I think there was one other thing you missed in that column (and I was surprised given your knowledge and passion on the subject): Guns. The Conservatives were headed for victory with a couple of weeks left to go and Trudeau pulled his Fear Factor wedge on guns. O'Toole, scared about losing suburban votes, went squishy which alienated everyone. Conservatives felt betrayed and centre left types wondered again about Conservatives' "hidden agendas." That's when O'Toole's numbers sank and he lost all those ridings by a hair.
If O'Toole had stood firm and called out the Liberals for their hypocrisy, things might have gone differently. The charge of hypocrisy sticks to the Liberal brand. And people value leaders who have beliefs they're prepared to defend. (You completely won me over on the gun topic. There's no reason O'Toole couldn't have done the same. Even if he hadn't, he would have projected toughness. I think that's what he lost.
Poilievre is winning, I think, because unlike Scheer and O'toole he doesn't show fear. He says what he thinks on hot button issues and doesn't get scared off because of what the "Laurentian elite" may say. This connects to what your friend said about the male vote. Most people were already sick of the Liberals' DEI intersectional moral superiority, which mainly targets men. Cultural issues aren't a top of mind voting concern, but in my view are the 90% of the iceberg under the water because they signal how parties will approach issues, prioritize and make economic decisions. Cultural positions also let people know of parties hold certain groups are held in contempt: No one will vote for a party that hates them, which is what the left gets wrong when it says (condescendingly) that the working class doesn't know its own interests. Not all interests are economic; some are about basic self respect, and what self-respecting working class voter will vote for a party that codes it as racist, misogynist, homo/transphobic and unCanadian?
I wanted O'Toole to win because I've always been on the liberal left and thought that was the best way to keep two moderate parties. Like you, a feared O'Toole's loss would mean a far right turn for the Conservatives, and inevitably power shifts to the opposition party, so I was prepared to suffer short term inconvenience for long term security. But as it's turned out, Trudeau has doubled-down on his illiberal instincts, pushing centrists further away, and people have noticed that Poilievre's bark is worse than his policy bite and that he's actually more liberal in terms of classic values like free speech, equality, due process, etcetera.
Oh, for sure. We can autopsy the 2021 campaign all day long. But a better Conservative campaign three years ago probably produces 150 Conservative seats? Maybe 160? Something much bigger than better tactics is happening here.
The cost of living crisis bit. A spotlight of COL-related scrutiny suddenly swung onto Trudeau and he was utterly unprepared for it.
I still don't think he fully realizes how completely the electorate's political priorities have shifted. He's playing all the old hits and doesn't understand why the crowd is no longer cheering.
I think you were also right in your recent column that he's too burnt out to pivot with the urgency, decisiveness, and boldness that the political moment demands.
The more interesting question is why there hasn't been a revolt. It could be the LPC's internal structure or culture, but I increasingly wonder if the LPC rank and file have decided that their fate is already sealed, and nobody who believes they have an eventual shot at the PMO wants to lead a bloody internal rebellion for the privilege of being the next Kim Campbell.
It’s not a question of being burnt out. Sane economic policy demands at least a modicum of understanding of ……. Basic economics and finance. Trudeau told us all we needed to know of his acumen (snark) on these matters when he said the budget would balance itself, and does not think about monetary policy. This is also the genius who contemptuously waved away concerns over piling on the national debt because interest rates were low, evidently unaware that interest gets paid out in the future when - surprise, surprise- interest rates are likely to be higher.
He is beyond clueless on such matters, but a great leader for a country that seems hell bent on falling so far down the productivity ladder that we may attain developing country status. Remember, he was a demonstrated buffoon on matters economic before the last election, and earlier even that that, and yet he got much of the vote. Any Canadians who voted for him and now seek to whine because of COL issues would do well to have a look in the mirror.
I'm thinking that "bigger" might mean an undercurrent of national impotence, of citizen frustration, of a stronger (male?) determination to get something DONE. Our country has gone to crap, we can't do anything about it (in any meaningful timeframe) and we don't like that.
There's also a strong pro-incumbent bias whenever there's an external crisis: COVID wasn't over at the time of the 2021 election, and the electorate similarly re-affirmed Harper's Conservatives in 2008 in the grips of a world financial crisis. Similar trends have worked in favor of a number of provincial governments as well.
Correct. The election was right at the crest of the delta variant, which was the worst. If the election was held 3 months later with omicron as dominant variant, the result would have been much different
I was a lifelong lefty, always voting red orange or green. What pushed me right? Wokeness. Since then I've also moved right on economics, discovering Milton Friedman was revelatory for me. I joined the CPC specifically to vote PP as leader, but I was too shy to "like" his page on facebook, or tell any of my prog friends (some of whom have disowned me due to my political shift). When my arch liberal baby boomer mother found out I joined and voted in Pierre, she reacted like I had just joined the SS. All this to say I think we've been conditioned to think that conservatives need to be super careful and water everything down to appeal to moderates, BUT the left/progressive orthodoxy is now so extremely off the deep end that we don't need to find a soft middle path of moderation slightly to the right of the wokes, we need Pierre Poilievre to boldly say what we're all bloody well thinking! Pierre isn't really a radical, he's a centrist - he is in the centre of *actual* political sentiment in this country, which you would never know because our cultural establishment has shamed everyone into accepting their astroturfed phony consensus. Many of my lefty friends are slowly coming over to team blue - what they're overcoming is the Jon Stewartized mental conditioning that "conservatism bad"
Yes to your comment: "we need Pierre Poilievre to boldly say what we're all bloody well thinking! Pierre isn't really a radical, he's a centrist - he is in the centre of *actual* political sentiment in this country"
However, I'm still looking for some real substance, or some lively debate, about how a PP-led government would make changes. Maybe it's just my lingering PTSD-like emotions from the Harper days, where he was slashing funds for useful federal programs.
Rest assured, I do not think Pierre is the Messiah; I have no doubt he will bungle things too. What he has proposed that I hope he follows through with :
1) Developing our O&G. Canada is broke, we have foolishly de-industrialized, and are now reliant on selling houses to eachother as a national industry. Climate Change is a thing, yes, but there is no reason Germany should be buying LNG from Qatar instead of us. We cannot solve environmental problems if we cripple and impoverish ourselves.
2) Streamlining Government. The cost of government has ballooned, over-regulation is hobbling our economic development, and corrupt procurement and government contract debacles show that government is too big and bloated. We pay *way* too much tax for mediocre services. Pierre was dead on in predicting this wave of inflation and the inevitable pain of needing to raise rates, at a time when Trudeau II was laughing that "he doesn't think about monetary policy" - I have significantly more confidence in Pierre on these matters.
3) Free speech and anti-wokeness - this is HUGE for me. I criticize Mr. Gurney all the time for saying "tis merely a culture war" - it isn't. Everything is downstream from culture, and we are currently under the thumb of a malicious activist class of harridan schoolmarms who are imposing their lunatic morality on all of us. The vast majority of normal people are terrified to speak their minds. Schools and Goverment agencies are pushing insane pseudo-religious gobbledygook and it needs to stop.
Thank-you. I definitely see your point on the Oil and Gas. And the wokeness can be nauseating at its worst, simply because it is pure fakery and posing with little substance. e.g. I tear down a statue of Sir John A., therefore I am supporting aboriginal reconciliation.
On that point, I would read anything anyone writes with the title "Insane Pseudo-religious gobbledygook". Yes.
What I see in Poilievre is someone willing to use psychological manipulation as his "go to" campaigning tool. Do you really believe that Justin Trudeau caused every problem that Canada has, problems that exist in the UK and USA also? Neither do I. There's lots wrong with Trudeau and I'd love to hear PP's solutions but he's pretty quiet on those.
I'm also curious as to what you like about Milton Friedman's ideas. Is he not the man behind trickle-down economics that has greatly exacerbated economic inequality?
See my response above to Glen Thomson. Sorry, but I have no time for the idea that Trudeau is blameless and powerless over things that are entirely within his jurisdiction. If that were the case, then there would be no reason to care whether it was Pierre or Justin, because hey - they can't really effect change anyway!
As for Uncle Milty - check out a documentary series that's on youtube, called "Milton Friedman - Free to Choose". He's written many books and has many lectures available, but it's a pleasant watch. Of course he is not God, and I do not agree with a lot of what he says. But being a life-long leftist and encountering his explanation of what the free market is... it really was revelatory for me. If you don't have the stomach for that, at least watch a short clip of him explaining his proposal for a Negative Income Tax instead of Welfare or UBI, that will give you a sense of his philosophy. We call him Uncle Milty because he is just so calm, so reasonable when he speaks, he's like the uncle we all wish we had.
