I like this article. Very realistic approach to how the Conservative party could hope to win a majority government in the next election, but it would require that Conservative members have a good hard look at how collaborative and open minded their prospective leaders-in-waiting are, when all reports point to the fact that the Conservative party is so divided, cut-throat, climate change challenged, regionally biased, and not inclusive enough to ever see a majority, even if Canadians have had enough of Trudeau.
What an interesting piece. It would have been nice to have a word or two on how the CPC party can eat into PPC votes without losing more urban middle of the road voters. I believe the CPC endorsement of the trucker nonsense helped boost the support of the LPC/NDP agreement. If the one of your points,Ken, is that Canada needs a latter day version of a principled center-right conservative option then I would strongly agree.
The more the CPC tries to eat into the PPC vote the less electable they become. It'll be interesting to see the PPC raison d'etre in the next election but it will decidedly not be all that mainstream. the CPC trying to eat into the PPC vote is like the Liberals trying to appeal to the far left of the NDP base. The path to a majority is clearly not at the fringes it is in a broader coalition and with clear policy that goes beyond "Liberals bad"
The only way one could say the left half of the Democrats would fit into the Conservative party is that you could say they have principles, something the Liberals are totally lacking in.
There are some Liberals in there for sure, mostly parked due to Masks and mandates. Without that then you get into the xenophobic meat and potatoes of their policy which will limit their appeal
Maybe, but not so substantial as you think. PPC is made up of libertarian type who have voted Conservative because the New Democratic Party is made up of bunches of socialists or worse and Liberals who are socialites and elitists does not appeal to them at all. Greens will reliably vote Green. This leaves the young disaffected types who usually don't bother to vote on anything but it's fun to be a shit disturber. Max is entertaining even if you can understand only one word in six.
Democrats? Who are these Dems who were anti-vaxx early days? And how long
I liked this piece and agree with a lot of it. And, I'm one of those Ontario centrist voters who definitely is looking for what Ken outlined here. These articles tend to raise the question -- what is the conservative movement really trying to accomplish besides electoral victory?
To me, what's attractive about conservatism, at least as it used to exist in Canada, is the realization that government can be a powerful force for good, but it's a fairly coarse instrument and it's really, really difficult, at the scale of the federal goverment, to predict what a policy initiative might do -- both intentionally and intentionally. Therefore, conservatives constantly weight the ROI on any new big policy initiative. What's the potential benefits? What's the potential cost? And, most importantly, what's the potential risk? Instead of an approach that government should solve almost every problem (NDP) or that government should do as little as possible (pure libertarians), Canadian conservatives used to be good at finding a good compromise, recognizing that public policy, even with great intentions, could cause more problems than it's worth if government doesn't make prudent choices.
That doesn't mean government should avoid some challenges (healthcare, climate change) altogether. In fact, Conservative goverments have come up with really effective public policy (including helping address acid rain) that used market- based approach instead of a heavy handed, top down approach.
To use a sports metaphor, the NDP want to be players in the game. Canadian conservatives used to see the role of government as coming up with a really effective rulebook and allowing citizens to use their skills and creativity to play the game themselves (and define how they wanted to 'win'). By creating a framework for citizens/organizations to act, its an approach that encourages innovation and locally-focused solutions. Within that approach, there's a balance -- a willingness to acknowledge that an issue (say, climate change) exists, along with a concern that a big, expensive government program may be very costly and still not solve the problem. Conservative policy attempts to spread out the risk, encouraging a lot of individual decisions. Frankly, when it comes to climate change, that can (and should) include things like carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes and its a shame Conservatives are unwilling to propose models that address their concerns with the current Liberal approach.
In short, I've always had the impression that Canadian Conservatism was different than US Republicanism -- that is was born from Canada being a vast country of different people living far from another, needing both to lean on a community to survive and wanting solutions that suited their local conditions. Whether or not that's what modern Canadian conservatism is about, it's what I'm looking for and no longer finding in any of the major federal parties.
I, too, long for the days when Preston Manning represented the right-hand guardrail of federal politics and there were two political parties capable of commanding majorities of the House and forming capable and accountable federal Cabinet. The choice now is between ignorant bullies and movement politics, and that's a no-brainer. I see no figure in conservative politics besides Prime Minister Harper capable of leading the CPC.
You are channeling my thoughts much more eloquently than I ever could. This is PRECISELY my position, and the move to the hard right coming out of this ‘new’ party with its whistle dog politics and knee-jerk reactionary bullshit is why I let my PC party membership lapse. Same with my provincial party membership.
Interest rate rises in the last 2 weeks alone have added ~$5B to the GoC's debt servicing costs, and at least as much for the Provinces at an aggregate level. Rates are only going to rise more, meaning that anyone supporting new spending is delusional. Governments are going to struggle to save the furniture, let alone fund any kind of vision. The CPC needs to focus on first principles: balancing the budget ASAP, creating a framework (ex. efficient infrastructure, consistent and easy to comply regulatory environment) for economic growth that doesn't involve industrial strategy and realistic climate policy (ex. achievable targets that focus on reducing demand rather than restricting supply). The last 3 election campaigns have been about nothing, which obviously favors candidates like Trudeau that have lots of style.
It would mean someone would have to stand up and tell the truth. That the last 60 years of deficit funded goodies was a great big lie that they all used to buy votes with their kid's futures. I would vote for that person assuming they came out and said this is what we have decided to cut and why. That person does not exist in politics.
Those politicians exisited in the 90's. The 1993 Alberta election was between the Klein PC's proposing "significant cuts" to government spending and the Decore Liberals promising "brutal cuts".
Mike Harris did it in his first term in Ontario. Having cut some fat ( I believe they call it "finding efficiencies" now), he went full scorched earth in the second term and did unimaginable damage to Ontario's future.
What I want to hear is what the brutal cuts are. I don't think there's any doubt that reality demands them.
Simple in concept, but not execution: 1) reduce federal payroll. This likely involves long term hiring and compensation freezes from the federal workforce. The federal public service headcount has exploded under Trudeau, 2) frozen transfer to provinces, which will in turn force the provinces to freeze headcount and compensation, 3) annual program reviews looking for areas that the federal government can exit.
I disagree about cuts causing permanent damage. My experience was the opposite. I was a university student during the 20% Klein spending cuts, while also working at a provincially funded medical lab. The cuts were rapid, meaning that morale took a hit but most people got over it quickly. Cleaning out the deadwood management layers actually improved service. Unfortunately, union seniority rules meant the least senior employees were generally first out the door, rather than the poor performers.
