The challenge I see is PP's approach may win him the leadership, but then he's left with the Erin O'Toole problem -- what won him the leadership probably won't win him the election, but tacking towards the centre feels inauthentic and hasn't in recent history worked.
I'm probably the kind of Ontario voter the CPC needs to win over to win a majority. I'm pretty open-minded, but am of the (much derided in CPC circles, it seems) Red Tory type. PP would have an uphill battle to win me over based on what I know of him now. Charest probably has an easier time. Neither garners much enthusiasm from me, to be honest, but neither do any of the other choices; such is the way with big-tent parties. But, I'm watching this race with interest and will be very interested to see what kind of policy proposals come out after the race is done; ultimately, I'm way more interested in the policy parties run on than the personalities that lead them.
Well said. I'm a Red Tory too and dismayed at the direction the party is sailing towards as I'm increasingly feeling l have no place there after over 40 years.
This is still very much Harper's party populated with a bunch of wannabe Republicans. They don't have a Canadian agenda and wouldn't govern much differently than the ever so insipid Liberals where their real loyalty is to their corporate masters and George Soros.
I suspect if PP became PM he would be Harper all over again.
I would check on where Skippy is getting donations from long before worrying about George Soros is spending his cash.
Harper Cons the lot of them.Steve broke the Conservative party. But Skippy has been here since it's inception (When Petey lied). He knows no other life.
Skippy. Don't say tar baby; nothing about 1st Nations, graves, deaths of children, or hard work. You know nothing on these topics. Don't say woke left, just don't. It sounds dickish. You lie, quite often. Stop calling your competition liars.
And, you are NOT running for Prime Minister of Canada. And if you are, then you should be expelled, disqualified and probably need medication.
Why? Why do the Cons do it? I've been gobsmacked since Ford-1, so it's not a real surprise when Ford-2. But why the Fords at all. I'm not a big Patric Brown fan but the blatant lies being smacked at him are ridiculous. The UCP. How special is Jason Kenney? He's very special indeed. I could go on about Kenney for hours but suffice it to say that man should not be the head of anything. Another guy who has never held down a real job. O'Toole tried to steer to the middle while being tugged to the right and the right and he couldn't make anyone happy.
I'm sure the books behind Skippy that Rahim Mohamed linked to is wallpaper. A backdrop. No one has that many old tomes behind them unless they have been doing so serious collecting.
My daughter's grad photo had books behind her. Cap, gown, roses, and books. All of it a great look.
I'm continually baffled about the demonization of George Soros. Why does he get mentioned all the time and Charles Koch slips under the radar? It's the Koch network funds the "conservative movement" and all kinds of malevolent (anti-democracy) orgs (ALEC, Tea Party) in the US. Soros pours piles of money into pro-democracy causes. That makes him a traitor to his class and I believe that has a lot to do with the constant smearing.
No, you only think he calls the shots. Why would you think he'd bother having all his fingers in all the pies all the time. Living rent free comes to mind.
IMO the whole FPTP debate misstates the problem -- and misunderstands how big-tent parties work. This leadership (and other parties leadership) is an attempt to find a winning coalition, which is critical for FPTP. If we had PR, you'd have those same elements of a coalition form seperate parties (and, that would be true for all our existing big-tent parties) and that same process would play out in the election. Except, none of us voters would know exactly what kind of policy we'd actually get, as the coalition-building would happen *after* the election.
The solution if you don't like the current big-tent coalition is to join the party closest to your policy preferences and participate in both the party leader nomination (and/or policy events) and election. Or, at the very least, pay attention to the leadership campaigns and, more importantly, the policy work that tends to happen around the same time.
The challenge with the CPC is it's become a much smaller tent. The folks left are more enthusiastic -- they are bigger fish albeit in a smaller pond. But, effective governance requires finding policy compromises that will be acceptable to a broad swath of voters, even if it doesn't product policy that many will be wildly enthusiastic about.
It's stopping them from forming a minority government...where no one will work with them, giving us what we have now...a Liberal NDP coalition. JT gets elected because the CPC consistently fails to deliver a plan with any merit.
What's odd is that the old Mulroney PC 'big tent' still exists, it's just distributed over multiple parties; I'd argue it's Bloc, Green and CPC. If you look at their results in the last election (Green - 2 seats; Bloc - 32 seats, CPC - 119 seats = 153) that gets you very close to the Liberal result in the last election (160 seats). Reassemble some of that tent and you are back to being competitive nationally. Or, the party that is trending towards defending the interest of one part of Canada (Alberta) accepts that it might make sense in a minority situation to work with the party dedicated to defending the interests of another part of Canada (Bloc). But, that still means finding acceptable policy compromises, which hasn't happened (yet).
I think you're right, but I suspect some also went Liberals when they couldn't stand how Reform had tainted the PC brand. But they have to get rid of the social conservative albatross that they pretend isn't there.
I don't disagree with the challenge of having a vocal, well organized minority of social conservatives within the CPC tent. The question -- can their policy concerns be accomodated without alienating other part of the tent (libertarians, Red Torys) *and* without making the party really challenging to elect nationally?