Matt - your error comes down to two things IMHO - Canadians (and their vacuous, lightweight, virtue-signalling leader) can ignore economics if they so desire, but economics will not ignore them. Further, Canadians have always been proud of their nation’s status in the world and the regard in which Canada was held abroad. They see now that under Trudeau, in all too many ways, we are firmly on a fast track to becoming, to borrow a phrase from Trump, a “shithole country”. This was evident, to anyone who bothered to look, prior to Covid. Not there yet by any means, but the Trudeau/Lib trajectory is clear to all but those whose intellectual capacity is addled by wokeism.
This gave me a good laugh. Thank you. Something else that I suspect nobody saw coming, was youth enthusiasm to vote for Pollievre. I have teens - and depending on when the election is called, the youngest may or may not be old enough to vote. But you know who I heard about yesterday's poll results from first? My youngest teen. He is eager - excited - to see a conservative win and for Pollievre to become prime minister. Me? I'm in the demographics that in theory would support Trudeau, but I detest everything he's done since 2020. I am not loyal to any specific party and have voted for most of them - but have donated politically to the CPC for the last two years now, hold a membership, and will be voting CPC in the next election. Maybe my loyalty habits are changing too? I will admit to laughing when the NDP formed the agreement with the liberals as I knew they'd just sunk their own ship - I don't know how THEY didn't know it at the time because it was so obvious...
anyways - thanks for the laughter this morning. And for the self critique - I appreciate a glimpse into your thought process about previous columns.
Regarding youth and young adults - I've noted this as well, and this is a huge change from a demographic that has been almost entirely Liberal / NDP in philosophy in my experience.
All 3 of my kids lean conservative or are strongly conservative. It stems from a few reasons - they were really harmed by school closures so they are against parties they view as more likely to be restrictive in the future - all 3 of my kids had harms from school closures, 2 more long term harms, one has bounced back very well, the other 2 have lingering effects from lost critical social development in one case (a psychological stage was not able to be completed at the appropriate time due to lockdowns in the case of one of them.) In addition to this, my youngest is male - and it is a hard time to be a young male unless you are part of a visually identifiable minority. The so-called DEI initiatives have actually led to less overall equality and as a result, those who feel they won't have much opportunity because they aren't a visible minority group are in many ways experiencing a type of discrimination. (Imagine being a teen who knows there's no point in picking many careers as they're now dominated by women or that you could go to university but you'd be less likely to be interviewed or hired and you'll pay more tuition than those who are from minority groups. And I say this as a female who is part of a minority group - things have swung too far and people have lost sight that diversity isn't about ethnic background or color of skin, but real diversity comes from the deeper level of how people think and the ideas they generate.) Deep level diversity is important, and it can't be achieved by forcing surface level diversity. I don't want to be hired because I'm female, or because I'm disabled to hit some DEI quota - I have many skills that I bring to the table and those are more than sufficient to compete with everyone else.
Anyways - these things are just tip of the iceberg in my opinion. And they are going to change the shape of Canadian culture in the next generation and likely it won't be for the better. When one group of people tries to get ahead at the expense of another group of people, that doesn't end well. I miss the 80's and 90's when equality and viewing people without regard for color of skin or religion or place of origin was what was taught.
I have been thinking about this for a while, but reading the article solidifies it: the media likes to talk about "party that appeal to the centrist voters win" and that's why they want CPC to choose centrist leader, depicting hardline leader as too extreme for Canadians.
The issue is, "centrist voter" is not a constant. They don't hold the same value over time. My theory is that "the party that can pull the centrist voters to them win". It's subtle difference, but it's big. It's not about being a leader that's confirming whatever the centrist voters currently believe, but making centrist voters believe in things that the party is selling, or to sell things that centrist voters will move into.
Trudeau in 2015 convinced voters on government spending big, which is against orthodoxy of Canadian belief that believe in balanced budget since the 90s. He also made many other changes that was not part of centrist beliefs and make it the new orthodoxy, like gender balanced cabinet, pricing on pollution, going easier on drugs, etc. These were things that were controversial at best, or not cared about at worst, pre-2015. But in 2019 and 2021 CPC had to answer why they were against this supposedly "centrist" belief.
Poilievre, instead of playing catch up with centrist belief like O'Toole, forecasted what the centrist voters will care about in short term future and occupy the space first. Once he got centrist voters' ears, then he could push them to believe more things that he believes in, like anti-carbon tax. Now we're witnessing it, with the belief that "centrist voters believe in pricing on pollution" being ditched left and right.
Great leaders don't follow voters, great leaders make voters follow them. Media (and O'Toole) believed the former, Poilievre (as Trudeau did in 2015) is proving the latter.
That motivation point echoes conversations I've had with a journalist friend since the pandemic "ended" in the news cycle. The wild card in Canadian politics, I told him, was the enormous, untapped voter pool represented by those who simply can't be bothered to vote, even if the incumbent rubs them the wrong way on a daily basis.
It's easier to shut that nagging, lecturing voice out than it is to vote, apparently, and voting is easy. This group, largely composed of working class/blue collar/rural males, sat out 2019 and 2021. The imported-from-U.S. election wedge issues of the past two elections might have got the Liberal base (55+ comfortable urban women and civil servants) predictably fired up, but the dominance of those distracting issues - and the responses from an on-the-defensive CPC - meant it was an election for "those people." People who talk about the CBC.
The convoy changed the landscape. It was a spark that ignited a belief in this group that they actually had a voice. For good or bad, it got many of them off their asses, with legions more cheering from the sidelines. When livelihoods were threatened, that voice emerged. And when the government went nuclear dealing with a movement loudly deemed a barbarian invasion by the political/managerial class, the "fuck you" vote was born.
Add to that the initially-ignored inflation wave that followed and the realization by many that a home and family are things (suddenly) not available to ordinary Canadians, and you had sustained tinder for the fire. All the Liberals needed to do was come out with some condescending statements, ineffective non-measures, and "actually, you've never had it so good" gaslighting to cement their status as bad guys who'll ignore any problem so long as wealthy Toronto retirees are happy.
If Poilievre could rouse and energize this group of ignored and maligned people enough to get them to the polling station, I said, his victory is assured. But it won't be a cake walk. You can't count on people predisposed to non-voting to vote. Every day brings a new opportunity to faceplant, too. You can't turn off the base. You can't give "edgy" voices in the party and community to much backing. It's got to be a tight, focused operation.
Thankfully for him, Trudeau and Co. seem to be doubling down on unpopular policies, as they can't be wrong, ever. They resemble the Wynne 2018 camp more and more with each passing day.
I agree with you on the challenge to get people engaged. Stumping for municipal, provincial, & federal elections, just getting people involved In hospital or school issues is like pulling teeth. Canadians have become a complacent bunch , with only a few flare-ups. Hopefully living costs will push Poilievre across the finishline.
Great column, Matt. When you began it by referencing a past column, even quoting it, I thought I was in for a TNG 'Shades of Gray' type of experience.
I was wrong, and am glad I continued reading it to the end. Kudos for having the humility to write such an insightful piece based (initially) on studying the arc of your past interpretations of (then) current events and how they might play out in the future (our present).
The comments from your main source in the piece are also interesting, but he, like you, is operating from the benefit of hindsight. While more directly plugged in than you are, he's no more prescient than you were back then - in fact, as you often note, he agreed with most of your past columns.
I am still unconvinced that Poilievre can hold this lead the polls suggest, though for the sake of the country, I hope he does. With all his flaws, Poilievre is a much more relatable leader to most Canadians than any of his opponents. We must rid our country of self-serving vanity politicians like Trudeau and his cultists, Unserious Singh and his fellow grifters (are their any principled NDP'ers left?), and culturally insular extortionists like Blanchett and the Bloc (okay, that last one is likely impossible).
The forces at play that you and your source point out are accurate, and important. Trudeau is definitely disliked, nay despised, by an overwhelmingly massive majority of men (including me). What's been surprising, even shocking to me is how many women have finally seen through Trudeau's BS - which I maintain is how he won back in 2015 - and have pivoted to Poilievre. I never expected such a shift. The other thing I'm hearing from my adult children and their friends is they will vote for anyone, any party that presents a credible plan to solve the housing affordability crisis - this is a massive issue with GenZ.
What keeps me up at night is the baffling way Trudeau and his cult keep doubling down on frankly stupid, failed policies while Poilievre and the CPC keep eating his lunch. What worries me is the degree of foreign and domestically funded electoral interference and/or further CASA-type arrangements between the LPC, NDP, Green's and the Bloc that may be lurking behind the closed doors of this government. - It's almost that they know that no matter how bad the polls look, that on election day, the LPC seem confident it won't matter, and they'll retain power. It defies logic, but I can't shake the feeling that their smugness is due to more than just the fact of you and Jen's contention that the Liberals think they couldn't possibly be wrong about anything.