Harper took federal spending to a record low of GDP and nothing broke, meaning that opportunity exists to take it lower.
This is a good summary of the dilemma we in the middle are facing. The NDP and the Liberals have lost any sense of fiscal responsibility and are WOKE to the extreme. The Conservatives want to fight battles that were lost 20 to 30 years ago. They destroy leaders who may want to deal with the broader issues of the economy, health care, and defense as the priority issues. And may want to get elected. I would like to vote Conservative but not if they rather be on the far right than right.
"alert to injustice in society, especially racism"
The word "woke" is almost always only used by Cons. Supposedly a bad thing that the Libs and the Dippers should hang their head in shame, for being alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Or maybe you have your own conservative definition of "woke".
You would have me read books, watch videos & scan articles in which I would eventually learn what your definition, conservative or something else, of woke is?
I think you missed the social conservative albatross in the room. Until the Conservatives stop trying to tell people how they should live their personal lives, and the decisions they make, they remain unelectable...regardless of how bad the other choices may be. They need to leave the 1950 mentality behind.
Social Conservatives are a media scarecrow. Show me an example of the cons doing what you are talking about under Harper, for example. Or in a campaign platform.
They don't. They're not idiots. So thy hide behind saying our MP's are free to put forth private members" bills that try to dictate how people should live their lives. But every time it comes up at the convention, they stop short of accepting women's rights, or everyone's right to choose who they love. They haven't quite gotten to the place of publicly announcing it like the clown show that is the GOP....but there are clearly lots who believe it.
Canadians traditionally vote to get rid of governments; not elect them. Harper got in because Chretien wore out his welcome. That's how Trudeau got in. Trudeau tried to wear out his mandate in one term with SNC, but Scheer couldn't stop shooting himself in the foot.
So, as I said, the conservatives can continue to pander to the 1950 GOP wing of the party and lose, or they can carve in stone that they're casting those ideas aside once and for all. Maybe they'll figure it out after they lose the next election. It does have to be part of the campaign to be part of the party. It's a cancer they must excise.
I disagree. They are in complete denial that Ward and June aren't still running the household. Embolden by the Christian Taliban south of the border, they seek to impose their opinions on how people should live their lives. It's 20freekin22. Love who you want to love, be who you want to be, and don't let anyone tell you what you can or can't do with your body as long as you're not bringing harm to anyone.
They say they're against abortion, but they're also against birth control. Immediately, it's not about life; it's about controlling women.
On that one issue alone, a jackhammer is needed. Women's rights are under as much attack in the US as they are in Afghanistan...yes, just give them time; they'll get there.
If you want the political angle, it's a simple easy wedge issue, and it's worked brilliantly in the last 2 elections. Based on where the CRC seems to be headed, they'll lose their third ( I know it will be the fourth, but that's not why Harper was turfed; he wanted to lose that election.) in a row. What the GOP is doing in the US has traction in Canada...with a tiny minority of the population. Until the CRC casts them adrift instead of pandering to them, they'll lose.
Maybe I am idealistic, but I believe that sensible and actionable policies, explained well, can convince voters when set against impractical virtue signaling fluff.
Agreed, but first get out of the mind set of being dismissive. You want to have a substantive conversation, don't come at me with lame buzz words like virtue signaling fluff. That's partisan talk and it loses your target audience. Attack idea not the person. How do conservatives address day care costs that drag our economy down by limiting the ability of some people to engage in the work force? Do you just cede that ground to the Liberals? There is something to be said about the gross buying power of a national pharmacy program but can Conservatives do it better? Canadians outside Alberta aren't buying into the idea of pipelines and standing pat on Climate Change. How do conservatives propose to address that when doing nothing is not an acceptable answer if you intend to win a majority.
But first and foremost, get Trudeau out of your head. The hatred is to the point of irrational that rather than finding ways to do things better, its this loop of attacking a guy then getting upset when people shrug and vote for him.
Some issues (eg single use plastic bans, climate change, federal vaccine mandates) basically are virtue signalling fluff - policies that accomplish nothing substantive in the real world, regardless of their popularity.
Others, eg day care costs and pharmacare, definitely are substantive issues, which should be discussed and engaged with rationally.
Conservatives have been losing on the fluff issues, when they should be winning on them. Pretending that the fluff is serious is a losing strategy - only Liberals can pull that off with a straight face.
I disagree with a lot of what you're saying. I buy into the general argument that Canada's contribution to Climate change is negligible if China and India as examples are not on board, but consensus outside of the Conservative partisan circle is that we still should be doing something and that local measures can impact locally. By the logic being applied to those who aggressively push back at Climate Change initiatives Regan and Mulroney never should've finalized the Acid Accord in 1991 which to date has been one of the most successful environmental policy initiates ever undertaken. The move away from coal power generation in Ontario has resulted in a better grid and less smog days. These are things voters see, so to call them virtue signalling fluff is just kind of insulting.
Conservatives lose on you 'fluff' issues because they refuse to engage. Liberals keep succeeding on them because most people want to engage.
So lets take your idea on single use plastic bans. Yeah, it's a bit of an eye roll because it has been brought up and really we have no practical way to apply it. But that doesn't make it unsound policy. Single use plastics are a bane. They make our recycling programs expensive and damage our local environment. Rather than calling it fluff, acknowledge the idea and figure out pragmatic ways we can apply it or if it isn't feasible, then say as much (without the condescension) and poke a crap ton of holes into it until the idea is done.
Acid rain is not analogous to climate change. Measures taken to curb acid rain have local economic costs but deliver local environmental benefits. Climate change action has local economic costs but doesn't deliver environmental benefits if emissions simply shift to other jurisdictions. This is why the Liberal focus on supply side climate action fails. Real climate change progress involves reducing demand: ex. lower immigration targets, tolling the 401, quotas on flights using the Toronto and Montreal airports. None of these would stand a chance electorally.
Most progressives don't support balanced budgets, so they aren't able to govern using math. Believing that government can spend more than it raises in revenue, or can conjure money out of nothing requires faith akin to religion.
Is climate change a real issue for people on the centre to centre of right? The poll was done by a group whose whole existence is about clinate change. We need a new approach to climate change, the CPC needs a new approach on how to deal with being called the extreme right, fascists and racists. Energy independence incorporating all forms of energy and a realistic approach to how the climate affects us is needed. But it's not about a tax.
I would love to see defence policy and climate change policy treated the same way. In both cases, there is a plausible but not unarguable case that there is a real need in the world, but in any event Canada is too small to make a contribution big enough to make a difference in outcome.