If the focus in on US cultural warrior issues (abortion, gay marriage, education), then I think the answer is 'no'. But, my understanding is that social conservatism is much broader than that. Focusing on policy measures that help families raise kids, for example, seems like something that could find broader support. A childcare program that supported parents who wanted to stay at home with their kids as well as those who choose to work would probably gain some support (assuming it was also fiscally responsible).
Not sure something like that would be enough, but the time to find compromise is during the leadership race, not after.
I won't be voting CPC come the next election, should he gain the leadership. He didn’t impress me in a good way when l met him on campaign in 2015. I think he's going to court the social branch as well, which is a definite non-starter for me for any leader.
I have a feeling you won't CPC unless they abandoned their core principles and looked more like another party. That is fine. You're not a conservative. Doesn't mean there are not conservatives in this country who find a home in the Conservative Party of Canada. It is okay to just not be something and to leave those others alone.
Oh, but l am a Conservative. A Progressive Conservative who's getting tired of the Social Conservative branch of the Party running the show. If l wanted that, l would vote PPC.
The social conservatives are not running the show and have not for a long time. Most conservatives understand the big tent nature of the party and we used to get along with an understanding of what held us together. If you want to keep focusing on our differences and othering people you don’t agree with you should actually consider another party all together.
If that is really the case, and I don't believe it for a minute, why will they not enshrine something as simple as a woman's right to choose in the party policy manual? But every time it comes, they don't. because they continue to pander to the Republican Conservative wing of the party. Or is that what the Party believes conservatism means? If that's the case, they'll be wearing deep ruts into their seats on that side of the house.
Most conservative's may understand it, but why do they fail to act on it? Add to that that when in power, they've never been particularly sound fiscally either; their promises, like so many, failing the "actually happening" test.
I once read that companies recognize that when they attack competitors directly, they actually cause the addressable market to shrink. As a result, they have to take a much larger share to just maintain current levels. It is a fundamental difference for political parties, who aggressively attack their competition in hopes they maintain their base while shrinking the available voter pool for others.
Flawed, yes, but it does provide a path of sorts to power.
Through Poilievre’s accusations of opponents not being conservative enough, does it result in the pool shrinking to a puddle for his support? Are there enough voters turned off that this puddle propels him to power?
There is no denying that he has build himself a persona as the poster child for anti-charisma among a large part of the populace who take notice of politics. With absolutely no empirical support for the comment, he may well be the one element able to significantly raise Trudeau’s likeability score.
I am the target voter in the GTA for the conservatives. Centrist looking for fiscal accountability and social responsibility. Not enamoured of Trudeau yet definitely not able to trust a candidate such as O’Toole who tracked to the right for the leadership then veered left in the election.
As for Poilievre, he is unapologetically who he is. And, in my view he is a mean spirited, petulant, social conservative more suited to the PPC.
Will he win? Possibly.
Will voters, like me, be inspired to deny his run for Prime Minister? Remains to be seen, yet I think there is a better chance of that than supporting his run.
Pierre speaks well and spins things to the absurd. He has never had to answer a question. That should be interesting. Going for scorched earth in a party already suffering internal shredding doesn't seem like a path to forming a government
I see him as the CPC distributor of crapola, who isn't worth serious consideration for a vote of any kind. But it should be fun to watch.
I'm hoping, but not expecting, some other candidate to enter the fray. I think that Pierre Poilievre would be Justin Trudeau's favourite potential opponent. Both men are partisan to the core and both have disappointed Canadians as recently as February.
In my view, Mr Poilievre has queered his own pitch because of his extremely ill-advised decision to be so public in his support for a bunch of self-described "freedom fighters" whose ideology is about as far from conservatism as could be imagined.
As for Mr Trudeau, what on Earth was he doing (besides issuing divisive statements) between late January and late February)?
As I said, I hope (but do not expect) some more credible Conservative candidate to come to the fore before September.
Moderate conservatives and Red Tories have been purged from the party. Anybody leading the CPC has to be a contortionist. O'toole spent 3 million dollars winning the leadership and look what it got him. It is a party of backbiters and bickerers.
I am Pierre all the way. He is smart, speaks both languages and has common sense. Something not many politicians have. He is for freedom, lowering costs (which are going to continue to rise), the end to printing money, and allowing Canada's oil and gas sector to aid all of Canada and Europe and give us energy self sufficiency. Something most people do not understand is a necessity. Unless we can have secure energy production Canada will continue to bleed money and talent. The destruction of our greatest resource, while we have nothing in place to transition to, is insanity and destructive to the entire country. All those tech workers and laptop class wont have jobs if the computers they use do not have enough energy to allow them to be turned on.
There's no point in arguing with this spiral of half truths, Marylou, so enjoy your silo and I hope there are more thinking Conservatives who see things differently. Otherwise it will be a Trudeau majority next time because Poilievre won't get to lay a glove on Trudeau in an election.