The other worry is that the world geopolitical situation will collapse in a spectacular way in the next year or so, and before our scheduled election. That type of crisis always favours the incumbent.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, and the polls hold up, so at least we get a course correction from the CPC for at least 5 years. If not, the geopolitical crisis may ignite here in Canada.
I am not sure that Canada will hold together if the Liberals (and a Quebec lead coalition) retain power after the next election. I just don’t want to be associated with the Canada that is run by the Trudeau cult. I can embarrass myself all on my own, I don’t need my country constantly embarrassed; not do I want it to become more irrelevant than Trudeau has already made it.
Poilievre has to win big for anything to change. Anything less than a solid majority, and we'll have all the other party leaders marching to the GG requesting a chance to govern as a coalition. Ugh.
Canadians worries that the Conservatives are peaking too soon are well founded but there is a very real possibility that the lead could become baked in for good.
Why? Because the Liberal’s are fighting quite a few fires over government contracts with easy money heading out the door to businesses doing little or no work. At the moment, humiliation is the most serious issue that the government is suffering from these scandals but a culture of loose government oversight and no accountability has been exposed. Who knows, a spending scandal eruption that even Jagmeet Singh finds unacceptable might be looming in the days ahead.
It's 2:00 EDT. So far, this is the best string of comments ever evoked by an article. Truly, folks, you've added good quality writing to excellent quality journalism.
The factors noted are fair as far as they go. But I think there is a flaw in the original thesis about moderate conservative parties being more electable than firmly conservative ones.
O'Toole's fate to me resembles John Tory's fate as a provincial politician. (I say this to analyze, not to blame; I had a tiny role in O'Toole's campaign and a bigger role in Tory's). Both are excellent, able, thoughtful people. Both lost elections largely over wedge issues that were not among the top 20 issues a year before, or a year after, their elections (narrow federal vaccine mandates for O'Toole, religious school funding for Tory).
The standard explanation is that they walked into traps or created their own, so didn't properly execute the moderate strategy. I disagree. A better explanation is that they offered no emotionally compelling, controversial contrast to define the election, so Liberals got to define the contrast for them. Absent those wedges, many say O'Toole and Tory would have won. No! Liberals would have used different wedges. A strategy that relies on tamping down contrasts is hard to execute. There are too many potential contrasts, and on some (e.g., guns) Liberals can always outbid conservatives.
Poilievre gives the appearance of sharper contrast, with some substantive issues to back it up (like carbon tax). Conventional wisdom said an anti-carbon tax CPC couldn't win... even though Doug Ford won twice. The red Tory approach has been tried multiple times against incumbent Liberals: Clark with marginal success, Charest, Clark 2.0, O'Toole. Who won? Harper. Mulroney, whose reinvention as a moderate is pure revisionism; he was seen as a hard liner at the time.
Poilievre may yet lose, or underperform somehow. But his prospects are better than a red Tory's because he will define the contrast in the election, unapologetically and controversially. That approach is far from a sure winner, but it's still their strongest path to success. At some point, the failures of the red Tory approach show not that everyone who tried it inexplicably mucked up the execution, but rather that it is inherently difficult to execute, and thus not as good a strategy as many imagine.
Every Liberal voters said that "if only Conservatives running more moderate leader, I would have voted for them" until they're given moderate Conservative leader, and every time they say "no thanks"
The problem with Mulroney, Harper (whom I voted for in every election he was party leader) and Diefenbaker before them was they all ended in electoral defeat because they went too far and became extremely unpopular. Their reputations were maligned for many years afterwards and at least in Harper’s case, much of his legislative accomplishments were wiped out by the Liberals in year one (or Year Zero, if you like).
Matt, Thank you for looking back at your piece and admitting your errors - that takes guts and a dash of humility that too many do not have anymore. My brother lived in the US when Trump first ran and he laughed him off as a boob who would never see the White House except on a tour but I said he was speaking to a large number of Americans who loved their country and didn't like how it was deteriorating (few manufactureing jobs, corruption in business and governemnt and so forth) and you know the outcome.
Reporters try to label PP as a 'populist' but what is a polulist if not someone who speaks for the population and their feelings and beliefs? Most of us see rising grocery costs after the carbon tax and most of us realize that we all end up with less despite JT trying to blow smoke up our behinds so what should be expected of an electorate who are fed up and see Canada fading on all fronts?
PP isn't perfect but he has a common touch, knows when to be indignant and actually reflects what a majority of Canadians feel - we are in trouble and our current leadership isn't capable of finding a way to salvation. Sunny ways have faded and reality has set in for us.
I recall asking my friends not to look at Trump, but to look at the people who are following Trump and why he appeals to them (fell on deaf ears of course). But it was simple to see that he was NOT alienating the taxpayers by funding woke initiatives. He was talking to the white male and saying you are still an American and you count. I am not a big Trump fan and I wish that the choice in the states wasn’t Biden or Trump, but taxpayers count…
About 5 years ago I had a conversation with someone who more or less said that he hated Poilievre because he was not nice. He didn't like his chippieness, and especially didn't like how he talked to the press. I said that those were exactly the reasons I liked him. I was never fooled by Trudeau's so called "sunny ways", but lots of people were. Especially a lot of women. But it was not long before his treatment of Jody Wilson Raybould and Jane Philpott showed him for who he really is. I remain surprised at how many people are still star struck by his fake persona.
Then there is the CPC who for years heeded the ill thought out boilerplate wisdom that what they needed to do was to take advice from the Liberals as to what kind of leader they need. But how has that worked out? But let's look at the federal Conservative leaders who have actually managed to win elections and form government. Progressives hated Harper. He was pretty much seen as the devil incarnate. That rhetoric has waned somewhat of late, but it won't go away for awhile yet. Like it eventually went away in regards to Mulroney, who the progressives of his day also hated. I am old enough to remember when he was the arch conservative Reagan/Thatcher clone who was going to destroy Canada by signing a free trade deal with the USA. This sort of thing is the ho-hum boring and gratingly pedantic nonsense that is always being peddled by (to coin a phrase) "Canada's upper middle class, and those desperate to join them". And of course of the cottage country set who secretly sneer in derision at Canada's working class, and generally anyone who lives outside their bubble. I have heard it said that there are only 2 kinds of Conservative PMs that progressives like. The first is "former". The second is "dead". But as long as they are the current leader or PM we will hear the same tired old tropes about "American style" this and "right wing" that. And of course the incessant shrieking of "POPULISM POPULISM POPULISM!!!" The latter being especially eye rolling. When people say that word to me, I ask them to define it. I either get the glazed over look from someone who can't, or I get a lecture about how the simple folk just can't be relied upon to know what is good for them, and how they are basically all bigots anyway.
Like many people, I am sick to death of this. Poilievre doesn't take their shit. He pushes back. I like that way more than Trudeau's whole "smiler with the knife under his cloak" routine.
I'm equally baffled when people rail against populism- isn't every election about who is 'popular'?
my current understanding is that we used to elect the person who was both popular AND put in place to run by what we now call the elites (the class that controls the media and other institutions). in other words, we had a constructed populism.
with the explosion of media and alternative sources of info/opinion, we'll never again have that consensus. when the 'elite' lost control of the narrative, they changed their mind about being popular- now it's a bad thing
Mulroney was like Harper hated by the opposition parties while in government; however, the reasons for the hate are different in an important way. Mulroney was hated for the ambitious policies that he stood for, from the U.S. trade agreement to the GST modernization to the constitutional proposals. But the policies that he passed in his term generally survived past the end of his government including into the Liberal era.
Harper is different in that the policies he pushed were generally not ambitious, but almost every policy he presented was pushed with the tone of a non-verbal meltdown. His party unilaterally passed over 100 time allocation motions to undermine the opposition, and what did he accomplish of it? Little of his legislative changes survive today, beyond the abolished long-gun registry, the GST cut, and the 31-year Canada-China FIPA.
Current Conservatives seem to think that Poilievre is a proud and self-confident character, even though Poilievre has almost nothing to say these days in defense of the countless time-allocated Bills that he voted for, from environmental law changes to intrusive CSIS powers to electoral law changes. He does not seem interested in bringing back the majority of the laws that the Trudeau government repealed, and he otherwise wants Canadians to completely forget about his own indefensible legislative record.
I admit that I as well didn’t think Poilievre could turn it around, but I was wrong. I thought he was too combative. That may not have worked when he won, but is well suited for today.