How, then, do we decide how much effort to put in and sacrifice to make? A "Canada First" attitude says to do as little as we can get away with from other countries. A moderate approach says to do approximately what most other countries in the relevant group are doing. A fanatical approach says to be leaders in sacrifice, since we can't possibly be leaders in impact.
I think what really kick-started Canadian climate policy was Keystone XL getting blocked, back around 2014. Given the importance of transport bottlenecks to the oil sands, that made it clear that Canada couldn't stick with the "Canada First" approach. At that point some of the major oil sands players reached out to environmental groups to see if a compromise policy was possible. That's what led to Alberta's climate policy, several aspects of which were then picked up in the federal climate policy (like output-based allocations for industrial pricing). https://energi.media/markham-on-energy/phillips-kenney-tzeporah-berman-osag-06jul18/
Maybe we'll see similar movement on defence policy as a result of Russia's might-makes-right attack on Ukraine.
A significant portion of what governments do is basically just figuring out how to respond to unexpected events. This is especially true for a smaller power like Canada. A lot of Trudeau's time in office has been spent dealing with Trump and then Covid.
Pipelines to the sea are the way forward for energy exports. At least then we only have to get our own act together, and not worry about the US. Obviously there are many constituencies within Canada that would need to be dealt with or bought off for that to happen, but dropping the pretence that banning, eg, LNG export from Canada will have an impact on global climate would be helpful. Explicitly linking the issue with defence would be a clever way for the Conservatives to show new thinking, as well as making Liberals (love sacrifice for climate change, hate sacrifice for defence) look ridiculous.
I'm a Liberal, and I think both climate change and defence are important. Even before Russia launched its full-scale attack on Ukraine, it was clear that with the US stepping back and China throwing its weight around, we're in a more dangerous world, and Canada needs sharper teeth. https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2019/02/09/canada-in-the-global-jungle
Exactly - a climate policy focused on making it easier for other countries to transition from coal/oil to gas (short term big reduction in carbon) and clearing away senseless regulation to make innovative nuclear easier could actually have a material impact while making Canadians better off.
Ken and I were caucus researchers at the Commons together back in the day, for different parties, with offices facing each other overlooking Sparks Street. As usual, his analysis is apt, relevant, rigorous, and will likely be ignored. He gets to say "I told you so" more than anyone else I know.
Perhaps it's time to accept that Canada is simply ultra woke and the Liberals have figured out how to tap into that.
The only line of attack the Conservatives could use is housing. If they had a solid housing plan I'd expect Millennials and Gen Z would flock to them, at least till the Liberals figured put how to copy it. The second alternative is Quebec finally comes into the Conservative fold.
So blunt honest truth on Housing: Nobody has the answer because Canadians of all stripes won't accept an answer and millenials/gen z aren't reliable enough voters to push for what needs to be done. Really the only way to way to cool housing is to address why it spirals out of control which is that gains in your primary residence are tax free. Eat 4-5% of that real estate feel, the Land Transfer Tax at least in Ontario and you walk away with pure profit. You'd slow this thing down by grandfathering in one last Exempt sale for all current houses and then start taxing the gains on Primary residences. And that isn't going to happen.
And Quebec will not come into the fold until you have a viable climate change plan and you stop demonizing them for not wanting a pipeline. There can be a pretty strong conservative steak in the province, but you can't apply the same logic you do on the Prairies. Brain Mulroney figured that out in 84 and 88.
The commodification of housing is the problem and the Ontario example is an excellent choice.
I know a local chap to wave at who builds a new house every year or two (Covid slowed him down) which he then claims is his primary residence, although we all know he still lives on the farm with his parents. Move forward 12 or so months and that `primary residence' is on the market. Now, it just so happens that in the past 2 or so years our properties have become extremely expensive. A house that sold for the 150s 3 or so years ago now gets offers that take the final price to the mid 500s and up. You actually can't buy a house here for less than 400k. In his smallish way, he has made housing so expensive that young families `from here' have to live elsewhere, and that means they also take their education and skills elsewhere.
There's a social cost to this strategy and our chap isn't paying it upfront but he will be.
This looks like a back door endorsement of Jean Charest to me, no thank you, I have had my fill of Quebec politicians looking out for Quebec and Quebec alone! This unholy alliance between Liberals and NDP should be the kiss of death to both parties and any CPC leader should prevail in 2025 should this alliance actually last that long!
Going Liberal Lite didn’t work out so well in the last election and likely won’t next time either. Showing you are without any foundational principles is hardly going to endear you to the undecided voters. The commentators that indicate that they would “look at” the Conservatives if they wander to the center-left are being truthful but looking ain’t voting as they will again lose their collective nerves and back the devil they know. Actual Liberals. I’m not sure if Pollievre is the answer either but at least he stands for something other than out Liberaling the Liberals.
Perhaps the time of the "big tent" party has come and gone. There is a need for a sensible centre right party which reflects the views of conservative leaning Canadian's who who have not drunk the GOP style politics. A party that speaks for "Red Tories" those members who are socially conservative, but fiscally liberal. A party that could actually work with other parties in the commons to produce compromises. It is not hard to see a liberals making deals with such a party. The liberal parties mantra is do what is needed to stay in power. Today, that means making deals with the NDP, tomorrow it could be making deals with a "Progressive" Conservative party. It feels odd to write this as I normally vote NDP. However the voices of the rational conservative Canadians need to be heard, and based on their behavior over the last few months, I don't think that will happen in todays Conservative (reform in Tory clothing party).
If the acolytes of the Right and the Conservative Party of Canada commenting on this thread are representative of the Conservative Party more generally, it's evident today's Conservative Party will not be forming a government in the foreseeable future.
Their views are antithetical to about two thirds of Canadians and inconsistent with facts, evidence, and reality. There is also a meanness of spirit, misanthropy, and a sense of victimization not shared by most Canadians.
To form the government of Canada, the CPC would need to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons, not just a plurality. A plurality would mean other parties would form a 'coalition' that would keep the Conservatives in opposition.
For today's Conservative Party there is no apparent electoral path to a majority, unlike there was for Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives.
A "a strong, stable, national majority government" sounds like a good thing. Right? It's because the words 'strong' and 'stable' seem to be positive aspects. However, Canadian history shows us that strong, stable majority governments are not necessarily good governments for most people and often don't pass sound public policy.
A strong, stable majority government is a very bad thing when it applies to a bad government, as was Stephen Harper's majority government.
Hmm. Would you have preferred that the Canadian government did not support people and businesses during the pandemic?