You are mostly likely as uninformed as the majority of voters out there. You have no idea what you voted for only who you voted for. Other than that you look for what you will get if you vote for the person you chose, so you vote for one thing and they shove 15 more down your throat that are completely destructive to three quarters of the country. In the last several years the elections held have been a complete and utter joke. They do not bring forward important issues such as health care, finances, and building up investment and creating jobs in Canada. Its been about climate change and only climate change. There are far bigger issues in this country at this time than worrying about climate change. The debt for instance and rising interest rates. Yet you say you would vote for Trudeau who doesn't worry about monetary policy. Its the reason Canada is done and will remain a failing Post National State under any progressive politician. They themselves have no clue on how to organize a one car parade, let alone this country. We will all be poor and destitute under their leadership as they no longer work for the people, they work for the new order they are attempting to build. That only includes them and their elite friends and people are just pons to use for their own benefit. They are dangerous to all humanity and to any country they lead. All you have to do is look at the EU and its starring at you stark eyed, yet people believe the propaganda that the main stream media pushes. They think its all about what Trudeau can do for the people which has been nothing but make life unaffordable and its only going to get worse. Justinflation!!!!! Its already too late to turn the ship around but we can elect competent people who can attempt to save what little is left after seven years of complete destruction by the elite Liberal progressives who feed off fear mongering and fascism. Be careful what and who you vote for because the end is nearing and not from climate change but from complete and utter incompetence.
I think in your quest for "freedom", you've completely abandoned the concept of "Social responsibility". His support of the convoy was actually support of anarchy; notice how fast the CPC backtracked when the US made their comments, and they figured out their position was wrong?
When has the CPC in power been fiscally responsible? Not in my 60 years.
"They are dangerous to all humanity"...but in your mind, climate change isn't. Wow.
Is there inflation anywhere on the planet or just in Canada?
Frankly, if your opinions are what come from alternative media, bring on the MSM.
Trudeau will be going to court and I hope CBC and others get taken there as well. The CBC already had to pay out millions in liability for spreading mistruths and you the tax payer have to pay for the lies and court costs they incur. They are the right arm of the Liberal Party and I hope they both are held accountable. I don’t mean by any parliamentary committee either. I mean in a court of law. CBC had to retract two of the stories filled with lies on the truckers protest already. Those people you continually degrade were the only socially responsible people brave enough to stand up for their fellow Canadians. https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/labour-and-employment/employers-will-need-to-revoke-immunization-demands-as-the-government-drops-vaccine-mandates-lawyer/364918
Socially responsible in the middle of a pandemic? Are you serious? Those people were the absolute worst of what Canada has to offer; selfish, ignorant, loud and obnoxious. They might as well be American.
The rest of your nonsense I'll believe when I see.
Have a nice night Marylou. But I think you've completely lost your perspective on what the last 2 years have been....and done....and who has really suffered. It wasn't the occupiers.
It was at the end of the pandemic, not in the middle. You are the one who’s perspective is twisted but perhaps that is due to fright. That was put forth from the Government , news media and their so called “experts”. You will find out that it was not those who fought against the elites and their dictate that took every advantage of you being frightened to push their agenda forward. How many times did Trudeau attempt to take complete control over the country due to this pandemic? He shuttered the parliament when we most needed other over sight and differing opinions. Meanwhile the media and big tech silenced anyone who spoke out. I don’t blame you for cowering in your home due to media screaming be afraid, but I do mind you denigrating others who had the courage to stand against the dictate of corrupt government and their accomplices to create the fright, hate, and division as they must keep us fighting amongst ourselves. That way they can do as as they please. We need to stand together against the elites, but you just don’t get it. You aid them in the destruction of free and democratic countries. They demonized and made you hate anyone who dare stand up for democracy and your rights and freedoms because they frightened you. They made those fighting for you the enemy and you aided in it. You will get it but I doubt that because they have your mind already made up. Be careful who you deem is the enemy as it is often those you least suspect or those creating enemies for you, who are the ones you should be doubting.
