Pretty good article, especially the part about Twitter not necessarily reflecting what 'Martha and Henry' (a term former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein used here to describe 'average' Albertans) want or even know about.
How many people who aren't policy wonks or tech geeks even necessarily know what crypto is? That might play well with the Rebel and Post Millennial crowds, but if you ask most average voters what it is they'll either shrug or assume it's some kind of scam.
And social conservatism is often political poison even here in Alberta, the closest Canada has to a Bible Belt. If you look at our 2012 election, you'll see that the Wildrose Alliance under Danielle Smith was set to toss out a decades-old Progressive Conservative party, but they were destroyed almost overnight in no small part due to the comments one candidate made about gays drowning in a "lake of fire." I had several family members who bleed conservative blue and wanted the PCs gone, but they couldn't stomach supporting the Wildrose after that.
When Ralph Klein refused to use the notwithstanding clause to maintain a heterosexual definition of marriage, or to keep gay rights out of our provincial human rights code, a few social conservatives complained but the rest of us, even in rural Alberta, just shrugged and continued giving him majority governments anyway. Same thing with Stephen Harper, who adamantly refused to re-open the abortion debate while he was in charge, and yet Albertans turned out in droves to vote for him.
Klein's and Harper's refusals would have killed their careers stone dead in the American Bible Belt, but few Albertans gave a rat's behind about these issues.
Poilievre's real strength as a politician, besides the strength of his social media feed, is his speaking on issues that are relevant to a big cross-section of Canadians. Housing affects almost everybody, and it was a big part of the recent federal budget. That was one of the Harper Conservatives' strengths in 2006-they focused their platform on a small set of clear, broad ideas that could appeal to a broad cross-section of people.
He could learn a thing or two from Patrick Brown about cultivating a support base, though. Jason Kenney was derided as the 'Minister of Curry In A Hurry' when he worked to cultivate the federal Conservatives' support among immigrant and minority groups, but that support was an important part in the Conservatives' not only winning in 2006, but increasing their support to winning a majority in 2011.
Thanks you for a thoughtful article by someone who is neither a party hack nor on some direct or indirect Canadian government payroll. I used to have to go to Al Jazeera or the BBC for objective analyses.
Interesting comparison, but I think a better one would be to Ted Cruz. He, like Poilievre, has a long career in politics, unlike Yang. He lost the primaries, and is still a senator. Likewise, if Poilievre loses the leadership he'll still be an MP for his riding.
The social media angle is good. He's polished, but more importantly, the content is GOOD, and connects. It's a large factor in the current housing discussion.
His bitcoin stuff is weird though. Bit of a distraction, IMO.
That he would say bitcoin will protect you from inflation is dumb, but he's smart enough to know that. I think that's the politician side of him coming through with a cheap slogan.
However, I do think he is bang on with the need to recognize crypto currencies and get out in front of regulating them and adopting a method of incorporating them into our financial system. The alternative is to let crypto currencies stretch their lead out further in front of regulation and then try to start the difficult/impossible task of reining them in.
I see a lot of derision about even addressing crypto, but back in the early part of this century smartphones were nothing but a novelty (that your parents thought were a silly waste of money) and in 2016, governing by tweet was treated as irresponsible and ridiculous. Now we can't let our smartphones out of our sight because we might miss a tweet we need to immediately comment on. Why do we think the technological path of progress is going to be any different with currencies? Paper currencies issued by individual countries are going to be the one thing that never changes? Especially in light of the debatable monetary policies of many countries?
Set aside the dumb political rhetoric and slogans which are part of every politicians toolkit, and I agree with those who are thinking ahead on this issue. They may not have what turns out to be the final answer on the issue, but we need to at least start addressing it.
I agree with the Ted Cruz comparison rather than Yang, and Ted is also from Calgary, where his mother invented the internet. These guys will say anything.
I do disagree on how polished and professional his little videos are. Mostly I find them embarrassing, misleading and full of BS. His $5 mil house was an exercise in smoke and mirrors. Vancouver home prices are obscene already. No one needs PP to "explain" things he knows little about. And it was not a 40 yo house. Closer to 100 years if not more but not on the heritage list. And a trucker and waitress? Right PP, don't drop your left-handed hammer.
Shwarma. "Do you use Canadian food?" PP you are not Ironman.