In reality, you will see that the 'unlimited borrowing binge' will have no more detrimental impact on the economy than did Harper's 'unlimited borrowing binge' during the 2007/9 Great Recession.
In fact, for countries like Canada 'unlimited borrowing binges' when the lender is their central bank are good for the economy and, more importantly, people.
History is clear. Your fears are unwarranted.
Government spending on programs that help people are good. Just so you know.
Harper didn't borrow on anywhere near the scale as Trudeau. Harper also wound down the stimulus, which is something the Liberal's have shown no intent to tackle.
Lots of stats show that COVID relief more than replaced lost income in Canada and the US. An ideal government support package would have replaced some but not all income.
The notion that borrowing doesn't matter if central banks but the debt is fallacy. That would require the god-like ability to create something from nothing. The more money printed by central banks, the less the money is worth, hence the inflationary spiral currently afflicting most of the world.
Currently, Canada's debt to GDP ratio is about 48%. Japan's is 252%. If your concerns had merit why is Japan's economy still robust and productive. And, why is Japan's inflation rate .9%.
There is neither research nor historical precedence to justify your claims and fears.
Given Canada is not suffering any of the damage you claim we should fear, it's obvious you're concerns are unfounded. That is not a word game. It's economics and monetary policy.
I notice you're unable or unwilling to respond cogently to the points I'm making. I suspect it's because you lack the competency to do so. Name calling is not a intellectually honest response to another's views.
I touch type with two hands; just ask Mavis Beacon.
So what is "a credible climate plan"? Mitigation (reduction of anthropogenic CO2) or adaptation (infrastructure actions to combat the effects of climate change)? Questioning the feasibility of mitigation does not mean denying that climate change is real, much as left-leaning pundits like to suggest. There are many reputable climate scientists, and others in related disciplines, who are skeptical of mitigation being a necessary or feasible approach to climate change, arguing that much of that approach is based on distortions and misrepresentations of IPCC data. Persons such as Canadians Patrick Moore and Ross McKitrick, and, further afield, Judith Curry, Rupert Darwall, Steven Koonin, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg, Roger Pielke Jr., Ian Plimer, Willi Soon. You won't see them getting fair coverage in media, but they are out there and the evidence they present, unfashionable and politically-incorrect though it may be, is impressive. Given that the NDP-backed Liberals are likely to stay in office for a while, does this not give the Conservatives time to develop and promote a credible platform that will bring the electorate to recognize that adapation is much more achievable than the chimera of mitigation, and much more realistic in terms of economics.
Neither Patrick Moore nor Ross McKitrick are reputable climate scientists. And, both have been debunked, repeatedly, as the worst kind of climate change deniers.
You could not be more wrong about both people on climate. Neither has any credibility, whatsoever, except in the climate change denying community. That you think otherwise speaks to your gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills. The term climate denier has nothing to do with anything other than denying anthropogenic climate change. For one example about your 'experts,' see https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA
Not too surprising that the example of "debunking" Patrick Moore was a CBC piece. And Moore's concluding comments tell us more about him than than the predictable innuendos earlier in the piece. Re your dismissal of McKitrick, you conveniently overlook that I had included "others in related disciplines". Moore and McKitrick are just two of the several names I cited. Inevitably true believers in an "existential climate change emergency" flood the internet with vitriol against those who have the temerity to question that stance, but maybe some people following this exchange will be open-minded enough to want to evaluate for themselves what the dissenters argue. Audi alteram partem.
While you are free to accept the people you list as credible sources, there are reasons why others don’t. If you care to learn more about those reasons, I would suggest taking the forty minutes necessary to watch a couple of videos. Both are responses to popular PragerU videos, one by Patrick Moore, and the other by Bjorn Lomborg.
Patrick Moore has a new book, “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom”. I have not read it but my guess is that he will have taken the opportunity to rebut hatchet attacks made against him, such as the one you cite. But be that as it may, I think it likely that subscribers to The Line who have been following this exchange will want to evaluate for themselves the views of those who question climate change alarmism, rather than just rely on mainstream media reporting and You Tube bloggers. I would particularly recommend Bjorn Lomborg’s recent book, “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix The Planet”, and Steven E. Koonin’s recent book “Unsettled: What Climate change Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It matters”. Then one can decide which is the more realistic policy – mitigation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, supposedly the primary cause of climate change, or adaptation to deal with climate change, whatever its cause.
Much of my last response to Pat would apply to what appears to be your understanding as well. As you reference Moore’s new book, I will add one thing. A professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary contacted a number of the people whose work was cited in Moore’s book. You can read his article at
The article says many researchers and organizations responsible for the data disagree with the manner in which it has been used by Moore in his book. Having to make the choice, you can safely assume that I would side with the people doing the actual work. Although it is probable that you would decide otherwise, I think that you should at least be aware that it is a decision you will be making.
Frankly, I see much of this as nit-picking and "he-said/she-said" argument on both sides, largely irrelevant to what I see as the core question: mitigation or adaptation? Mitigation means turning back the material and economic progress we have made over millennia, not only to the detriment of Western civilization but to the particular detriment of developing countries. Solar and wind-turbines -- far from clean in manufacture, installation and subsequent disposal -- won't do it without back-up of mega-batteries yet to be invented. Nuclear, used wisely, is an established clean option but is anathema to the greens. On the other hand we have been successfully adapting to climate changes since we first appeared on the planet, spectacularly so since the industrial revolution (for all its faults). It seems to me, and Moore, Lomborg, Koonin et al, that instead of pouring billions of dollars into the mitigation dream, adaptation is a more attainable and long-term-feasible option. So I rest my case: let others use open-minded reading to form their own conclusions.
I like this article. Very realistic approach to how the Conservative party could hope to win a majority government in the next election, but it would require that Conservative members have a good hard look at how collaborative and open minded their prospective leaders-in-waiting are, when all reports point to the fact that the Conservative party is so divided, cut-throat, climate change challenged, regionally biased, and not inclusive enough to ever see a majority, even if Canadians have had enough of Trudeau.
What an interesting piece. It would have been nice to have a word or two on how the CPC party can eat into PPC votes without losing more urban middle of the road voters. I believe the CPC endorsement of the trucker nonsense helped boost the support of the LPC/NDP agreement. If the one of your points,Ken, is that Canada needs a latter day version of a principled center-right conservative option then I would strongly agree.