The people who have lost their shit are the pundit class who always lead with “if the CPC were just like the LPC they’d do so well”. Poilievre is a giant fuck you to them and if he wins it’ll be a total refutation of their stupid worldview. They need to be taught a very sharp lesson.
One potential factor that has not been mentioned is the potential impact of foreign interference in the 21 election and the revelation of foreign interference to voters.
Yes I know the Liberal/CBC talking points that the overall outcome of the election was not impacted, but voters deserve to know exactly which ridings WERE impacted. This has helped erode trust in these self serving conclusions.
Voters should be concerned with why a foreign agent registry is taking so long to implement, particularly now with divisions re: Israel/Palestine and the NDPs leverage over the Libs
Notwithstanding the Liberals' reluctance to declare a public inquiry into foreign interference, there were definitely no ridings whose outcomes were swung by any foreign interference. Foreign embassies and countries don't have the resources to pivot thousands or even hundreds of votes in ridings whose outcomes are overwhelmingly determined by national trends in party preferences.
Foreign interference could more plausibly have an impact on nomination contests, since those are all about candidates' capacity to sign up people, and those are smaller-scale affairs. But that would not necessarily create a partisan impact on the results in the general election itself.
Stefan, you write in part, "... there were definitely no ridings whose outcomes were swung by any foreign interference."
Hmmmmm.....
What evidence can you provide to substantiate your assertion? The government fought for some time the idea of an inquiry into the topic, notwithstanding the published commentary to the contrary, and ultimately agreed to the establishment of such an inquiry but has hamstrung it with various rules and requirements. So, again, what evidence can you provide to substantiate your assertion?
The majority of MP candidates who run for office without the backing of major political parties fail to achieve even 1% of the local riding vote (myself included). Yet the typical MP candidate surely knows more about our political system and has deeper roots in the country than most of the diplomats who work in any embassy. Local campaigns will often spends thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, only for 0.5% to 2% of the local vote being swayed as a result; embassies don't have the kind of money that would be needed to systematically influence the riding-level democratic processes that they barely understand.
While foreign embassies can harass and communicate with their nationals, they cannot directly control their political participation, let alone organize a partisan preference among hundreds of voters within the space of a single riding. And there are only so many ridings where the margin was within hundreds of votes. Embassies do not have local organizational power equivalent to that of Electoral District Associations, which themselves have marginal influence.
The Liberals might have been wary of an inquiry not because of any substantial favours in their favour, but because they hope for such favours in the future. Or they might be embarrassed by lower-stakes manipulations that happened on their watch such as at the nomination contest level, for example.
I suggest that you review the articles by Robert Fife and Steven Chase in the Globe and Mail or the blog "The Bureau" by Sam Cooper. They detail quite clearly the efforts of the Chinese government to mobilize and finance campaigns for various politicians, both Liberal and Conservative and (wow!) those candidates seem to have won. Look at Terry Glavin's blog, "The Real Story" for commentary about Indian and Iranian efforts within their respective diasporas. Other journalists have also published stories on this topic.
You say that embassies do not have the financial heft to spend money on such operations but it is not the embassy budgets that are being used but they are, instead, using the budgets of the various countries' intelligence agencies.
Like I hinted above, it would not necessarily take much interference to pivot a nomination contest. But foreign interference did not cause the Kenny Chiu Conservatives to lag behind the Liberals in Steveston—Richmond East by 3400+ votes. You likely couldn't buy that vote difference with $100,000 or even $200,000 worth of ads at your disposal, such is the dominance of our political parties in voter preferences.
Point taken on the involvement of foreign intelligence, though I do not think that would change much to my analysis. If you wanted to engage in cost-efficient and systemic manipulation of our federal elections, you would target the national public space and national networks rather than local ridings - buying a few MPs would offer very little return on the huge amount of investment required, it takes dozens of MPs to change policy. Not that my argument changes the observed facts around the local interference that did occur, but all the reporting I can see is consistent with the possibility that the Chinese engaged in some low-key and low-cost interference and simply experimented to see what would happen - changing a few votes here and there, but not the riding-level outcomes. (Just because we know they interfered on behalf of winning candidates does not mean that they did not commit interference elsewhere on behalf of losing candidates, and didn't fail in their influences more often than not.)
I am sure that the Indian and Iranian governments are influencing their own diasporas, but not likely in close coordination with China.
You say embassies don’t have the resources. I respectfully disagree. The United Front Work Department has an exponentially larger budget than the Chinese foreign ministry and they run Beijing’s influence, intimidation and influence campaigns out of consulates, and through usurped local Chinese associations and Mandarin media.
What we have been told about is the tip of the iceberg.
There is nothing that isn’t true in you and your CPC folks’ comments. Certainly, everyone should have seen that being called privileged when you worked your ass off all your life does leave a bit of a stain. But the other thing that you didn’t mention (perhaps because you and your interviewees are way to close to politics and politicians) is that this country needs hope.
We are not a hateful country. We do not like that people are being killed, but we are a practical country and sometimes evil has to be routed out. We are parents who love our children and we want to be the ones showing them how to navigate life. We want common sense and sanity, not tampons in mens bathrooms.
A really good article, and one I'd like to add a few points on:
-I think one of the ingredients in Poilievre's "secret sauce" is that he's kept his message very focused on things of immediate interest to a lot of people like affordability and housing. That was one of the keys to Stephen Harper's first victory, namely sticking to a five point plan that was easy for voters to understand and appeal to. Poilievre's bluntness also appeals to a lot of people outside the Laurentian bubble-it almost reminds me of Ezra Levant, except without the moronic stunts and temper tantrums that turn Levant into a living cartoon character. There's a reason why Poilievre's broadened his appeal while Levant's never truly gone mainstream.
-Another ingredient is that he's more politically flexible than people give him credit for. His pledge to limit oil imports in favour of domestic production from places like Alberta is the stuff of nightmares for neoliberals and free traders, but it's sweet music to Albertans who feel like our oil is being constrained by Trudeau's energy policies. Something similar happened provincially when Sun media pundits said the quiet part out loud about Danielle Smith, namely that won by moving back towards the centre. She's got things like a provincial pension plan and police force on the table right now, but she sure didn't run on them!
-As for the PPC, it doesn't hurt that Maxime Bernier is as sharp as a bowling ball. Some of the libertarians who first joined the PPC were quitting in disgust because of the number of far-right types Bernier was attracting to the party. And remember, he's the same clown who Harper had to fire from Cabinet for leaving politically sensitive documents at the home of his Hells' Angels-affiliated girlfriend.
-I'm surprised Mr. Gurney's source didn't comment more on the Liberals' decision to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax. If the supply agreement was the NDP's major miscalculation, the home heating oil exemption was the Liberals' miscalculation. That almost cut the knees off any rationale for supporting carbon taxation and was just another slap in Western Canada's face.
-One possible gap in Poilievre's armor could be his environmental stance. People notice when droughts get longer and we face water shortages, especially when businesses ranging from agriculture to tourism depend on that precipitation. He hasn't said much about what he'd actually do to replace the carbon tax, just brushing off the questions. That could be the potential sore spot for a lot of people.
-Finally, I've always felt that efforts to tear down John A. Macdonald statues and do things like 'Cancel Canada Day' have always done more harm than good. They make the 'ordinary' Canadians Mr. Gurney's source talks about feel like they're being attacked for taking pride in their heritage and who they are as Canadians, the same way that DEI and privilege discussions have, hence why they've been shifting to the Conservatives. The very real issues some of the activists pushing these things need to be addresed, of course, but I think a little flag-waving on their part might go a long way.
I thought this was a fantastic column because it reflects my own theories of Canadian politics. I too was wrong about Poilievre in the period after the 2021 election, and it has been an interesting exercise for me to examine how my views of Canadian politics have changed because of Poilievre.
But the humility really makes this column fantastic. To not only admit that you were wrong, but to sincerely attempt to find out why you were wrong. I can't help but wonder where Poilievre and the CPC would be now if our institutions, politicians, and the Canadian media had more humility.
All of this seems very right.
I think there was one other thing you missed in that column (and I was surprised given your knowledge and passion on the subject): Guns. The Conservatives were headed for victory with a couple of weeks left to go and Trudeau pulled his Fear Factor wedge on guns. O'Toole, scared about losing suburban votes, went squishy which alienated everyone. Conservatives felt betrayed and centre left types wondered again about Conservatives' "hidden agendas." That's when O'Toole's numbers sank and he lost all those ridings by a hair.
If O'Toole had stood firm and called out the Liberals for their hypocrisy, things might have gone differently. The charge of hypocrisy sticks to the Liberal brand. And people value leaders who have beliefs they're prepared to defend. (You completely won me over on the gun topic. There's no reason O'Toole couldn't have done the same. Even if he hadn't, he would have projected toughness. I think that's what he lost.