Brexit, the monetary issues, and the near collapse of the EU, its banks. Remember Greece? They are all ready to financially collapse. I don't imagine you really look into things very well. Perhaps your mainstream news is somewhat misleading though so I don't blame on for your lack of knowledge. They still blame Brexit on misinformation campaigns when in fact the people (voters)wanted to leave because the EU and its centralized Government does not take into consideration the actual people. Just as Justin Trudeau's government cares little for any Canadians outside his biggest voting zone. He is trying to consolidate power in Ottawa by taking it from the Provinces, just like his father did. Those wanting centralized control always try to dictate over all and its their goal to have power over all. Canada is a big country just as the EU is a large conglomerate of countries. The Government loves power, so they love the Union. Its the people who have little say in any centralized power. The closer the power is to the people the more its inclusive. Hence your municipal council and mayor are your best choice to run your interests as they are accessible and can be influenced by their public. The further the power is away from your community, the less influence people have over their governance. Hence the more power Ottawa takes from the Provinces the less those people can influence their politicians for what's best for that area. When people who have no idea what is involved in keeping the Provinces on the other side of the country or the Territories, are trying to dictate over them, the more angrier the people become. The EU is centralized power that is run by unelected people at the top. The countries then send in representatives to speak on behalf of the people. What happens is the further away from the people the governing class is, the less they meet the needs of their people. Hence you had Brexit. The WEF is on line and you can go there and read everything you like about the plans for the future they all have. These are the influencers that Trudeau and Freeland are a great part of. Klaus even says they have penetrated the cabinets of many Governments with their students. You should go and look as they are not shy about discussing the reset or the plans they have for you. Trudeau, Freeland, Carney are into the WEF completely as two sit on the Board of Trustees. They are following Claus, all you have to do is go to the sight. They are very open about the plans they have and we are seeing that indeed, the Trudeau cabinet is in lockstep with the WEF. Its not a conspiracy as they don't hide anything. Not at all. Go and look for yourself and then you too can be said to spreading misinformation. Conspiracy theory, priceless. Its written in black and white. They even have videos of conferences and presenters. The eugenics is the interesting part so they can play god. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRvoHa3M_2AhV9IjQIHQS3D8UQwqsBegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DnpfShBTNp3Q&usg=AOvVaw3oHIzOyTrs8jn_jVKIkSpO. There is also https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/justin-trudeau, https://yournews.com/2022/02/19/2302307/video-canadian-mp-censored-for-pointing-out-wefs-corrupt-influence/ They tell you it is a conspiracy theory and cut it out of the information on the internet, remove it from twitter, and try to control the information people see but it does get out there. Its not a conspiracy as they talk about their plans openly. They write books on the Reset and the leaders all parrot it. https://www.weforum.org/about/world-economic-forumhttps://www.weforum.org/about/leadership-and-governance Yes a Conspiracy theory. So who is misleading the public. The tech giants censor and the mainstream media propagates for the Government. The penetrated cabinet. They are penetrated all right. lol
Yes and Stephen Harper has written a book on how to move into the future which did not include throwing the country to the WEF agenda but having our country benefit from trade and transactions. Trudeau wants his Post National State removing any identity or culture behind to which his wealthy friends become wealthier and so does he. Meanwhile the people will be destitute with no borders and no money to go anywhere. At least if open borders shall be, let us live out our days in a warm climate. As for the plans of making us one world with no borders, no culture, no identity, no nothing, (yes and we shall be happy or else) there will be no reason to visit other places as we will all be post national states with no culture , no identity and nothing different to tell us apart. Except weather. Sounds like prison to me.
Of course, you will. Skippy is strident in two languages and I do think he's smart. But he has no real-life experience at anything and little common sense.
What wanna-be PM is not for freedom?
Don't worry about the laptop class and the tech workers. They'll be fine. And the lights are not about to go out.
Perhaps not where you are but they just may in many other Canadian cities and towns. Especially in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and the Yukon. Your short sighted and only think of yourselves just like the Government and your laptop class.
Looks like Poilievre will indeed be the next to be evicted from Stornaway, after Scheer, O’Toole and Bergen. I think there’s a historical plaque in the works.
Choosing Poilievre almost guarantees another Liberal government. A less extremist leader might offer Canadians a viable choice. I have no doubt the Liberals DREAM of having Poilievre as their opponent.
PP best path to victory is focusing on issues of affordability. The Liberals, regardless of leader, could end up alienating the electorate with their focus on less tangible issues such as climate action.
I lean about 90% Libertarian and 10% Nihilist, so the CPC is my only potential home. PP is a great attack dog and organizer. He has yet to demonstrate leadership skills, particularly that most important for the CPC: caucus management. His leadership campaign is focusing on issues which will likely resonate in coming years and into the next federal election: inflation and housing costs.
I find the oft repeated notion of PP representing the "Harper wing" of the party perplexing. Harper was cerebral and disciplined. Even non-supporters generally acknowledged his intellect, work ethic and overall competence. PP represents more the "Trudeau wing" in that he only offers instant gratification.
I agree with your assessment of Harper and, while Poilievre has a very different style, he is a loyal soldier for Harper's "Conservative Movement" ideology.
I also agree with you on the problem of caucus management. I think that problem is due to how Harper built the party. He traded Red Tories for So-Cons because they are easier to manipulate. I doubt any other potential CPC leader has his talent for manipulation, though. That leaves the party essentially unmanageable.
I still don't see the lineage. Harper focused on fiscal conservativism, clearer delineation between federal and provincial jurisdiction and economic growth. Perhaps that is seen as "extreme" from a Laurentian perspective. PP seems to lack any cohesive plan or long term vision, hence the Trudeau comparison.
Also disagree that Harper was manipulative. He was effective because he was almost always the smartest person in the room and most disciplined.
The lineage is that P.P. was/is one of Harper's closest lieutenants. There's no reason to believe that he differs policy-wise from Harper in any way. If you want to see where that policy leads take a look at the current Republican Party down south.