The more the CPC tries to eat into the PPC vote the less electable they become. It'll be interesting to see the PPC raison d'etre in the next election but it will decidedly not be all that mainstream. the CPC trying to eat into the PPC vote is like the Liberals trying to appeal to the far left of the NDP base. The path to a majority is clearly not at the fringes it is in a broader coalition and with clear policy that goes beyond "Liberals bad"
I believe a substantial number of PPC voters are disaffected Green and Liberal vpters. Remember pre-pandemic anti vaxers were mostly Democrats
Why would you believe that? As well there is no way Democrats (US, right?) are in any way the same as Liberals. They'd fit into the Conservative camp.
The only way one could say the left half of the Democrats would fit into the Conservative party is that you could say they have principles, something the Liberals are totally lacking in.
There are some Liberals in there for sure, mostly parked due to Masks and mandates. Without that then you get into the xenophobic meat and potatoes of their policy which will limit their appeal
Maybe, but not so substantial as you think. PPC is made up of libertarian type who have voted Conservative because the New Democratic Party is made up of bunches of socialists or worse and Liberals who are socialites and elitists does not appeal to them at all. Greens will reliably vote Green. This leaves the young disaffected types who usually don't bother to vote on anything but it's fun to be a shit disturber. Max is entertaining even if you can understand only one word in six.
Democrats? Who are these Dems who were anti-vaxx early days? And how long
did they remain so?
So are you asking the MSM to depict the PPC as they truly are or as you would like them to be?
I liked this piece and agree with a lot of it. And, I'm one of those Ontario centrist voters who definitely is looking for what Ken outlined here. These articles tend to raise the question -- what is the conservative movement really trying to accomplish besides electoral victory?
To me, what's attractive about conservatism, at least as it used to exist in Canada, is the realization that government can be a powerful force for good, but it's a fairly coarse instrument and it's really, really difficult, at the scale of the federal goverment, to predict what a policy initiative might do -- both intentionally and intentionally. Therefore, conservatives constantly weight the ROI on any new big policy initiative. What's the potential benefits? What's the potential cost? And, most importantly, what's the potential risk? Instead of an approach that government should solve almost every problem (NDP) or that government should do as little as possible (pure libertarians), Canadian conservatives used to be good at finding a good compromise, recognizing that public policy, even with great intentions, could cause more problems than it's worth if government doesn't make prudent choices.
That doesn't mean government should avoid some challenges (healthcare, climate change) altogether. In fact, Conservative goverments have come up with really effective public policy (including helping address acid rain) that used market- based approach instead of a heavy handed, top down approach.
To use a sports metaphor, the NDP want to be players in the game. Canadian conservatives used to see the role of government as coming up with a really effective rulebook and allowing citizens to use their skills and creativity to play the game themselves (and define how they wanted to 'win'). By creating a framework for citizens/organizations to act, its an approach that encourages innovation and locally-focused solutions. Within that approach, there's a balance -- a willingness to acknowledge that an issue (say, climate change) exists, along with a concern that a big, expensive government program may be very costly and still not solve the problem. Conservative policy attempts to spread out the risk, encouraging a lot of individual decisions. Frankly, when it comes to climate change, that can (and should) include things like carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes and its a shame Conservatives are unwilling to propose models that address their concerns with the current Liberal approach.
In short, I've always had the impression that Canadian Conservatism was different than US Republicanism -- that is was born from Canada being a vast country of different people living far from another, needing both to lean on a community to survive and wanting solutions that suited their local conditions. Whether or not that's what modern Canadian conservatism is about, it's what I'm looking for and no longer finding in any of the major federal parties.
An excellent comment. Personally I really like Joseph Heath's description of left, right, and centre: http://induecourse.ca/lessons-for-the-left-from-olivia-chows-faltering-campaign/
I, too, long for the days when Preston Manning represented the right-hand guardrail of federal politics and there were two political parties capable of commanding majorities of the House and forming capable and accountable federal Cabinet. The choice now is between ignorant bullies and movement politics, and that's a no-brainer. I see no figure in conservative politics besides Prime Minister Harper capable of leading the CPC.
You are channeling my thoughts much more eloquently than I ever could. This is PRECISELY my position, and the move to the hard right coming out of this ‘new’ party with its whistle dog politics and knee-jerk reactionary bullshit is why I let my PC party membership lapse. Same with my provincial party membership.
Interest rate rises in the last 2 weeks alone have added ~$5B to the GoC's debt servicing costs, and at least as much for the Provinces at an aggregate level. Rates are only going to rise more, meaning that anyone supporting new spending is delusional. Governments are going to struggle to save the furniture, let alone fund any kind of vision. The CPC needs to focus on first principles: balancing the budget ASAP, creating a framework (ex. efficient infrastructure, consistent and easy to comply regulatory environment) for economic growth that doesn't involve industrial strategy and realistic climate policy (ex. achievable targets that focus on reducing demand rather than restricting supply). The last 3 election campaigns have been about nothing, which obviously favors candidates like Trudeau that have lots of style.
It would mean someone would have to stand up and tell the truth. That the last 60 years of deficit funded goodies was a great big lie that they all used to buy votes with their kid's futures. I would vote for that person assuming they came out and said this is what we have decided to cut and why. That person does not exist in politics.
Those politicians exisited in the 90's. The 1993 Alberta election was between the Klein PC's proposing "significant cuts" to government spending and the Decore Liberals promising "brutal cuts".
Mike Harris did it in his first term in Ontario. Having cut some fat ( I believe they call it "finding efficiencies" now), he went full scorched earth in the second term and did unimaginable damage to Ontario's future.
What I want to hear is what the brutal cuts are. I don't think there's any doubt that reality demands them.
Simple in concept, but not execution: 1) reduce federal payroll. This likely involves long term hiring and compensation freezes from the federal workforce. The federal public service headcount has exploded under Trudeau, 2) frozen transfer to provinces, which will in turn force the provinces to freeze headcount and compensation, 3) annual program reviews looking for areas that the federal government can exit.
I disagree about cuts causing permanent damage. My experience was the opposite. I was a university student during the 20% Klein spending cuts, while also working at a provincially funded medical lab. The cuts were rapid, meaning that morale took a hit but most people got over it quickly. Cleaning out the deadwood management layers actually improved service. Unfortunately, union seniority rules meant the least senior employees were generally first out the door, rather than the poor performers.
Harper took federal spending to a record low of GDP and nothing broke, meaning that opportunity exists to take it lower.