Bitcoin is not Blockchain and still not illegal. Yeah, weird. I think he is recently enamored with Bitcoin but who need to know details right? It's new and trendy and exciting, all things PP is not and would like to be. Then there was his "new Canadian". That was actually funny.
Funny tho, Rahim only included Twitter video links but I don't think he read any of the responses.
Yang always came across as sincere. Pierre, not so much.
Yes. Why is it you would not read them? They are not you tube or as you all call misinformation. These are all well known sites to which you call your "trusted" news. The Cullen Commission should be known to you as it is Vancouver's commission on the money laundering. It goes into detail, as does Sam's book, on the way the laundering was put into real estate to clean the money. He also goes into detail on where the money comes from which of course would also include the fentanyl problem, not just in Vancouver, but across this country, as there are many underground and illegal casinos across Canada. Its what has come out of the commission and investigative reporting. Is it not good to be informed on what is happening in your own Province and country? You tell me I speak in generalities and I am showing you that I am well informed and speak of reported stories in the news and books I have read. There are so many reason that housing is as high and in crisis now to which, unless your informed, you may not understand. I am not sending you on goose chase I am just showing you why the housing is in the state it is and that Pierre does know as well. Its not like he is using a stick in the dark to find solutions. As you believe I speak in woe of the issues facing Canada now from the damage from lockdowns not being as bad as I say, to pretty much everything I write. Because you did not suffer harsh consequences does not mean they were not reality for many others. I am not a sad Sally as you like to say but I am informed. I have the time to stay informed and so I do. I do not speak in generalities, I speak in reality on issues I have taken the time to read, learn, and contemplate before I write. You can dismiss any link I share, but next time you tell me I am generalizing or making a mountain out of a mole hill, I will show you written or spoken items I took the time to inform myself with. I may not always get it right but I certainly never write anything off the top of my hat, Its usually because I have read or heard of it through others and took the time to inform myself.
Pierre knows exactly why there is a housing shortage in Canada. Its those who do not bother to look into all the issues causing the problems from large investors to zoning. There are many reasons for the shortage and its known that it involves municipal Governments, zoning, investors, and for some time and still the money laundering in BC and in the Toronto area contributed to it. Cleaning money in real estate was very real in Canada and especially Vancouver. I believe the Cullen Report comes out with recommendations in May of this year. They keep pushing it forward but that was the last date given.
"Social conservatives have historically been the most influential group of voters in Conservative party leadership races." That's also a big part of why they've lost the last 2 elections. I have no doubt Pierre will attempt to court the socially conservative wing in the quest for power and attach that albatross to himself. It seems remarkable that a group who profess themselves to be Christian are so determined to impose their opinions of how people should live on others. Watching it play out south of the border, you wonder if they'll ever figure out that such nonsense here makes you unelectable?
I wasn’t aware that social conservatives were opposed to vaccine mandates and that this was a lock tight political reality that could be trodded about in opinion pieces as accepted wisdom.
We have effective vaccines, although of unknown medium or long term efficacy. This isn't surprising as the only way to know how immunity persists over say 3 years would be to have 3 years of clinical data. Maybe a true booster will come out, as the misnamed 3rd and 4th shots are additional doses. We do know that the current vaccines reduce transmissibility, although nowhere near to the point that vaccine mandates would do much to contain spread. The wedge over vaccines is stupid.
Political courage needs a "MeToo Issue" - one of those areas where "everybody knows" the Accepted Truth is not the Real Truth, where you can flip the world by calling bullshit and making us all stare at our toes.
Most politicians have so little courage that they will stick by the accepted lie (Afghanistan is going well, there is a gay agenda, cannabis will fry your brain like an egg in a pan) longer than the general public has actually flipped on it. Then somebody with a scintilla of courage actually say so, are pounced upon by media and opponents for a week until the public reaction becomes clear, then the world flips.
Examples: Joe Biden and gay marriage in 2012, when Obama was too timid to speak for it; Justin Trudeau leapfrogging the NDP decrim policy to stand foursquare for full cannabis legalization the next year in the leadership run - Harper was actually still running "your brain on drugs" commercials from the 1980s. Both are now national leaders, because they picked the right moment when the public was ready, and politicians were weak-kneed. The same advocacy in 2007 would have had them in obscurity today.
Me, I'd champion a Right To Work From Home, and call bullshit on offices. That time might just have come at a highly-accelerated rate, courtesy of the pandemic. My campaign rhetoric would prominently feature rants on "bullshit jobs" and "bullshit management that couldn't do the job it pretends to supervise". I sense that people are really, really ready for that one.