All good leaders need to be manipulative in some kind of way. Harper stands out because he seemed to really enjoy playing with people. He certainly played the anti-abortion crowd like a piano and look at how he milked Senate reform. He got years of fundraising out of that when he knew all along that it takes a constitutional amendment to change it.
Very smart, yes, but he also neglected to groom any successors because he didn't want any capable threats around. The party is now suffering because of that. Skippy has nowhere near the gravitas that Harper did... and neither does anyone else in the party.
If he was a fiscal conservative, why did he never balance a budget? FIPA is an unmitigated disaster, so I'm not really sure he was smartest either and I voted for him 3 times because of the alternatives..
Harper had a balanced budget heading into the GFC even with the GST cut, and almost had it back to balance in 2015, despite the oil crash. The alternatives would have spent much, much more.
In Joseph Hardy's Jude The Obscure, Arabella, a maiden sitting in a creek washing pig entrails, gets Jude's attention by catching him fair in the ear with a pig's testicle. Every time I see Pierre Poilievre on camera I think of poor, shrill Arabella.
I took a look at the attack ad against Patrick Brown and, with regard to climate change and sex education, P.P. seems to be accusing Brown of being able to learn. What bothers me the most about P.P. is that he clearly offers nothing to anyone who isn't a rabid conservative ideologue. Stephen Harper figured how to get absolute power in our system with about 38% of the vote . That's just the flaws in our system but what is is disturbing is that he and his disciples don't care about the 62% of us. They're not trying to win us over. As far as they are concerned most Canadians can go pound sand.
38% is still substantially higher than the 32% Trudeau earned last fall. No political victor will come even close to representing the majority of citizens.
Frankly, I'm assuming Matt & Jen are still on vacation. Hopefully, that affords an explanation and why we will see less of such uninspired trolling in future.
As a fellow paid subsciber (and sometimes paid contributor), I appreciate the sentiment! I'm fairly new to this whole political commentary thing and still have a good deal to learn :)
Just curious, I don't follow the 'paid subscriber' distinction. Are assessments to be evaluated in some way based on whether we're pitching paid-for opinions? I thought we were all travelling 'first class' here, or are some folks relegated to 'coach'? Perhaps Matt and Jen should provide clearer signage when we board this bus.
Well, I'm less impressed when commentators claim to see n-dimensional chess, when what we're getting from pols is typically their built-in, true-to-form, almost always very limited skill range. The idea that these guys have a closet full of strategic costumes to wear in their political closets and we ultimately assess their ability to perform well in any or all of them does not seem like an accurate assessment of pols. Remember Justin's visit to India? Strategic chess?
Flip flopping is usually not a big selling point. That these folks can pivot like an Olympic figure skater is not borne out by the dull political theatre to which we are typically subjected. More characteristic is, these guys throw themselves against the wall to see what sticks, and then leap to their feet in triumph if they hear a smattering of applause or scamper for cover when the boos and hisses start washing up on stage.
So we'll see how clever it all is as it unfolds. But I wouldn't expect a multi-layered whodunit full of clever plot twists, and perhaps reserve the word 'genius' for the likes of Trump and Putin. It remains to be seen into which camp Vaccine Vendetta Pete tumbles.
Thanks, I realize my first response was perhaps a tad too snarky. Perhaps the price of responding too immediately to my morning reading after but one cup of coffee and before I've mellowed into the calmer reflections of afternoon ; )
I literally just said that Poilievre enjoys playing chess in his free time and then conceded that I have no idea what he/Byrne are trying to accomplish with their opening-week attacks 🤷🏽♂️
That's just it, Skippy has no free time. He will have no free time for months. He will be the star of far too many videos of why he should be PM and too many on Twitter or FC or Telegram will tell him you don't run for PM in Canada. Didn't he use to date Byrne? It's his voice. I cannot abide Skippy's voice. I can't even say what it is that makes me cringe. But it's horrible.
The way he looks strikes me as political cosplay. He grooms himself like a 1930s populist. It seems very calculated and very fake. I'm not sure he lives in the same world as the rest of us.
Sorry not sure if this is meant as a response to my comment. If it is, your entire piece is wrapped in allusions to partisan gamesmanship using chess metaphors. The implication being we are watching some kind of strategic process unfold with analytical layers akin to the moves of chess masters. Unless you're suggesting you intended no relation between form and content.
I appreciate the Poilievre camp would have preferred a shorter campaign with less time for opponents to sign up members and that campaigns have strategies. However, all told I find the style a bit too glossy and fawning for the ink-stained reality of the pol in question. Kind of like that gunslinger pose Justin's dad used to brandish his image in a glossy magazine. But it was a different time, and folks bought into it.
By comparison, Poillievre tries way too hard, his yearning ambition appears overwrought and presumptuous. In other words, I don't find the style of the piece matches the apparent reality of the pol being described, even if the pol so wishes it did. It appears to buy what Poillievre wants so desperately to sell us. So to say, I'm just not buying it, form or content.