Poilievre is winning, I think, because unlike Scheer and O'toole he doesn't show fear. He says what he thinks on hot button issues and doesn't get scared off because of what the "Laurentian elite" may say. This connects to what your friend said about the male vote. Most people were already sick of the Liberals' DEI intersectional moral superiority, which mainly targets men. Cultural issues aren't a top of mind voting concern, but in my view are the 90% of the iceberg under the water because they signal how parties will approach issues, prioritize and make economic decisions. Cultural positions also let people know of parties hold certain groups are held in contempt: No one will vote for a party that hates them, which is what the left gets wrong when it says (condescendingly) that the working class doesn't know its own interests. Not all interests are economic; some are about basic self respect, and what self-respecting working class voter will vote for a party that codes it as racist, misogynist, homo/transphobic and unCanadian?
I wanted O'Toole to win because I've always been on the liberal left and thought that was the best way to keep two moderate parties. Like you, a feared O'Toole's loss would mean a far right turn for the Conservatives, and inevitably power shifts to the opposition party, so I was prepared to suffer short term inconvenience for long term security. But as it's turned out, Trudeau has doubled-down on his illiberal instincts, pushing centrists further away, and people have noticed that Poilievre's bark is worse than his policy bite and that he's actually more liberal in terms of classic values like free speech, equality, due process, etcetera.
Oh, for sure. We can autopsy the 2021 campaign all day long. But a better Conservative campaign three years ago probably produces 150 Conservative seats? Maybe 160? Something much bigger than better tactics is happening here.
The cost of living crisis bit. A spotlight of COL-related scrutiny suddenly swung onto Trudeau and he was utterly unprepared for it.
I still don't think he fully realizes how completely the electorate's political priorities have shifted. He's playing all the old hits and doesn't understand why the crowd is no longer cheering.
I think you were also right in your recent column that he's too burnt out to pivot with the urgency, decisiveness, and boldness that the political moment demands.
The more interesting question is why there hasn't been a revolt. It could be the LPC's internal structure or culture, but I increasingly wonder if the LPC rank and file have decided that their fate is already sealed, and nobody who believes they have an eventual shot at the PMO wants to lead a bloody internal rebellion for the privilege of being the next Kim Campbell.
It doesn’t appear Kim likes Pierre maybe she can step into reach with the Liberals and become the “next” Kim Campbell.
It’s not a question of being burnt out. Sane economic policy demands at least a modicum of understanding of ……. Basic economics and finance. Trudeau told us all we needed to know of his acumen (snark) on these matters when he said the budget would balance itself, and does not think about monetary policy. This is also the genius who contemptuously waved away concerns over piling on the national debt because interest rates were low, evidently unaware that interest gets paid out in the future when - surprise, surprise- interest rates are likely to be higher.
He is beyond clueless on such matters, but a great leader for a country that seems hell bent on falling so far down the productivity ladder that we may attain developing country status. Remember, he was a demonstrated buffoon on matters economic before the last election, and earlier even that that, and yet he got much of the vote. Any Canadians who voted for him and now seek to whine because of COL issues would do well to have a look in the mirror.
I'm thinking that "bigger" might mean an undercurrent of national impotence, of citizen frustration, of a stronger (male?) determination to get something DONE. Our country has gone to crap, we can't do anything about it (in any meaningful timeframe) and we don't like that.
There's also a strong pro-incumbent bias whenever there's an external crisis: COVID wasn't over at the time of the 2021 election, and the electorate similarly re-affirmed Harper's Conservatives in 2008 in the grips of a world financial crisis. Similar trends have worked in favor of a number of provincial governments as well.
Correct. The election was right at the crest of the delta variant, which was the worst. If the election was held 3 months later with omicron as dominant variant, the result would have been much different
Also, the Covid wave ripping through Alberta during the election didn’t help O’Toole.
DEI also targets white women. I think that's one of the reasons Pollievre is seeing increase support from women.
My wife utterly hates Trudo. She talks about him like he's a criminal, and she is, of course, correct.
Pierre is not radical, he is a centrist.
I was a lifelong lefty, always voting red orange or green. What pushed me right? Wokeness. Since then I've also moved right on economics, discovering Milton Friedman was revelatory for me. I joined the CPC specifically to vote PP as leader, but I was too shy to "like" his page on facebook, or tell any of my prog friends (some of whom have disowned me due to my political shift). When my arch liberal baby boomer mother found out I joined and voted in Pierre, she reacted like I had just joined the SS. All this to say I think we've been conditioned to think that conservatives need to be super careful and water everything down to appeal to moderates, BUT the left/progressive orthodoxy is now so extremely off the deep end that we don't need to find a soft middle path of moderation slightly to the right of the wokes, we need Pierre Poilievre to boldly say what we're all bloody well thinking! Pierre isn't really a radical, he's a centrist - he is in the centre of *actual* political sentiment in this country, which you would never know because our cultural establishment has shamed everyone into accepting their astroturfed phony consensus. Many of my lefty friends are slowly coming over to team blue - what they're overcoming is the Jon Stewartized mental conditioning that "conservatism bad"
Amen!
Yes to your comment: "we need Pierre Poilievre to boldly say what we're all bloody well thinking! Pierre isn't really a radical, he's a centrist - he is in the centre of *actual* political sentiment in this country"
However, I'm still looking for some real substance, or some lively debate, about how a PP-led government would make changes. Maybe it's just my lingering PTSD-like emotions from the Harper days, where he was slashing funds for useful federal programs.
Maybe someone can help me get up to speed?
Rest assured, I do not think Pierre is the Messiah; I have no doubt he will bungle things too. What he has proposed that I hope he follows through with :
1) Developing our O&G. Canada is broke, we have foolishly de-industrialized, and are now reliant on selling houses to eachother as a national industry. Climate Change is a thing, yes, but there is no reason Germany should be buying LNG from Qatar instead of us. We cannot solve environmental problems if we cripple and impoverish ourselves.
2) Streamlining Government. The cost of government has ballooned, over-regulation is hobbling our economic development, and corrupt procurement and government contract debacles show that government is too big and bloated. We pay *way* too much tax for mediocre services. Pierre was dead on in predicting this wave of inflation and the inevitable pain of needing to raise rates, at a time when Trudeau II was laughing that "he doesn't think about monetary policy" - I have significantly more confidence in Pierre on these matters.
3) Free speech and anti-wokeness - this is HUGE for me. I criticize Mr. Gurney all the time for saying "tis merely a culture war" - it isn't. Everything is downstream from culture, and we are currently under the thumb of a malicious activist class of harridan schoolmarms who are imposing their lunatic morality on all of us. The vast majority of normal people are terrified to speak their minds. Schools and Goverment agencies are pushing insane pseudo-religious gobbledygook and it needs to stop.
Thank-you. I definitely see your point on the Oil and Gas. And the wokeness can be nauseating at its worst, simply because it is pure fakery and posing with little substance. e.g. I tear down a statue of Sir John A., therefore I am supporting aboriginal reconciliation.
On that point, I would read anything anyone writes with the title "Insane Pseudo-religious gobbledygook". Yes.
I was more politically involved back then, but didn't see the same things as you did.
eg. the fact check article regarding Liberal budget cutting accusations:
https://globalnews.ca/news/2222185/reality-check-trudeaus-claim-harper-slashes-funding-to-balance-budget-falls-flat/
What I see in Poilievre is someone willing to use psychological manipulation as his "go to" campaigning tool. Do you really believe that Justin Trudeau caused every problem that Canada has, problems that exist in the UK and USA also? Neither do I. There's lots wrong with Trudeau and I'd love to hear PP's solutions but he's pretty quiet on those.
I'm also curious as to what you like about Milton Friedman's ideas. Is he not the man behind trickle-down economics that has greatly exacerbated economic inequality?
See my response above to Glen Thomson. Sorry, but I have no time for the idea that Trudeau is blameless and powerless over things that are entirely within his jurisdiction. If that were the case, then there would be no reason to care whether it was Pierre or Justin, because hey - they can't really effect change anyway!
As for Uncle Milty - check out a documentary series that's on youtube, called "Milton Friedman - Free to Choose". He's written many books and has many lectures available, but it's a pleasant watch. Of course he is not God, and I do not agree with a lot of what he says. But being a life-long leftist and encountering his explanation of what the free market is... it really was revelatory for me. If you don't have the stomach for that, at least watch a short clip of him explaining his proposal for a Negative Income Tax instead of Welfare or UBI, that will give you a sense of his philosophy. We call him Uncle Milty because he is just so calm, so reasonable when he speaks, he's like the uncle we all wish we had.