Unlike Yang, Poilievre isn't a pseudo-socialist...I would hope that Canadians have learned not to be fooled by such. His advocacy for Bitcoin is a heavy mark in his favour, IMO...it only remains to be seen if Conservatives can be made aware of why Bank of Canada soft-money policies are ultimately detrimental to economic prosperity and a hard-money regime is preferable. Many people find him 'smug and arrogant' [probably not most Conservatives] but his personal style is far less important than what he _believes and advocates_. One hopes that Conservatives can see that distinction as well. Charisma has been a dangerous drug in Canadian politics since the days of PET, or even populist Diefenbaker.
True. In my view, 95% of the Canadian political spectrum would fit comfortably inside the US Democratic Party. I've told this to several American [conservative] friends and acquaintances, and they nod their heads wisely.
Appealing to the social conservatives may help Poilievre win the party leadership but it will be a drag on winning urban ridings in the election unless he can defuse the stigma around it. Erin O'Toole was a lot more centrist but, in my opinion, lost because he kept chasing the Liberal policies rather than getting ahead of them. If he wants to be Prime Minister, he needs the same dynamism around all the other issues, not just housing.
You're calling Poilievre a social conservative? He's prochoice, pro-LBGTQ+, wants to increase immigration and make it easier for professionals to bring their credentials with them, etc. He represents a riding in Ottawa where he's been continuously re-elected. Is he a social conservative? Or a Big Tent Conservative who is willing to talk to truckers?
No, I don't think Pierre is a social conservative. Either was Erin. But, I expect Pierre will make the same mistake in his desire to grasp the leadership.
Pierre had put forth his name in the last leadership race later to withdraw it for personal reasons. Even at that time it was a great disappointment for many that he chose not to run. Over time he has only become more popular through social media and also for his commentary in the House of Commons. His popularity is not new to those who have been backing his brand of Conservatism and fiscal responsibility. He is not an overnight success by any means, and has slowly built his appeal through hard work and his ability to connect with the working class and the younger generation through advancing alternative technologies and monetary freedom. For those hoping to lose the noose around their neck from Government over reach, looming control, forcing us into their ideal future, instead of a mutually accepted one, Pierre is the only choice for the leader of the Conservative Party and hopefully the next Prime Minister of Canada.
If young Mr. Poilievre can win the nomination without the help of the social conservative branch of the Conservative Party, he has a legitimate shot at winning the next federal election. If Poilievre ends up needing the support of Lewis to win the Conservative nomination, he will end up in the same boat as Scheer and O'toole. Voters who are fiscal or moderate Conservatives, will be reluctant to support, or get involved with a party that has close ties to the Christian Fundamentalist segment. Hopefully one day, the Conservative Party will grow a pair and rid themselves of the social conservative element. Perhaps then, the social conservatives can run under the banner they should be running under, the Christian Heritage Party.
What is it you dislike about Christians? Is it the morals and rules you dislike or the fact that without religion we have people who worship activism and untraditional elements, environmentalism instead of god? Is it the abortion issue you are against and are more for my body, my choice?
I have always believed in life after death. Hence I think that the fundamentalist segment of the Conservative Party should strive to bring life back for the Christian Heritage Party. Mixing politics with religion is like mixing 18 year old Scotch with Root Beer.
Humans have tendency to believe in a higher life form or gods, and if you look through out history it has always been so. Without the belief in a higher being, humans tend to make other non traditional things the "new god". What is chosen will be the all mighty and the reason for all life on earth. Its all one and the same and in the absence of any god, humans will replace it with an idol or ideology. As with all beliefs they can become all consuming such as any religious cult to specific ideologies but something will replace god. Technology perhaps? Environmental extremism? I don't know what it may end up being but something will take the place of god for humanity to worship. My questions was what would you like that ideology to be?
I simply asked what you disliked about nontraditional elements or environmentalism. I did not ask for a Coles Notes on your understanding of "god" and how you think humans tend to do things.
It sounds like a biblical quote but it isn't, is it? No, ideology was not your question. I was just clarifying Christian Fundamentalists, not all Christians. A sect, a cult, an ideology if you like.