Yes, it was a response to your earlier comment. From what I understand, the Queen’s Gambit is a high-risk/high-reward chess opening (I don’t play chess myself). I felt like I could draw a parallel to Poilievre’s “opening” (i.e.: punching down as the early frontrunner) last week. Felt like a premise that I could squeeze 650 readable words out of. That and I always like to find ways to connect my old home (Canada) with my new one (Kentucky). Here’s the link to my first article with The Line: https://theline.substack.com/p/what-mcconnell-means-to-kentucky?fbclid=IwAR0TvMe3RUOegKJjDdU8lwWxEPxdER9MXT2gZ4ed97L81vzymDIphWdLZsg&s=r
Like I said, I’m still fairly new to this public commentary thing and I’m always open to constructive criticism. I’ll be sure to check out your writing with CanYuck in the near future. Have a good evening.
Interesting (because I don't play chess either) to have such folks debating the appropriateness of chess metaphors. So be it. Now, if Maggie admits to not playing chess either, we have a threesome.
Regarding writing. I think there is a matter of context to consider. This piece might fit fine in a glossy sendup of a pol in an entertainment rag or a lit chapbook or, given the geographical cultural references, a travel guide. As mentioned, Pierre Trudeau striking a gunslinger pose for a fawning magazine piece, back in the day.
However, The Line bills itself as "Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit." This piece is not irreverent, in fact, that's my beef, way to much 'reverence' wrapped around someone who has yet to earn it. It reads too much like a PR piece pumped out by the Petey Committee, thus, my original description as "trolling".
So here, in the land of the irreverent, no reverence.
I am looking forward to the debates between the candidates. Lewis & Brown can't debate in french. I remember Charest doing well in the 1993 debates against Kim Campbell & the 1997 federal election debates against Preston Manning,PM Jean Chretien, & Duceppe.
I've decided to take another swing at this piece in order to clarify why I respond with concern to it.
First, I'm not against mixing literary categories. So looking at the conduct of political figures through a lens of criticism from another genre, film, literature, or chess for that matter, is fair enough. Perhaps a different lens may shed a different, helpful light.
However, my first reaction to this piece is it has drawn way too heavily upon the constructed analytical vantage point of fanboy fiction. Of course, partisan reflections in the realm of politics are not to be unexpected. So why not just roll with it?
Pols are not fictional characters in fictional stories valued for the cleverness of their authors. There is no master author sitting behind the master narrative pulling clever strings. Nor are they typically susceptible to the scrutiny of a Bobby Fischer versus Boris Spassky geopolitical melodrama, without some potentially fateful suspension of disbelief.
Second, partisans can be very dangerous.
Partisans appear to be an unavoidable price to be paid for democratic politics. However, hyper-partisans are preoccupied with one thing: winning! The game comes first. Fine if the game is fiction, not so much if it's reality. Especially a reality shared with millions of other folks with partisans yanking at the puppet strings of our collective governance and well-being.
The most dangerous partisan, I would contend, is the unabashed narcissist. In love with the sound of their own slippery tongues. Marvelling at their ability to wrap words around any situation. Unrestricted self-love is their calling card.
I put Vaccine Vendetta Pete, at this point, in a very similar camp with Jason Kenney. Kenney simply gushes with the thrill of his own self-confidence. And thus, Kenney simply could not resist starring in the narrative drama he imagined for himself, where he parted the Covid seas and would lead us all to the promised land on the other side of the raging river no one else dared to cross. An enthralling heroic fantasy, if only...
Raising the question: how many Albertans died unnecessarily because Kenney just could not resist the starring role he cast for himself, held aloft by the roaring swells of the anticipated applause. Reality be damned! Kenney will overcome! Narcissists tend not to be burdened by pangs of caution.
So my take is, anyone who hollers 'Vaccine Vendetta' in the middle of a pandemic has the potential to be a very dangerous person. Wrapping such a person in the heroic tropes of fanboy fiction and the inflated rhetoric of hyper-partisan gamesmanship does little service to the reality we may find ourselves unhappily sharing with our all too happy hero. Is Vaccine Vendetta Pete a sufficiently nimble dancer to navigate the heroic fantasy and our collective reality?
Or is the more timely question, how soon before Petey becomes the most hated pol in Canada?
Well put! I agree with you that chess metaphors are probably played out in the realm of political writing. Perhaps you could write a response to this piece titled something along the lines of “The Narcissist’s Gambit”?
My response above probably offers a better insight into why the choice of folding a political assessment into a gaming metaphor, while perfectly appropriate from the standpoint that politics involves elections and thus, winners and losers, and the strategies that accompany such endeavours, raises my concern that such partisanship may eclipse the public policy decisions these folks get control over.
The hyper-partisans seem so addicted to the us-vs-them reflex that our collective well-being is not likely well served by it. I assume a good idea can come from any corner. And no one has a monopoly on all the good ideas. Thus the need for and value of democratic dialogue providing different offerings.