This is a good summary of the dilemma we in the middle are facing. The NDP and the Liberals have lost any sense of fiscal responsibility and are WOKE to the extreme. The Conservatives want to fight battles that were lost 20 to 30 years ago. They destroy leaders who may want to deal with the broader issues of the economy, health care, and defense as the priority issues. And may want to get elected. I would like to vote Conservative but not if they rather be on the far right than right.
woke /wōk/
verb
past of wake
adjective INFORMAL•US
adjective: woke; comparative adjective: woker; superlative adjective: wokest
"alert to injustice in society, especially racism"
The word "woke" is almost always only used by Cons. Supposedly a bad thing that the Libs and the Dippers should hang their head in shame, for being alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Or maybe you have your own conservative definition of "woke".
Reading research such as Jonathan Haidt or James Lindsay should help.
You would have me read books, watch videos & scan articles in which I would eventually learn what your definition, conservative or something else, of woke is?
Lindsay is a piece of work isn't he?
It would help you understand why your definitions are not what WOKE is. If you could read Woke Religion by John McWorter it would also help.
I think you missed the social conservative albatross in the room. Until the Conservatives stop trying to tell people how they should live their personal lives, and the decisions they make, they remain unelectable...regardless of how bad the other choices may be. They need to leave the 1950 mentality behind.
Social Conservatives are a media scarecrow. Show me an example of the cons doing what you are talking about under Harper, for example. Or in a campaign platform.
They don't. They're not idiots. So thy hide behind saying our MP's are free to put forth private members" bills that try to dictate how people should live their lives. But every time it comes up at the convention, they stop short of accepting women's rights, or everyone's right to choose who they love. They haven't quite gotten to the place of publicly announcing it like the clown show that is the GOP....but there are clearly lots who believe it.
Canadians traditionally vote to get rid of governments; not elect them. Harper got in because Chretien wore out his welcome. That's how Trudeau got in. Trudeau tried to wear out his mandate in one term with SNC, but Scheer couldn't stop shooting himself in the foot.
So, as I said, the conservatives can continue to pander to the 1950 GOP wing of the party and lose, or they can carve in stone that they're casting those ideas aside once and for all. Maybe they'll figure it out after they lose the next election. It does have to be part of the campaign to be part of the party. It's a cancer they must excise.
I disagree. They are in complete denial that Ward and June aren't still running the household. Embolden by the Christian Taliban south of the border, they seek to impose their opinions on how people should live their lives. It's 20freekin22. Love who you want to love, be who you want to be, and don't let anyone tell you what you can or can't do with your body as long as you're not bringing harm to anyone.
They say they're against abortion, but they're also against birth control. Immediately, it's not about life; it's about controlling women.
On that one issue alone, a jackhammer is needed. Women's rights are under as much attack in the US as they are in Afghanistan...yes, just give them time; they'll get there.
If you want the political angle, it's a simple easy wedge issue, and it's worked brilliantly in the last 2 elections. Based on where the CRC seems to be headed, they'll lose their third ( I know it will be the fourth, but that's not why Harper was turfed; he wanted to lose that election.) in a row. What the GOP is doing in the US has traction in Canada...with a tiny minority of the population. Until the CRC casts them adrift instead of pandering to them, they'll lose.
Maybe I am idealistic, but I believe that sensible and actionable policies, explained well, can convince voters when set against impractical virtue signaling fluff.
Agreed, but first get out of the mind set of being dismissive. You want to have a substantive conversation, don't come at me with lame buzz words like virtue signaling fluff. That's partisan talk and it loses your target audience. Attack idea not the person. How do conservatives address day care costs that drag our economy down by limiting the ability of some people to engage in the work force? Do you just cede that ground to the Liberals? There is something to be said about the gross buying power of a national pharmacy program but can Conservatives do it better? Canadians outside Alberta aren't buying into the idea of pipelines and standing pat on Climate Change. How do conservatives propose to address that when doing nothing is not an acceptable answer if you intend to win a majority.
But first and foremost, get Trudeau out of your head. The hatred is to the point of irrational that rather than finding ways to do things better, its this loop of attacking a guy then getting upset when people shrug and vote for him.
Some issues (eg single use plastic bans, climate change, federal vaccine mandates) basically are virtue signalling fluff - policies that accomplish nothing substantive in the real world, regardless of their popularity.
Others, eg day care costs and pharmacare, definitely are substantive issues, which should be discussed and engaged with rationally.
Conservatives have been losing on the fluff issues, when they should be winning on them. Pretending that the fluff is serious is a losing strategy - only Liberals can pull that off with a straight face.
I disagree with a lot of what you're saying. I buy into the general argument that Canada's contribution to Climate change is negligible if China and India as examples are not on board, but consensus outside of the Conservative partisan circle is that we still should be doing something and that local measures can impact locally. By the logic being applied to those who aggressively push back at Climate Change initiatives Regan and Mulroney never should've finalized the Acid Accord in 1991 which to date has been one of the most successful environmental policy initiates ever undertaken. The move away from coal power generation in Ontario has resulted in a better grid and less smog days. These are things voters see, so to call them virtue signalling fluff is just kind of insulting.
Conservatives lose on you 'fluff' issues because they refuse to engage. Liberals keep succeeding on them because most people want to engage.
So lets take your idea on single use plastic bans. Yeah, it's a bit of an eye roll because it has been brought up and really we have no practical way to apply it. But that doesn't make it unsound policy. Single use plastics are a bane. They make our recycling programs expensive and damage our local environment. Rather than calling it fluff, acknowledge the idea and figure out pragmatic ways we can apply it or if it isn't feasible, then say as much (without the condescension) and poke a crap ton of holes into it until the idea is done.
I agree that the right way to deal with the fluff issues is to shred them with logical argument. That's what makes them fluff.
Acid rain is not analogous to climate change. Measures taken to curb acid rain have local economic costs but deliver local environmental benefits. Climate change action has local economic costs but doesn't deliver environmental benefits if emissions simply shift to other jurisdictions. This is why the Liberal focus on supply side climate action fails. Real climate change progress involves reducing demand: ex. lower immigration targets, tolling the 401, quotas on flights using the Toronto and Montreal airports. None of these would stand a chance electorally.
Most progressives don't support balanced budgets, so they aren't able to govern using math. Believing that government can spend more than it raises in revenue, or can conjure money out of nothing requires faith akin to religion.
Is climate change a real issue for people on the centre to centre of right? The poll was done by a group whose whole existence is about clinate change. We need a new approach to climate change, the CPC needs a new approach on how to deal with being called the extreme right, fascists and racists. Energy independence incorporating all forms of energy and a realistic approach to how the climate affects us is needed. But it's not about a tax.