That would be the end of god to which is already been declared. There are many factions of Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fundamentalist_denominations . On that note there are many who believe transhumanism as the way forward making humanity ever lasting by incorporating technology into the body in order to enhance it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarwantsingh/2017/11/20/transhumanism-and-the-future-of-humanity-seven-ways-the-world-will-change-by-2030/ This is but the beginning of the new replacement for god under the name of eugenics. So for future generations, I don't consider god the enemy, in fact although not a devote Christian by any means, I do think believing in something with a power greater than us is far less dangerous than what they plan to take its place. Making humans god. Those deeply committed to environmentalism believe that mankind is the enemy of the earth and that they must removed in order for the earths survival. We are the cause of all ills in the world.
I won't be supporting a PP led conservative candidate in my riding come the next election. He's a non-starter for me as l believe he's a social vs a progressive conservative.
So you're suggesting he's a Progressive Conservative, then? Tell me more, please do. One is judged by the company they keep, "honk, honk". Those folks aren't Progressives. PP and l grew up in the same neck of the woods, I've seen both types of Conservative. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, usually it's a duck.
I didn't suggest anything, I asked why you think he is a SoCon. That is all I want to know, because here, and other places, he is not considered one. He supprts LGBTQ+ and called same sex marriage a great success. These are not actions of SoCons.
I agree with the "he's onto something" sentiment, but PP lacks substance. Then again, the Canadian political scene has been devoid of substance since 2015.
I voted for Harper in every election except his last. Like most Canadians, I voted to get rid of Chretien, who I view as the father of PMO government(a massive step back for democracy, that all followers have embraced), and because he cancelled the helicopter deal. I was incredibly disappointed that he did nothing with the majority he'd craved so so long. It was like he hit a homerun and forgot to round the bases. I still find it amusing that Harper's spending his was out of a recession was brilliant fiscal policy, and Bob Rae doing the same thing in Ontario is the reason why people won't vote NDP to this day.
I think you're right about PP lacking any substance. He sounds like he's on a soapbox in a 1920 election spinning stories disguised as facts. I'll be curious if the C's pick him. My hope still is that the Liberals will cast Trudeau to the wolves as he is no longer an asset to the party; more like an anvil. If they did, I don't think it matters who the C's pick, but I don't really see any realistic 2020 message and plan coming out of a party stuck in 1950.
The good news: this leadership campaign has attracted a lot of candidates and some actual talk of policy (though with few details yet) as opposed to focusing exclusively on personality. Scott Aitchison has brought forth a couple of well-thought out policy positions; PP has raised housing affordability in a way that's compelling to people beyond the party; Brown seems to be reaching out to groups of recent immigrants; and Charest -- after a bit of a shakey start -- seems to be doing a pretty decent job in TV interviews outlining the principles he believes in.
There's the making of a substantive debate here and what looks like a sincere effort across the candidates to reach beyond the base. Cautiously hopeful!
He is not necessarily a social conservative but there is enough of the party that is that he is going to have to have something for them to get the leadership. The left is going to try to associate him with that faction after the fact. HIs actions with respect to the Freedom Convoy, for example, gives the Liberals and NDP a bit of ammunition for the next election. Unqualified Pro choice and LGBTQ+ stances will not help him in a leadership race in my opinion. I do not consider immigration to be a right vs left issue, although it certainly is painted as one. The problem is that if immigration does not keep up with housing, there is no avoiding some of the housing inflation issues we now have. Hopefully the party has had enough of Scheer debacle to understand.
I think they looked at the polls and saw an opportunity before the reality of COVID spending had to be addressed. They took a shot. I don't think it had anything to do with Pierre yelling and spinning on his soapbox.
Pretty good article, especially the part about Twitter not necessarily reflecting what 'Martha and Henry' (a term former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein used here to describe 'average' Albertans) want or even know about.
How many people who aren't policy wonks or tech geeks even necessarily know what crypto is? That might play well with the Rebel and Post Millennial crowds, but if you ask most average voters what it is they'll either shrug or assume it's some kind of scam.
And social conservatism is often political poison even here in Alberta, the closest Canada has to a Bible Belt. If you look at our 2012 election, you'll see that the Wildrose Alliance under Danielle Smith was set to toss out a decades-old Progressive Conservative party, but they were destroyed almost overnight in no small part due to the comments one candidate made about gays drowning in a "lake of fire." I had several family members who bleed conservative blue and wanted the PCs gone, but they couldn't stomach supporting the Wildrose after that.