Matt - your error comes down to two things IMHO - Canadians (and their vacuous, lightweight, virtue-signalling leader) can ignore economics if they so desire, but economics will not ignore them. Further, Canadians have always been proud of their nation’s status in the world and the regard in which Canada was held abroad. They see now that under Trudeau, in all too many ways, we are firmly on a fast track to becoming, to borrow a phrase from Trump, a “shithole country”. This was evident, to anyone who bothered to look, prior to Covid. Not there yet by any means, but the Trudeau/Lib trajectory is clear to all but those whose intellectual capacity is addled by wokeism.
"Hoist on my own petard, there."
This gave me a good laugh. Thank you. Something else that I suspect nobody saw coming, was youth enthusiasm to vote for Pollievre. I have teens - and depending on when the election is called, the youngest may or may not be old enough to vote. But you know who I heard about yesterday's poll results from first? My youngest teen. He is eager - excited - to see a conservative win and for Pollievre to become prime minister. Me? I'm in the demographics that in theory would support Trudeau, but I detest everything he's done since 2020. I am not loyal to any specific party and have voted for most of them - but have donated politically to the CPC for the last two years now, hold a membership, and will be voting CPC in the next election. Maybe my loyalty habits are changing too? I will admit to laughing when the NDP formed the agreement with the liberals as I knew they'd just sunk their own ship - I don't know how THEY didn't know it at the time because it was so obvious...
anyways - thanks for the laughter this morning. And for the self critique - I appreciate a glimpse into your thought process about previous columns.
Regarding youth and young adults - I've noted this as well, and this is a huge change from a demographic that has been almost entirely Liberal / NDP in philosophy in my experience.
All 3 of my kids lean conservative or are strongly conservative. It stems from a few reasons - they were really harmed by school closures so they are against parties they view as more likely to be restrictive in the future - all 3 of my kids had harms from school closures, 2 more long term harms, one has bounced back very well, the other 2 have lingering effects from lost critical social development in one case (a psychological stage was not able to be completed at the appropriate time due to lockdowns in the case of one of them.) In addition to this, my youngest is male - and it is a hard time to be a young male unless you are part of a visually identifiable minority. The so-called DEI initiatives have actually led to less overall equality and as a result, those who feel they won't have much opportunity because they aren't a visible minority group are in many ways experiencing a type of discrimination. (Imagine being a teen who knows there's no point in picking many careers as they're now dominated by women or that you could go to university but you'd be less likely to be interviewed or hired and you'll pay more tuition than those who are from minority groups. And I say this as a female who is part of a minority group - things have swung too far and people have lost sight that diversity isn't about ethnic background or color of skin, but real diversity comes from the deeper level of how people think and the ideas they generate.) Deep level diversity is important, and it can't be achieved by forcing surface level diversity. I don't want to be hired because I'm female, or because I'm disabled to hit some DEI quota - I have many skills that I bring to the table and those are more than sufficient to compete with everyone else.
Anyways - these things are just tip of the iceberg in my opinion. And they are going to change the shape of Canadian culture in the next generation and likely it won't be for the better. When one group of people tries to get ahead at the expense of another group of people, that doesn't end well. I miss the 80's and 90's when equality and viewing people without regard for color of skin or religion or place of origin was what was taught.
I have been thinking about this for a while, but reading the article solidifies it: the media likes to talk about "party that appeal to the centrist voters win" and that's why they want CPC to choose centrist leader, depicting hardline leader as too extreme for Canadians.
The issue is, "centrist voter" is not a constant. They don't hold the same value over time. My theory is that "the party that can pull the centrist voters to them win". It's subtle difference, but it's big. It's not about being a leader that's confirming whatever the centrist voters currently believe, but making centrist voters believe in things that the party is selling, or to sell things that centrist voters will move into.
Trudeau in 2015 convinced voters on government spending big, which is against orthodoxy of Canadian belief that believe in balanced budget since the 90s. He also made many other changes that was not part of centrist beliefs and make it the new orthodoxy, like gender balanced cabinet, pricing on pollution, going easier on drugs, etc. These were things that were controversial at best, or not cared about at worst, pre-2015. But in 2019 and 2021 CPC had to answer why they were against this supposedly "centrist" belief.
Poilievre, instead of playing catch up with centrist belief like O'Toole, forecasted what the centrist voters will care about in short term future and occupy the space first. Once he got centrist voters' ears, then he could push them to believe more things that he believes in, like anti-carbon tax. Now we're witnessing it, with the belief that "centrist voters believe in pricing on pollution" being ditched left and right.
Great leaders don't follow voters, great leaders make voters follow them. Media (and O'Toole) believed the former, Poilievre (as Trudeau did in 2015) is proving the latter.
That motivation point echoes conversations I've had with a journalist friend since the pandemic "ended" in the news cycle. The wild card in Canadian politics, I told him, was the enormous, untapped voter pool represented by those who simply can't be bothered to vote, even if the incumbent rubs them the wrong way on a daily basis.
It's easier to shut that nagging, lecturing voice out than it is to vote, apparently, and voting is easy. This group, largely composed of working class/blue collar/rural males, sat out 2019 and 2021. The imported-from-U.S. election wedge issues of the past two elections might have got the Liberal base (55+ comfortable urban women and civil servants) predictably fired up, but the dominance of those distracting issues - and the responses from an on-the-defensive CPC - meant it was an election for "those people." People who talk about the CBC.
The convoy changed the landscape. It was a spark that ignited a belief in this group that they actually had a voice. For good or bad, it got many of them off their asses, with legions more cheering from the sidelines. When livelihoods were threatened, that voice emerged. And when the government went nuclear dealing with a movement loudly deemed a barbarian invasion by the political/managerial class, the "fuck you" vote was born.
Add to that the initially-ignored inflation wave that followed and the realization by many that a home and family are things (suddenly) not available to ordinary Canadians, and you had sustained tinder for the fire. All the Liberals needed to do was come out with some condescending statements, ineffective non-measures, and "actually, you've never had it so good" gaslighting to cement their status as bad guys who'll ignore any problem so long as wealthy Toronto retirees are happy.
If Poilievre could rouse and energize this group of ignored and maligned people enough to get them to the polling station, I said, his victory is assured. But it won't be a cake walk. You can't count on people predisposed to non-voting to vote. Every day brings a new opportunity to faceplant, too. You can't turn off the base. You can't give "edgy" voices in the party and community to much backing. It's got to be a tight, focused operation.
Thankfully for him, Trudeau and Co. seem to be doubling down on unpopular policies, as they can't be wrong, ever. They resemble the Wynne 2018 camp more and more with each passing day.
I agree with you on the challenge to get people engaged. Stumping for municipal, provincial, & federal elections, just getting people involved In hospital or school issues is like pulling teeth. Canadians have become a complacent bunch , with only a few flare-ups. Hopefully living costs will push Poilievre across the finishline.
Great column, Matt. When you began it by referencing a past column, even quoting it, I thought I was in for a TNG 'Shades of Gray' type of experience.
I was wrong, and am glad I continued reading it to the end. Kudos for having the humility to write such an insightful piece based (initially) on studying the arc of your past interpretations of (then) current events and how they might play out in the future (our present).
The comments from your main source in the piece are also interesting, but he, like you, is operating from the benefit of hindsight. While more directly plugged in than you are, he's no more prescient than you were back then - in fact, as you often note, he agreed with most of your past columns.
I am still unconvinced that Poilievre can hold this lead the polls suggest, though for the sake of the country, I hope he does. With all his flaws, Poilievre is a much more relatable leader to most Canadians than any of his opponents. We must rid our country of self-serving vanity politicians like Trudeau and his cultists, Unserious Singh and his fellow grifters (are their any principled NDP'ers left?), and culturally insular extortionists like Blanchett and the Bloc (okay, that last one is likely impossible).
The forces at play that you and your source point out are accurate, and important. Trudeau is definitely disliked, nay despised, by an overwhelmingly massive majority of men (including me). What's been surprising, even shocking to me is how many women have finally seen through Trudeau's BS - which I maintain is how he won back in 2015 - and have pivoted to Poilievre. I never expected such a shift. The other thing I'm hearing from my adult children and their friends is they will vote for anyone, any party that presents a credible plan to solve the housing affordability crisis - this is a massive issue with GenZ.
What keeps me up at night is the baffling way Trudeau and his cult keep doubling down on frankly stupid, failed policies while Poilievre and the CPC keep eating his lunch. What worries me is the degree of foreign and domestically funded electoral interference and/or further CASA-type arrangements between the LPC, NDP, Green's and the Bloc that may be lurking behind the closed doors of this government. - It's almost that they know that no matter how bad the polls look, that on election day, the LPC seem confident it won't matter, and they'll retain power. It defies logic, but I can't shake the feeling that their smugness is due to more than just the fact of you and Jen's contention that the Liberals think they couldn't possibly be wrong about anything.