I would love to see defence policy and climate change policy treated the same way. In both cases, there is a plausible but not unarguable case that there is a real need in the world, but in any event Canada is too small to make a contribution big enough to make a difference in outcome.
How, then, do we decide how much effort to put in and sacrifice to make? A "Canada First" attitude says to do as little as we can get away with from other countries. A moderate approach says to do approximately what most other countries in the relevant group are doing. A fanatical approach says to be leaders in sacrifice, since we can't possibly be leaders in impact.
I think what really kick-started Canadian climate policy was Keystone XL getting blocked, back around 2014. Given the importance of transport bottlenecks to the oil sands, that made it clear that Canada couldn't stick with the "Canada First" approach. At that point some of the major oil sands players reached out to environmental groups to see if a compromise policy was possible. That's what led to Alberta's climate policy, several aspects of which were then picked up in the federal climate policy (like output-based allocations for industrial pricing). https://energi.media/markham-on-energy/phillips-kenney-tzeporah-berman-osag-06jul18/
Maybe we'll see similar movement on defence policy as a result of Russia's might-makes-right attack on Ukraine.
A significant portion of what governments do is basically just figuring out how to respond to unexpected events. This is especially true for a smaller power like Canada. A lot of Trudeau's time in office has been spent dealing with Trump and then Covid.
Pipelines to the sea are the way forward for energy exports. At least then we only have to get our own act together, and not worry about the US. Obviously there are many constituencies within Canada that would need to be dealt with or bought off for that to happen, but dropping the pretence that banning, eg, LNG export from Canada will have an impact on global climate would be helpful. Explicitly linking the issue with defence would be a clever way for the Conservatives to show new thinking, as well as making Liberals (love sacrifice for climate change, hate sacrifice for defence) look ridiculous.
I'm a Liberal, and I think both climate change and defence are important. Even before Russia launched its full-scale attack on Ukraine, it was clear that with the US stepping back and China throwing its weight around, we're in a more dangerous world, and Canada needs sharper teeth. https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2019/02/09/canada-in-the-global-jungle
Exactly - a climate policy focused on making it easier for other countries to transition from coal/oil to gas (short term big reduction in carbon) and clearing away senseless regulation to make innovative nuclear easier could actually have a material impact while making Canadians better off.
Negotiations are more likely to be successful if the small countries refuse to act on their own without a treaty binding on the large countries.
Ken and I were caucus researchers at the Commons together back in the day, for different parties, with offices facing each other overlooking Sparks Street. As usual, his analysis is apt, relevant, rigorous, and will likely be ignored. He gets to say "I told you so" more than anyone else I know.
A $13B pharma/dental initiative might be "wee" to somebody comfortable, but for millions who aren't comfortable, it's a very big deal.
Perhaps it's time to accept that Canada is simply ultra woke and the Liberals have figured out how to tap into that.
The only line of attack the Conservatives could use is housing. If they had a solid housing plan I'd expect Millennials and Gen Z would flock to them, at least till the Liberals figured put how to copy it. The second alternative is Quebec finally comes into the Conservative fold.
So blunt honest truth on Housing: Nobody has the answer because Canadians of all stripes won't accept an answer and millenials/gen z aren't reliable enough voters to push for what needs to be done. Really the only way to way to cool housing is to address why it spirals out of control which is that gains in your primary residence are tax free. Eat 4-5% of that real estate feel, the Land Transfer Tax at least in Ontario and you walk away with pure profit. You'd slow this thing down by grandfathering in one last Exempt sale for all current houses and then start taxing the gains on Primary residences. And that isn't going to happen.
And Quebec will not come into the fold until you have a viable climate change plan and you stop demonizing them for not wanting a pipeline. There can be a pretty strong conservative steak in the province, but you can't apply the same logic you do on the Prairies. Brain Mulroney figured that out in 84 and 88.
The commodification of housing is the problem and the Ontario example is an excellent choice.
I know a local chap to wave at who builds a new house every year or two (Covid slowed him down) which he then claims is his primary residence, although we all know he still lives on the farm with his parents. Move forward 12 or so months and that `primary residence' is on the market. Now, it just so happens that in the past 2 or so years our properties have become extremely expensive. A house that sold for the 150s 3 or so years ago now gets offers that take the final price to the mid 500s and up. You actually can't buy a house here for less than 400k. In his smallish way, he has made housing so expensive that young families `from here' have to live elsewhere, and that means they also take their education and skills elsewhere.
There's a social cost to this strategy and our chap isn't paying it upfront but he will be.
This looks like a back door endorsement of Jean Charest to me, no thank you, I have had my fill of Quebec politicians looking out for Quebec and Quebec alone! This unholy alliance between Liberals and NDP should be the kiss of death to both parties and any CPC leader should prevail in 2025 should this alliance actually last that long!
Going Liberal Lite didn’t work out so well in the last election and likely won’t next time either. Showing you are without any foundational principles is hardly going to endear you to the undecided voters. The commentators that indicate that they would “look at” the Conservatives if they wander to the center-left are being truthful but looking ain’t voting as they will again lose their collective nerves and back the devil they know. Actual Liberals. I’m not sure if Pollievre is the answer either but at least he stands for something other than out Liberaling the Liberals.
It is very very hard to vote for a leader from Quebec isn't it? But who the C's choose; the P is completely gone now will determine their fate.
Perhaps the time of the "big tent" party has come and gone. There is a need for a sensible centre right party which reflects the views of conservative leaning Canadian's who who have not drunk the GOP style politics. A party that speaks for "Red Tories" those members who are socially conservative, but fiscally liberal. A party that could actually work with other parties in the commons to produce compromises. It is not hard to see a liberals making deals with such a party. The liberal parties mantra is do what is needed to stay in power. Today, that means making deals with the NDP, tomorrow it could be making deals with a "Progressive" Conservative party. It feels odd to write this as I normally vote NDP. However the voices of the rational conservative Canadians need to be heard, and based on their behavior over the last few months, I don't think that will happen in todays Conservative (reform in Tory clothing party).
If the acolytes of the Right and the Conservative Party of Canada commenting on this thread are representative of the Conservative Party more generally, it's evident today's Conservative Party will not be forming a government in the foreseeable future.
Their views are antithetical to about two thirds of Canadians and inconsistent with facts, evidence, and reality. There is also a meanness of spirit, misanthropy, and a sense of victimization not shared by most Canadians.
To form the government of Canada, the CPC would need to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons, not just a plurality. A plurality would mean other parties would form a 'coalition' that would keep the Conservatives in opposition.
For today's Conservative Party there is no apparent electoral path to a majority, unlike there was for Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives.