When Ralph Klein refused to use the notwithstanding clause to maintain a heterosexual definition of marriage, or to keep gay rights out of our provincial human rights code, a few social conservatives complained but the rest of us, even in rural Alberta, just shrugged and continued giving him majority governments anyway. Same thing with Stephen Harper, who adamantly refused to re-open the abortion debate while he was in charge, and yet Albertans turned out in droves to vote for him.
Klein's and Harper's refusals would have killed their careers stone dead in the American Bible Belt, but few Albertans gave a rat's behind about these issues.
Poilievre's real strength as a politician, besides the strength of his social media feed, is his speaking on issues that are relevant to a big cross-section of Canadians. Housing affects almost everybody, and it was a big part of the recent federal budget. That was one of the Harper Conservatives' strengths in 2006-they focused their platform on a small set of clear, broad ideas that could appeal to a broad cross-section of people.
He could learn a thing or two from Patrick Brown about cultivating a support base, though. Jason Kenney was derided as the 'Minister of Curry In A Hurry' when he worked to cultivate the federal Conservatives' support among immigrant and minority groups, but that support was an important part in the Conservatives' not only winning in 2006, but increasing their support to winning a majority in 2011.
I forgot about Kenney’s “Minister of Curry in a Hurry” moniker from the Harper years. What a different time!
Thanks you for a thoughtful article by someone who is neither a party hack nor on some direct or indirect Canadian government payroll. I used to have to go to Al Jazeera or the BBC for objective analyses.
Al Jazeera English and AJ+ are terrific outlets. I use both of them a ton in my teaching! I'm flattered to have my writing placed on the same level.
Interesting comparison, but I think a better one would be to Ted Cruz. He, like Poilievre, has a long career in politics, unlike Yang. He lost the primaries, and is still a senator. Likewise, if Poilievre loses the leadership he'll still be an MP for his riding.
The social media angle is good. He's polished, but more importantly, the content is GOOD, and connects. It's a large factor in the current housing discussion.
His bitcoin stuff is weird though. Bit of a distraction, IMO.
That he would say bitcoin will protect you from inflation is dumb, but he's smart enough to know that. I think that's the politician side of him coming through with a cheap slogan.
However, I do think he is bang on with the need to recognize crypto currencies and get out in front of regulating them and adopting a method of incorporating them into our financial system. The alternative is to let crypto currencies stretch their lead out further in front of regulation and then try to start the difficult/impossible task of reining them in.
I see a lot of derision about even addressing crypto, but back in the early part of this century smartphones were nothing but a novelty (that your parents thought were a silly waste of money) and in 2016, governing by tweet was treated as irresponsible and ridiculous. Now we can't let our smartphones out of our sight because we might miss a tweet we need to immediately comment on. Why do we think the technological path of progress is going to be any different with currencies? Paper currencies issued by individual countries are going to be the one thing that never changes? Especially in light of the debatable monetary policies of many countries?
Set aside the dumb political rhetoric and slogans which are part of every politicians toolkit, and I agree with those who are thinking ahead on this issue. They may not have what turns out to be the final answer on the issue, but we need to at least start addressing it.
I agree with the Ted Cruz comparison rather than Yang, and Ted is also from Calgary, where his mother invented the internet. These guys will say anything.
I do disagree on how polished and professional his little videos are. Mostly I find them embarrassing, misleading and full of BS. His $5 mil house was an exercise in smoke and mirrors. Vancouver home prices are obscene already. No one needs PP to "explain" things he knows little about. And it was not a 40 yo house. Closer to 100 years if not more but not on the heritage list. And a trucker and waitress? Right PP, don't drop your left-handed hammer.
Shwarma. "Do you use Canadian food?" PP you are not Ironman.
Bitcoin is not Blockchain and still not illegal. Yeah, weird. I think he is recently enamored with Bitcoin but who need to know details right? It's new and trendy and exciting, all things PP is not and would like to be. Then there was his "new Canadian". That was actually funny.
Funny tho, Rahim only included Twitter video links but I don't think he read any of the responses.
Yang always came across as sincere. Pierre, not so much.
https://financialpost.com/real-estate/property-post/the-chinese-government-now-controls-the-biggest-retirement-housing-chain-in-b-c
https://cullencommission.ca/
https://globalnews.ca/news/7493127/fred-pinnock-recordings-tsunami-cullen-commission/
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/57427971-wilful-blindness
https://torontolife.com/city/inside-the-markham-casino-fiasco
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/investors-and-repeat-buyers-make-up-growing-share-of-canadian-real-estate-market-study-1.5741840
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-379-cost-of-living/clip/15897422-why-answer-housing-crisis-starts-zoning
You do realize that I am not going to bother with any of your links. Have you read each and every link you post to share with us?