The other worry is that the world geopolitical situation will collapse in a spectacular way in the next year or so, and before our scheduled election. That type of crisis always favours the incumbent.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, and the polls hold up, so at least we get a course correction from the CPC for at least 5 years. If not, the geopolitical crisis may ignite here in Canada.
I am not sure that Canada will hold together if the Liberals (and a Quebec lead coalition) retain power after the next election. I just don’t want to be associated with the Canada that is run by the Trudeau cult. I can embarrass myself all on my own, I don’t need my country constantly embarrassed; not do I want it to become more irrelevant than Trudeau has already made it.
Poilievre has to win big for anything to change. Anything less than a solid majority, and we'll have all the other party leaders marching to the GG requesting a chance to govern as a coalition. Ugh.
PS: Thanks for linking Cosh's column. Prescient it was, and I'd forgotten it.
Cheers.
Canadians worries that the Conservatives are peaking too soon are well founded but there is a very real possibility that the lead could become baked in for good.
Why? Because the Liberal’s are fighting quite a few fires over government contracts with easy money heading out the door to businesses doing little or no work. At the moment, humiliation is the most serious issue that the government is suffering from these scandals but a culture of loose government oversight and no accountability has been exposed. Who knows, a spending scandal eruption that even Jagmeet Singh finds unacceptable might be looming in the days ahead.
Perhaps, except for Jagmeet Singh finding anything the Liberals do unacceptable.
As I've noted elsewhere, he's a grifter. If the Liberals lose - he loses.
Unless the Liberals drop to 15% and the NDP somehow rises to 25%, I can't see them pulling the trigger.
It's 2:00 EDT. So far, this is the best string of comments ever evoked by an article. Truly, folks, you've added good quality writing to excellent quality journalism.
The factors noted are fair as far as they go. But I think there is a flaw in the original thesis about moderate conservative parties being more electable than firmly conservative ones.
O'Toole's fate to me resembles John Tory's fate as a provincial politician. (I say this to analyze, not to blame; I had a tiny role in O'Toole's campaign and a bigger role in Tory's). Both are excellent, able, thoughtful people. Both lost elections largely over wedge issues that were not among the top 20 issues a year before, or a year after, their elections (narrow federal vaccine mandates for O'Toole, religious school funding for Tory).
The standard explanation is that they walked into traps or created their own, so didn't properly execute the moderate strategy. I disagree. A better explanation is that they offered no emotionally compelling, controversial contrast to define the election, so Liberals got to define the contrast for them. Absent those wedges, many say O'Toole and Tory would have won. No! Liberals would have used different wedges. A strategy that relies on tamping down contrasts is hard to execute. There are too many potential contrasts, and on some (e.g., guns) Liberals can always outbid conservatives.
Poilievre gives the appearance of sharper contrast, with some substantive issues to back it up (like carbon tax). Conventional wisdom said an anti-carbon tax CPC couldn't win... even though Doug Ford won twice. The red Tory approach has been tried multiple times against incumbent Liberals: Clark with marginal success, Charest, Clark 2.0, O'Toole. Who won? Harper. Mulroney, whose reinvention as a moderate is pure revisionism; he was seen as a hard liner at the time.
Poilievre may yet lose, or underperform somehow. But his prospects are better than a red Tory's because he will define the contrast in the election, unapologetically and controversially. That approach is far from a sure winner, but it's still their strongest path to success. At some point, the failures of the red Tory approach show not that everyone who tried it inexplicably mucked up the execution, but rather that it is inherently difficult to execute, and thus not as good a strategy as many imagine.
Every Liberal voters said that "if only Conservatives running more moderate leader, I would have voted for them" until they're given moderate Conservative leader, and every time they say "no thanks"
I recall summarizing Tory's campaign as singularly focused on becoming the enthusiastic second choice of the Toronto Star.
Perhaps the most accurate and introspective post of the day. Thanks J.
The problem with Mulroney, Harper (whom I voted for in every election he was party leader) and Diefenbaker before them was they all ended in electoral defeat because they went too far and became extremely unpopular. Their reputations were maligned for many years afterwards and at least in Harper’s case, much of his legislative accomplishments were wiped out by the Liberals in year one (or Year Zero, if you like).
Matt, Thank you for looking back at your piece and admitting your errors - that takes guts and a dash of humility that too many do not have anymore. My brother lived in the US when Trump first ran and he laughed him off as a boob who would never see the White House except on a tour but I said he was speaking to a large number of Americans who loved their country and didn't like how it was deteriorating (few manufactureing jobs, corruption in business and governemnt and so forth) and you know the outcome.
Reporters try to label PP as a 'populist' but what is a polulist if not someone who speaks for the population and their feelings and beliefs? Most of us see rising grocery costs after the carbon tax and most of us realize that we all end up with less despite JT trying to blow smoke up our behinds so what should be expected of an electorate who are fed up and see Canada fading on all fronts?
PP isn't perfect but he has a common touch, knows when to be indignant and actually reflects what a majority of Canadians feel - we are in trouble and our current leadership isn't capable of finding a way to salvation. Sunny ways have faded and reality has set in for us.
Cheers
I recall asking my friends not to look at Trump, but to look at the people who are following Trump and why he appeals to them (fell on deaf ears of course). But it was simple to see that he was NOT alienating the taxpayers by funding woke initiatives. He was talking to the white male and saying you are still an American and you count. I am not a big Trump fan and I wish that the choice in the states wasn’t Biden or Trump, but taxpayers count…
About 5 years ago I had a conversation with someone who more or less said that he hated Poilievre because he was not nice. He didn't like his chippieness, and especially didn't like how he talked to the press. I said that those were exactly the reasons I liked him. I was never fooled by Trudeau's so called "sunny ways", but lots of people were. Especially a lot of women. But it was not long before his treatment of Jody Wilson Raybould and Jane Philpott showed him for who he really is. I remain surprised at how many people are still star struck by his fake persona.
Then there is the CPC who for years heeded the ill thought out boilerplate wisdom that what they needed to do was to take advice from the Liberals as to what kind of leader they need. But how has that worked out? But let's look at the federal Conservative leaders who have actually managed to win elections and form government. Progressives hated Harper. He was pretty much seen as the devil incarnate. That rhetoric has waned somewhat of late, but it won't go away for awhile yet. Like it eventually went away in regards to Mulroney, who the progressives of his day also hated. I am old enough to remember when he was the arch conservative Reagan/Thatcher clone who was going to destroy Canada by signing a free trade deal with the USA. This sort of thing is the ho-hum boring and gratingly pedantic nonsense that is always being peddled by (to coin a phrase) "Canada's upper middle class, and those desperate to join them". And of course of the cottage country set who secretly sneer in derision at Canada's working class, and generally anyone who lives outside their bubble. I have heard it said that there are only 2 kinds of Conservative PMs that progressives like. The first is "former". The second is "dead". But as long as they are the current leader or PM we will hear the same tired old tropes about "American style" this and "right wing" that. And of course the incessant shrieking of "POPULISM POPULISM POPULISM!!!" The latter being especially eye rolling. When people say that word to me, I ask them to define it. I either get the glazed over look from someone who can't, or I get a lecture about how the simple folk just can't be relied upon to know what is good for them, and how they are basically all bigots anyway.
Like many people, I am sick to death of this. Poilievre doesn't take their shit. He pushes back. I like that way more than Trudeau's whole "smiler with the knife under his cloak" routine.
I'm equally baffled when people rail against populism- isn't every election about who is 'popular'?
my current understanding is that we used to elect the person who was both popular AND put in place to run by what we now call the elites (the class that controls the media and other institutions). in other words, we had a constructed populism.
with the explosion of media and alternative sources of info/opinion, we'll never again have that consensus. when the 'elite' lost control of the narrative, they changed their mind about being popular- now it's a bad thing
Mulroney was like Harper hated by the opposition parties while in government; however, the reasons for the hate are different in an important way. Mulroney was hated for the ambitious policies that he stood for, from the U.S. trade agreement to the GST modernization to the constitutional proposals. But the policies that he passed in his term generally survived past the end of his government including into the Liberal era.
Harper is different in that the policies he pushed were generally not ambitious, but almost every policy he presented was pushed with the tone of a non-verbal meltdown. His party unilaterally passed over 100 time allocation motions to undermine the opposition, and what did he accomplish of it? Little of his legislative changes survive today, beyond the abolished long-gun registry, the GST cut, and the 31-year Canada-China FIPA.