Finally, I should note, I'm not suggesting your piece was not well-written. It was more a concern about the implications of stylizing a political strategy (aggressive hyper-partisanship) that may have real consequences. Anyhoo, thanks for your replies. And yes, 'she' did tweet about it. So bravo : )
You used the word “partisan trolling” in your first comment, which made it 100% clear that you weren’t knocking my style/writing to begin with. I see what you mean about reimagining real life politics (which, as you point out above, has real life consequences) as an episode of House of Cards/The West Wing — that CAN be dangerous. I’ll keep this note in mind going forward.
The challenge I see is PP's approach may win him the leadership, but then he's left with the Erin O'Toole problem -- what won him the leadership probably won't win him the election, but tacking towards the centre feels inauthentic and hasn't in recent history worked.
I'm probably the kind of Ontario voter the CPC needs to win over to win a majority. I'm pretty open-minded, but am of the (much derided in CPC circles, it seems) Red Tory type. PP would have an uphill battle to win me over based on what I know of him now. Charest probably has an easier time. Neither garners much enthusiasm from me, to be honest, but neither do any of the other choices; such is the way with big-tent parties. But, I'm watching this race with interest and will be very interested to see what kind of policy proposals come out after the race is done; ultimately, I'm way more interested in the policy parties run on than the personalities that lead them.
Well said. I'm a Red Tory too and dismayed at the direction the party is sailing towards as I'm increasingly feeling l have no place there after over 40 years.
Good to hear from a Red Tory!
This is still very much Harper's party populated with a bunch of wannabe Republicans. They don't have a Canadian agenda and wouldn't govern much differently than the ever so insipid Liberals where their real loyalty is to their corporate masters and George Soros.
I suspect if PP became PM he would be Harper all over again.
I would check on where Skippy is getting donations from long before worrying about George Soros is spending his cash.
Harper Cons the lot of them.Steve broke the Conservative party. But Skippy has been here since it's inception (When Petey lied). He knows no other life.
Skippy. Don't say tar baby; nothing about 1st Nations, graves, deaths of children, or hard work. You know nothing on these topics. Don't say woke left, just don't. It sounds dickish. You lie, quite often. Stop calling your competition liars.
And, you are NOT running for Prime Minister of Canada. And if you are, then you should be expelled, disqualified and probably need medication.
Why? Why do the Cons do it? I've been gobsmacked since Ford-1, so it's not a real surprise when Ford-2. But why the Fords at all. I'm not a big Patric Brown fan but the blatant lies being smacked at him are ridiculous. The UCP. How special is Jason Kenney? He's very special indeed. I could go on about Kenney for hours but suffice it to say that man should not be the head of anything. Another guy who has never held down a real job. O'Toole tried to steer to the middle while being tugged to the right and the right and he couldn't make anyone happy.
I'm sure the books behind Skippy that Rahim Mohamed linked to is wallpaper. A backdrop. No one has that many old tomes behind them unless they have been doing so serious collecting.
My daughter's grad photo had books behind her. Cap, gown, roses, and books. All of it a great look.
George does nothing for the Liberal Party. Which corp masters?
I'm continually baffled about the demonization of George Soros. Why does he get mentioned all the time and Charles Koch slips under the radar? It's the Koch network funds the "conservative movement" and all kinds of malevolent (anti-democracy) orgs (ALEC, Tea Party) in the US. Soros pours piles of money into pro-democracy causes. That makes him a traitor to his class and I believe that has a lot to do with the constant smearing.
Soros is a very influential shot caller from behind the scenes along with a lot of other oligarchs. These are the people politicians pay homage to.
No, you only think he calls the shots. Why would you think he'd bother having all his fingers in all the pies all the time. Living rent free comes to mind.
IMO the whole FPTP debate misstates the problem -- and misunderstands how big-tent parties work. This leadership (and other parties leadership) is an attempt to find a winning coalition, which is critical for FPTP. If we had PR, you'd have those same elements of a coalition form seperate parties (and, that would be true for all our existing big-tent parties) and that same process would play out in the election. Except, none of us voters would know exactly what kind of policy we'd actually get, as the coalition-building would happen *after* the election.
The solution if you don't like the current big-tent coalition is to join the party closest to your policy preferences and participate in both the party leader nomination (and/or policy events) and election. Or, at the very least, pay attention to the leadership campaigns and, more importantly, the policy work that tends to happen around the same time.
The challenge with the CPC is it's become a much smaller tent. The folks left are more enthusiastic -- they are bigger fish albeit in a smaller pond. But, effective governance requires finding policy compromises that will be acceptable to a broad swath of voters, even if it doesn't product policy that many will be wildly enthusiastic about.
It's stopping them from forming a minority government...where no one will work with them, giving us what we have now...a Liberal NDP coalition. JT gets elected because the CPC consistently fails to deliver a plan with any merit.
