of mileage) because concrete discussion of their actual values either sends centrist voters screaming in the other direction or makes the Conservative base reach for their pitchforks.
Great 'dispatch'! A couple of things though, 1) There is/was no 'Captain' Spock. It was Mr. Spock, the insouciant, perennially unreadable and coldly logical Vulcan foil for the flighty and sometimes downright silly Captain James Kirk.....the human. 2) I was done with 'Star Wars' in 1977, the best and never to be improved-upon grand distraction of a more hopeful time. The rest is feathers and fluff.
Have a great vacay!
My fears and anxiety well summed up. Adding to them is a propensity among increasing numbers of the population to look for leaders with easy, simple - find a villain to blame - answers. Have a great summer!
Spot on commentary once again; thank you.
I’m not sure if “Stranger Things” would qualify as Sci Fi but having binge watched the entire Season 4 last night, it continues to delight. I haven’t seen on screen chemistry between friends since watching the original Star Wars in 1977. Just offering that series as a consideration.
"It ain’t perfect, but it’s good." Is that where we're at now with Star Trek and Star Wars? If you kind of wince your eyes a bit, it's not that bad. As if our nostalgia from the 80s and 90s has that much more left to give. Studios pump a ton of money into these productions and are backed by talented writers, actors and producers - we should hold them to the highest standard.
The same approach should be taken with the politicians we elect, regardless of their political stripes. "It ain’t perfect, but it’s good" shouldn't be good enough especially with the big problems our country is facing.