Yes. Why is it you would not read them? They are not you tube or as you all call misinformation. These are all well known sites to which you call your "trusted" news. The Cullen Commission should be known to you as it is Vancouver's commission on the money laundering. It goes into detail, as does Sam's book, on the way the laundering was put into real estate to clean the money. He also goes into detail on where the money comes from which of course would also include the fentanyl problem, not just in Vancouver, but across this country, as there are many underground and illegal casinos across Canada. Its what has come out of the commission and investigative reporting. Is it not good to be informed on what is happening in your own Province and country? You tell me I speak in generalities and I am showing you that I am well informed and speak of reported stories in the news and books I have read. There are so many reason that housing is as high and in crisis now to which, unless your informed, you may not understand. I am not sending you on goose chase I am just showing you why the housing is in the state it is and that Pierre does know as well. Its not like he is using a stick in the dark to find solutions. As you believe I speak in woe of the issues facing Canada now from the damage from lockdowns not being as bad as I say, to pretty much everything I write. Because you did not suffer harsh consequences does not mean they were not reality for many others. I am not a sad Sally as you like to say but I am informed. I have the time to stay informed and so I do. I do not speak in generalities, I speak in reality on issues I have taken the time to read, learn, and contemplate before I write. You can dismiss any link I share, but next time you tell me I am generalizing or making a mountain out of a mole hill, I will show you written or spoken items I took the time to inform myself with. I may not always get it right but I certainly never write anything off the top of my hat, Its usually because I have read or heard of it through others and took the time to inform myself.
Pierre knows exactly why there is a housing shortage in Canada. Its those who do not bother to look into all the issues causing the problems from large investors to zoning. There are many reasons for the shortage and its known that it involves municipal Governments, zoning, investors, and for some time and still the money laundering in BC and in the Toronto area contributed to it. Cleaning money in real estate was very real in Canada and especially Vancouver. I believe the Cullen Report comes out with recommendations in May of this year. They keep pushing it forward but that was the last date given.
"Social conservatives have historically been the most influential group of voters in Conservative party leadership races." That's also a big part of why they've lost the last 2 elections. I have no doubt Pierre will attempt to court the socially conservative wing in the quest for power and attach that albatross to himself. It seems remarkable that a group who profess themselves to be Christian are so determined to impose their opinions of how people should live on others. Watching it play out south of the border, you wonder if they'll ever figure out that such nonsense here makes you unelectable?
I wasn’t aware that social conservatives were opposed to vaccine mandates and that this was a lock tight political reality that could be trodded about in opinion pieces as accepted wisdom.
Does anyone care about vaccines anymore?
We have effective vaccines, although of unknown medium or long term efficacy. This isn't surprising as the only way to know how immunity persists over say 3 years would be to have 3 years of clinical data. Maybe a true booster will come out, as the misnamed 3rd and 4th shots are additional doses. We do know that the current vaccines reduce transmissibility, although nowhere near to the point that vaccine mandates would do much to contain spread. The wedge over vaccines is stupid.
That was my thought as well.
That was very informative. Thanks.
Political courage needs a "MeToo Issue" - one of those areas where "everybody knows" the Accepted Truth is not the Real Truth, where you can flip the world by calling bullshit and making us all stare at our toes.
Most politicians have so little courage that they will stick by the accepted lie (Afghanistan is going well, there is a gay agenda, cannabis will fry your brain like an egg in a pan) longer than the general public has actually flipped on it. Then somebody with a scintilla of courage actually say so, are pounced upon by media and opponents for a week until the public reaction becomes clear, then the world flips.
Examples: Joe Biden and gay marriage in 2012, when Obama was too timid to speak for it; Justin Trudeau leapfrogging the NDP decrim policy to stand foursquare for full cannabis legalization the next year in the leadership run - Harper was actually still running "your brain on drugs" commercials from the 1980s. Both are now national leaders, because they picked the right moment when the public was ready, and politicians were weak-kneed. The same advocacy in 2007 would have had them in obscurity today.
Me, I'd champion a Right To Work From Home, and call bullshit on offices. That time might just have come at a highly-accelerated rate, courtesy of the pandemic. My campaign rhetoric would prominently feature rants on "bullshit jobs" and "bullshit management that couldn't do the job it pretends to supervise". I sense that people are really, really ready for that one.