Current Conservatives seem to think that Poilievre is a proud and self-confident character, even though Poilievre has almost nothing to say these days in defense of the countless time-allocated Bills that he voted for, from environmental law changes to intrusive CSIS powers to electoral law changes. He does not seem interested in bringing back the majority of the laws that the Trudeau government repealed, and he otherwise wants Canadians to completely forget about his own indefensible legislative record.
I admit that I as well didn’t think Poilievre could turn it around, but I was wrong. I thought he was too combative. That may not have worked when he won, but is well suited for today.
The people who have lost their shit are the pundit class who always lead with “if the CPC were just like the LPC they’d do so well”. Poilievre is a giant fuck you to them and if he wins it’ll be a total refutation of their stupid worldview. They need to be taught a very sharp lesson.
One potential factor that has not been mentioned is the potential impact of foreign interference in the 21 election and the revelation of foreign interference to voters.
Yes I know the Liberal/CBC talking points that the overall outcome of the election was not impacted, but voters deserve to know exactly which ridings WERE impacted. This has helped erode trust in these self serving conclusions.
Voters should be concerned with why a foreign agent registry is taking so long to implement, particularly now with divisions re: Israel/Palestine and the NDPs leverage over the Libs
Notwithstanding the Liberals' reluctance to declare a public inquiry into foreign interference, there were definitely no ridings whose outcomes were swung by any foreign interference. Foreign embassies and countries don't have the resources to pivot thousands or even hundreds of votes in ridings whose outcomes are overwhelmingly determined by national trends in party preferences.
Foreign interference could more plausibly have an impact on nomination contests, since those are all about candidates' capacity to sign up people, and those are smaller-scale affairs. But that would not necessarily create a partisan impact on the results in the general election itself.
Stefan, you write in part, "... there were definitely no ridings whose outcomes were swung by any foreign interference."
Hmmmmm.....
What evidence can you provide to substantiate your assertion? The government fought for some time the idea of an inquiry into the topic, notwithstanding the published commentary to the contrary, and ultimately agreed to the establishment of such an inquiry but has hamstrung it with various rules and requirements. So, again, what evidence can you provide to substantiate your assertion?
The majority of MP candidates who run for office without the backing of major political parties fail to achieve even 1% of the local riding vote (myself included). Yet the typical MP candidate surely knows more about our political system and has deeper roots in the country than most of the diplomats who work in any embassy. Local campaigns will often spends thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, only for 0.5% to 2% of the local vote being swayed as a result; embassies don't have the kind of money that would be needed to systematically influence the riding-level democratic processes that they barely understand.
While foreign embassies can harass and communicate with their nationals, they cannot directly control their political participation, let alone organize a partisan preference among hundreds of voters within the space of a single riding. And there are only so many ridings where the margin was within hundreds of votes. Embassies do not have local organizational power equivalent to that of Electoral District Associations, which themselves have marginal influence.
The Liberals might have been wary of an inquiry not because of any substantial favours in their favour, but because they hope for such favours in the future. Or they might be embarrassed by lower-stakes manipulations that happened on their watch such as at the nomination contest level, for example.
Stefan, I respectfully disagree with you.
I suggest that you review the articles by Robert Fife and Steven Chase in the Globe and Mail or the blog "The Bureau" by Sam Cooper. They detail quite clearly the efforts of the Chinese government to mobilize and finance campaigns for various politicians, both Liberal and Conservative and (wow!) those candidates seem to have won. Look at Terry Glavin's blog, "The Real Story" for commentary about Indian and Iranian efforts within their respective diasporas. Other journalists have also published stories on this topic.
You say that embassies do not have the financial heft to spend money on such operations but it is not the embassy budgets that are being used but they are, instead, using the budgets of the various countries' intelligence agencies.
Like I hinted above, it would not necessarily take much interference to pivot a nomination contest. But foreign interference did not cause the Kenny Chiu Conservatives to lag behind the Liberals in Steveston—Richmond East by 3400+ votes. You likely couldn't buy that vote difference with $100,000 or even $200,000 worth of ads at your disposal, such is the dominance of our political parties in voter preferences.
Point taken on the involvement of foreign intelligence, though I do not think that would change much to my analysis. If you wanted to engage in cost-efficient and systemic manipulation of our federal elections, you would target the national public space and national networks rather than local ridings - buying a few MPs would offer very little return on the huge amount of investment required, it takes dozens of MPs to change policy. Not that my argument changes the observed facts around the local interference that did occur, but all the reporting I can see is consistent with the possibility that the Chinese engaged in some low-key and low-cost interference and simply experimented to see what would happen - changing a few votes here and there, but not the riding-level outcomes. (Just because we know they interfered on behalf of winning candidates does not mean that they did not commit interference elsewhere on behalf of losing candidates, and didn't fail in their influences more often than not.)
I am sure that the Indian and Iranian governments are influencing their own diasporas, but not likely in close coordination with China.
You say embassies don’t have the resources. I respectfully disagree. The United Front Work Department has an exponentially larger budget than the Chinese foreign ministry and they run Beijing’s influence, intimidation and influence campaigns out of consulates, and through usurped local Chinese associations and Mandarin media.
What we have been told about is the tip of the iceberg.
There is nothing that isn’t true in you and your CPC folks’ comments. Certainly, everyone should have seen that being called privileged when you worked your ass off all your life does leave a bit of a stain. But the other thing that you didn’t mention (perhaps because you and your interviewees are way to close to politics and politicians) is that this country needs hope.
We are not a hateful country. We do not like that people are being killed, but we are a practical country and sometimes evil has to be routed out. We are parents who love our children and we want to be the ones showing them how to navigate life. We want common sense and sanity, not tampons in mens bathrooms.
And we want to drive our Ram 3500’s.
A really good article, and one I'd like to add a few points on:
-I think one of the ingredients in Poilievre's "secret sauce" is that he's kept his message very focused on things of immediate interest to a lot of people like affordability and housing. That was one of the keys to Stephen Harper's first victory, namely sticking to a five point plan that was easy for voters to understand and appeal to. Poilievre's bluntness also appeals to a lot of people outside the Laurentian bubble-it almost reminds me of Ezra Levant, except without the moronic stunts and temper tantrums that turn Levant into a living cartoon character. There's a reason why Poilievre's broadened his appeal while Levant's never truly gone mainstream.
-Another ingredient is that he's more politically flexible than people give him credit for. His pledge to limit oil imports in favour of domestic production from places like Alberta is the stuff of nightmares for neoliberals and free traders, but it's sweet music to Albertans who feel like our oil is being constrained by Trudeau's energy policies. Something similar happened provincially when Sun media pundits said the quiet part out loud about Danielle Smith, namely that won by moving back towards the centre. She's got things like a provincial pension plan and police force on the table right now, but she sure didn't run on them!
-As for the PPC, it doesn't hurt that Maxime Bernier is as sharp as a bowling ball. Some of the libertarians who first joined the PPC were quitting in disgust because of the number of far-right types Bernier was attracting to the party. And remember, he's the same clown who Harper had to fire from Cabinet for leaving politically sensitive documents at the home of his Hells' Angels-affiliated girlfriend.
-I'm surprised Mr. Gurney's source didn't comment more on the Liberals' decision to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax. If the supply agreement was the NDP's major miscalculation, the home heating oil exemption was the Liberals' miscalculation. That almost cut the knees off any rationale for supporting carbon taxation and was just another slap in Western Canada's face.
-One possible gap in Poilievre's armor could be his environmental stance. People notice when droughts get longer and we face water shortages, especially when businesses ranging from agriculture to tourism depend on that precipitation. He hasn't said much about what he'd actually do to replace the carbon tax, just brushing off the questions. That could be the potential sore spot for a lot of people.
-Finally, I've always felt that efforts to tear down John A. Macdonald statues and do things like 'Cancel Canada Day' have always done more harm than good. They make the 'ordinary' Canadians Mr. Gurney's source talks about feel like they're being attacked for taking pride in their heritage and who they are as Canadians, the same way that DEI and privilege discussions have, hence why they've been shifting to the Conservatives. The very real issues some of the activists pushing these things need to be addresed, of course, but I think a little flag-waving on their part might go a long way.
I thought this was a fantastic column because it reflects my own theories of Canadian politics. I too was wrong about Poilievre in the period after the 2021 election, and it has been an interesting exercise for me to examine how my views of Canadian politics have changed because of Poilievre.
But the humility really makes this column fantastic. To not only admit that you were wrong, but to sincerely attempt to find out why you were wrong. I can't help but wonder where Poilievre and the CPC would be now if our institutions, politicians, and the Canadian media had more humility.