A "a strong, stable, national majority government" sounds like a good thing. Right? It's because the words 'strong' and 'stable' seem to be positive aspects. However, Canadian history shows us that strong, stable majority governments are not necessarily good governments for most people and often don't pass sound public policy.
A strong, stable majority government is a very bad thing when it applies to a bad government, as was Stephen Harper's majority government.
Hmm. Would you have preferred that the Canadian government did not support people and businesses during the pandemic?
In reality, you will see that the 'unlimited borrowing binge' will have no more detrimental impact on the economy than did Harper's 'unlimited borrowing binge' during the 2007/9 Great Recession.
In fact, for countries like Canada 'unlimited borrowing binges' when the lender is their central bank are good for the economy and, more importantly, people.
History is clear. Your fears are unwarranted.
Government spending on programs that help people are good. Just so you know.
Harper didn't borrow on anywhere near the scale as Trudeau. Harper also wound down the stimulus, which is something the Liberal's have shown no intent to tackle.
Lots of stats show that COVID relief more than replaced lost income in Canada and the US. An ideal government support package would have replaced some but not all income.
The notion that borrowing doesn't matter if central banks but the debt is fallacy. That would require the god-like ability to create something from nothing. The more money printed by central banks, the less the money is worth, hence the inflationary spiral currently afflicting most of the world.
Currently, Canada's debt to GDP ratio is about 48%. Japan's is 252%. If your concerns had merit why is Japan's economy still robust and productive. And, why is Japan's inflation rate .9%.
There is neither research nor historical precedence to justify your claims and fears.
Given Canada is not suffering any of the damage you claim we should fear, it's obvious you're concerns are unfounded. That is not a word game. It's economics and monetary policy.
I notice you're unable or unwilling to respond cogently to the points I'm making. I suspect it's because you lack the competency to do so. Name calling is not a intellectually honest response to another's views.
I touch type with two hands; just ask Mavis Beacon.
When you're unable to respond cogently to another's views, is name calling your default rhetorical tactic? If so, can you explain why?
So what is "a credible climate plan"? Mitigation (reduction of anthropogenic CO2) or adaptation (infrastructure actions to combat the effects of climate change)? Questioning the feasibility of mitigation does not mean denying that climate change is real, much as left-leaning pundits like to suggest. There are many reputable climate scientists, and others in related disciplines, who are skeptical of mitigation being a necessary or feasible approach to climate change, arguing that much of that approach is based on distortions and misrepresentations of IPCC data. Persons such as Canadians Patrick Moore and Ross McKitrick, and, further afield, Judith Curry, Rupert Darwall, Steven Koonin, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg, Roger Pielke Jr., Ian Plimer, Willi Soon. You won't see them getting fair coverage in media, but they are out there and the evidence they present, unfashionable and politically-incorrect though it may be, is impressive. Given that the NDP-backed Liberals are likely to stay in office for a while, does this not give the Conservatives time to develop and promote a credible platform that will bring the electorate to recognize that adapation is much more achievable than the chimera of mitigation, and much more realistic in terms of economics.
Neither Patrick Moore nor Ross McKitrick are reputable climate scientists. And, both have been debunked, repeatedly, as the worst kind of climate change deniers.
You could not be more wrong about both people on climate. Neither has any credibility, whatsoever, except in the climate change denying community. That you think otherwise speaks to your gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills. The term climate denier has nothing to do with anything other than denying anthropogenic climate change. For one example about your 'experts,' see https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA
Not too surprising that the example of "debunking" Patrick Moore was a CBC piece. And Moore's concluding comments tell us more about him than than the predictable innuendos earlier in the piece. Re your dismissal of McKitrick, you conveniently overlook that I had included "others in related disciplines". Moore and McKitrick are just two of the several names I cited. Inevitably true believers in an "existential climate change emergency" flood the internet with vitriol against those who have the temerity to question that stance, but maybe some people following this exchange will be open-minded enough to want to evaluate for themselves what the dissenters argue. Audi alteram partem.
While you are free to accept the people you list as credible sources, there are reasons why others don’t. If you care to learn more about those reasons, I would suggest taking the forty minutes necessary to watch a couple of videos. Both are responses to popular PragerU videos, one by Patrick Moore, and the other by Bjorn Lomborg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XIpTqbLR5Y&t=932s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwMPFDqyfrA&t=9s
If nothing else, they illustrate a different view on what constitutes “impressive evidence”.
Patrick Moore has a new book, “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom”. I have not read it but my guess is that he will have taken the opportunity to rebut hatchet attacks made against him, such as the one you cite. But be that as it may, I think it likely that subscribers to The Line who have been following this exchange will want to evaluate for themselves the views of those who question climate change alarmism, rather than just rely on mainstream media reporting and You Tube bloggers. I would particularly recommend Bjorn Lomborg’s recent book, “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix The Planet”, and Steven E. Koonin’s recent book “Unsettled: What Climate change Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It matters”. Then one can decide which is the more realistic policy – mitigation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, supposedly the primary cause of climate change, or adaptation to deal with climate change, whatever its cause.
Much of my last response to Pat would apply to what appears to be your understanding as well. As you reference Moore’s new book, I will add one thing. A professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary contacted a number of the people whose work was cited in Moore’s book. You can read his article at
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/04/Fact-Checking-Patrick-Moore-Climate-Skeptic/
The article says many researchers and organizations responsible for the data disagree with the manner in which it has been used by Moore in his book. Having to make the choice, you can safely assume that I would side with the people doing the actual work. Although it is probable that you would decide otherwise, I think that you should at least be aware that it is a decision you will be making.
Frankly, I see much of this as nit-picking and "he-said/she-said" argument on both sides, largely irrelevant to what I see as the core question: mitigation or adaptation? Mitigation means turning back the material and economic progress we have made over millennia, not only to the detriment of Western civilization but to the particular detriment of developing countries. Solar and wind-turbines -- far from clean in manufacture, installation and subsequent disposal -- won't do it without back-up of mega-batteries yet to be invented. Nuclear, used wisely, is an established clean option but is anathema to the greens. On the other hand we have been successfully adapting to climate changes since we first appeared on the planet, spectacularly so since the industrial revolution (for all its faults). It seems to me, and Moore, Lomborg, Koonin et al, that instead of pouring billions of dollars into the mitigation dream, adaptation is a more attainable and long-term-feasible option. So I rest my case: let others use open-minded reading to form their own conclusions.
I will take it that your attempt at deflection is a result of not being able to respond to the analyses offered in the two videos.