Unlike Yang, Poilievre isn't a pseudo-socialist...I would hope that Canadians have learned not to be fooled by such. His advocacy for Bitcoin is a heavy mark in his favour, IMO...it only remains to be seen if Conservatives can be made aware of why Bank of Canada soft-money policies are ultimately detrimental to economic prosperity and a hard-money regime is preferable. Many people find him 'smug and arrogant' [probably not most Conservatives] but his personal style is far less important than what he _believes and advocates_. One hopes that Conservatives can see that distinction as well. Charisma has been a dangerous drug in Canadian politics since the days of PET, or even populist Diefenbaker.
Poilievre would be a moderate Democrat in the states (pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-LGBT+), as would most of the candidates in the race
True. In my view, 95% of the Canadian political spectrum would fit comfortably inside the US Democratic Party. I've told this to several American [conservative] friends and acquaintances, and they nod their heads wisely.
Appealing to the social conservatives may help Poilievre win the party leadership but it will be a drag on winning urban ridings in the election unless he can defuse the stigma around it. Erin O'Toole was a lot more centrist but, in my opinion, lost because he kept chasing the Liberal policies rather than getting ahead of them. If he wants to be Prime Minister, he needs the same dynamism around all the other issues, not just housing.
I'm not fighting with you, I'm curious.
You're calling Poilievre a social conservative? He's prochoice, pro-LBGTQ+, wants to increase immigration and make it easier for professionals to bring their credentials with them, etc. He represents a riding in Ottawa where he's been continuously re-elected. Is he a social conservative? Or a Big Tent Conservative who is willing to talk to truckers?
No, I don't think Pierre is a social conservative. Either was Erin. But, I expect Pierre will make the same mistake in his desire to grasp the leadership.
It'll be interesting to watch.
I'm dying to see Pierre answer a question instead of his soapbox spin when he asks one.
Pierre had put forth his name in the last leadership race later to withdraw it for personal reasons. Even at that time it was a great disappointment for many that he chose not to run. Over time he has only become more popular through social media and also for his commentary in the House of Commons. His popularity is not new to those who have been backing his brand of Conservatism and fiscal responsibility. He is not an overnight success by any means, and has slowly built his appeal through hard work and his ability to connect with the working class and the younger generation through advancing alternative technologies and monetary freedom. For those hoping to lose the noose around their neck from Government over reach, looming control, forcing us into their ideal future, instead of a mutually accepted one, Pierre is the only choice for the leader of the Conservative Party and hopefully the next Prime Minister of Canada.
If young Mr. Poilievre can win the nomination without the help of the social conservative branch of the Conservative Party, he has a legitimate shot at winning the next federal election. If Poilievre ends up needing the support of Lewis to win the Conservative nomination, he will end up in the same boat as Scheer and O'toole. Voters who are fiscal or moderate Conservatives, will be reluctant to support, or get involved with a party that has close ties to the Christian Fundamentalist segment. Hopefully one day, the Conservative Party will grow a pair and rid themselves of the social conservative element. Perhaps then, the social conservatives can run under the banner they should be running under, the Christian Heritage Party.
Bingo. I'd love to see it, but don't expect it. But I'd listen to him at that point.
What is it you dislike about Christians? Is it the morals and rules you dislike or the fact that without religion we have people who worship activism and untraditional elements, environmentalism instead of god? Is it the abortion issue you are against and are more for my body, my choice?
I have always believed in life after death. Hence I think that the fundamentalist segment of the Conservative Party should strive to bring life back for the Christian Heritage Party. Mixing politics with religion is like mixing 18 year old Scotch with Root Beer.
Christian Fundamentalists. What is you dislike about untraditional elements or environmentalism? Is god not an environmentalist?
Humans have tendency to believe in a higher life form or gods, and if you look through out history it has always been so. Without the belief in a higher being, humans tend to make other non traditional things the "new god". What is chosen will be the all mighty and the reason for all life on earth. Its all one and the same and in the absence of any god, humans will replace it with an idol or ideology. As with all beliefs they can become all consuming such as any religious cult to specific ideologies but something will replace god. Technology perhaps? Environmental extremism? I don't know what it may end up being but something will take the place of god for humanity to worship. My questions was what would you like that ideology to be?
I simply asked what you disliked about nontraditional elements or environmentalism. I did not ask for a Coles Notes on your understanding of "god" and how you think humans tend to do things.
It sounds like a biblical quote but it isn't, is it? No, ideology was not your question. I was just clarifying Christian Fundamentalists, not all Christians. A sect, a cult, an ideology if you like.
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/33399/20210913/jeff-bezos-wants-to-live-forever-why-is-he-cheating-death-anyway.htm
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/yuval-hararis-warning-davos-speech-future-predications/
That would be the end of god to which is already been declared. There are many factions of Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fundamentalist_denominations . On that note there are many who believe transhumanism as the way forward making humanity ever lasting by incorporating technology into the body in order to enhance it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarwantsingh/2017/11/20/transhumanism-and-the-future-of-humanity-seven-ways-the-world-will-change-by-2030/ This is but the beginning of the new replacement for god under the name of eugenics. So for future generations, I don't consider god the enemy, in fact although not a devote Christian by any means, I do think believing in something with a power greater than us is far less dangerous than what they plan to take its place. Making humans god. Those deeply committed to environmentalism believe that mankind is the enemy of the earth and that they must removed in order for the earths survival. We are the cause of all ills in the world.
CPC leaders are like iPhones. Don't get too excited because there'll be a new one next year.
I won't be supporting a PP led conservative candidate in my riding come the next election. He's a non-starter for me as l believe he's a social vs a progressive conservative.
Help me out here, how exactly is PP a social conservative?
So you're suggesting he's a Progressive Conservative, then? Tell me more, please do. One is judged by the company they keep, "honk, honk". Those folks aren't Progressives. PP and l grew up in the same neck of the woods, I've seen both types of Conservative. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, usually it's a duck.
I didn't suggest anything, I asked why you think he is a SoCon. That is all I want to know, because here, and other places, he is not considered one. He supprts LGBTQ+ and called same sex marriage a great success. These are not actions of SoCons.
It's not a waste to me if it doesn't support the socials.
I agree with the "he's onto something" sentiment, but PP lacks substance. Then again, the Canadian political scene has been devoid of substance since 2015.
It was devoid of it long before that :)
There were a few federal politicians of substance : Harper, Flaherty, Moore, Mulcair. The focus since 2015 has been on retail politics
I voted for Harper in every election except his last. Like most Canadians, I voted to get rid of Chretien, who I view as the father of PMO government(a massive step back for democracy, that all followers have embraced), and because he cancelled the helicopter deal. I was incredibly disappointed that he did nothing with the majority he'd craved so so long. It was like he hit a homerun and forgot to round the bases. I still find it amusing that Harper's spending his was out of a recession was brilliant fiscal policy, and Bob Rae doing the same thing in Ontario is the reason why people won't vote NDP to this day.
I think you're right about PP lacking any substance. He sounds like he's on a soapbox in a 1920 election spinning stories disguised as facts. I'll be curious if the C's pick him. My hope still is that the Liberals will cast Trudeau to the wolves as he is no longer an asset to the party; more like an anvil. If they did, I don't think it matters who the C's pick, but I don't really see any realistic 2020 message and plan coming out of a party stuck in 1950.
The good news: this leadership campaign has attracted a lot of candidates and some actual talk of policy (though with few details yet) as opposed to focusing exclusively on personality. Scott Aitchison has brought forth a couple of well-thought out policy positions; PP has raised housing affordability in a way that's compelling to people beyond the party; Brown seems to be reaching out to groups of recent immigrants; and Charest -- after a bit of a shakey start -- seems to be doing a pretty decent job in TV interviews outlining the principles he believes in.
There's the making of a substantive debate here and what looks like a sincere effort across the candidates to reach beyond the base. Cautiously hopeful!
He is not necessarily a social conservative but there is enough of the party that is that he is going to have to have something for them to get the leadership. The left is going to try to associate him with that faction after the fact. HIs actions with respect to the Freedom Convoy, for example, gives the Liberals and NDP a bit of ammunition for the next election. Unqualified Pro choice and LGBTQ+ stances will not help him in a leadership race in my opinion. I do not consider immigration to be a right vs left issue, although it certainly is painted as one. The problem is that if immigration does not keep up with housing, there is no avoiding some of the housing inflation issues we now have. Hopefully the party has had enough of Scheer debacle to understand.
I think they looked at the polls and saw an opportunity before the reality of COVID spending had to be addressed. They took a shot. I don't think it had anything to do with Pierre yelling and spinning on his soapbox.