What's odd is that the old Mulroney PC 'big tent' still exists, it's just distributed over multiple parties; I'd argue it's Bloc, Green and CPC. If you look at their results in the last election (Green - 2 seats; Bloc - 32 seats, CPC - 119 seats = 153) that gets you very close to the Liberal result in the last election (160 seats). Reassemble some of that tent and you are back to being competitive nationally. Or, the party that is trending towards defending the interest of one part of Canada (Alberta) accepts that it might make sense in a minority situation to work with the party dedicated to defending the interests of another part of Canada (Bloc). But, that still means finding acceptable policy compromises, which hasn't happened (yet).
I think you're right, but I suspect some also went Liberals when they couldn't stand how Reform had tainted the PC brand. But they have to get rid of the social conservative albatross that they pretend isn't there.
I don't disagree with the challenge of having a vocal, well organized minority of social conservatives within the CPC tent. The question -- can their policy concerns be accomodated without alienating other part of the tent (libertarians, Red Torys) *and* without making the party really challenging to elect nationally?
If the focus in on US cultural warrior issues (abortion, gay marriage, education), then I think the answer is 'no'. But, my understanding is that social conservatism is much broader than that. Focusing on policy measures that help families raise kids, for example, seems like something that could find broader support. A childcare program that supported parents who wanted to stay at home with their kids as well as those who choose to work would probably gain some support (assuming it was also fiscally responsible).
Not sure something like that would be enough, but the time to find compromise is during the leadership race, not after.
I won't be voting CPC come the next election, should he gain the leadership. He didn’t impress me in a good way when l met him on campaign in 2015. I think he's going to court the social branch as well, which is a definite non-starter for me for any leader.
I have a feeling you won't CPC unless they abandoned their core principles and looked more like another party. That is fine. You're not a conservative. Doesn't mean there are not conservatives in this country who find a home in the Conservative Party of Canada. It is okay to just not be something and to leave those others alone.
Oh, but l am a Conservative. A Progressive Conservative who's getting tired of the Social Conservative branch of the Party running the show. If l wanted that, l would vote PPC.
The social conservatives are not running the show and have not for a long time. Most conservatives understand the big tent nature of the party and we used to get along with an understanding of what held us together. If you want to keep focusing on our differences and othering people you don’t agree with you should actually consider another party all together.
If that is really the case, and I don't believe it for a minute, why will they not enshrine something as simple as a woman's right to choose in the party policy manual? But every time it comes, they don't. because they continue to pander to the Republican Conservative wing of the party. Or is that what the Party believes conservatism means? If that's the case, they'll be wearing deep ruts into their seats on that side of the house.
Most conservative's may understand it, but why do they fail to act on it? Add to that that when in power, they've never been particularly sound fiscally either; their promises, like so many, failing the "actually happening" test.
It might be a big tent, but the entrance is tiny.
Sorry if you don't like my attitude.
I once read that companies recognize that when they attack competitors directly, they actually cause the addressable market to shrink. As a result, they have to take a much larger share to just maintain current levels. It is a fundamental difference for political parties, who aggressively attack their competition in hopes they maintain their base while shrinking the available voter pool for others.
Flawed, yes, but it does provide a path of sorts to power.
Through Poilievre’s accusations of opponents not being conservative enough, does it result in the pool shrinking to a puddle for his support? Are there enough voters turned off that this puddle propels him to power?
There is no denying that he has build himself a persona as the poster child for anti-charisma among a large part of the populace who take notice of politics. With absolutely no empirical support for the comment, he may well be the one element able to significantly raise Trudeau’s likeability score.
I am the target voter in the GTA for the conservatives. Centrist looking for fiscal accountability and social responsibility. Not enamoured of Trudeau yet definitely not able to trust a candidate such as O’Toole who tracked to the right for the leadership then veered left in the election.
As for Poilievre, he is unapologetically who he is. And, in my view he is a mean spirited, petulant, social conservative more suited to the PPC.
Will he win? Possibly.
Will voters, like me, be inspired to deny his run for Prime Minister? Remains to be seen, yet I think there is a better chance of that than supporting his run.
Pierre speaks well and spins things to the absurd. He has never had to answer a question. That should be interesting. Going for scorched earth in a party already suffering internal shredding doesn't seem like a path to forming a government
I see him as the CPC distributor of crapola, who isn't worth serious consideration for a vote of any kind. But it should be fun to watch.
This is what makes the CPC a second place party. I am hoping for better
Skippy has been an MP for 20 years. I cannot figure out how he is worth $9 million. This is his job. He's never done anything else.
I'm hoping, but not expecting, some other candidate to enter the fray. I think that Pierre Poilievre would be Justin Trudeau's favourite potential opponent. Both men are partisan to the core and both have disappointed Canadians as recently as February.
In my view, Mr Poilievre has queered his own pitch because of his extremely ill-advised decision to be so public in his support for a bunch of self-described "freedom fighters" whose ideology is about as far from conservatism as could be imagined.
As for Mr Trudeau, what on Earth was he doing (besides issuing divisive statements) between late January and late February)?
As I said, I hope (but do not expect) some more credible Conservative candidate to come to the fore before September.
Moderate conservatives and Red Tories have been purged from the party. Anybody leading the CPC has to be a contortionist. O'toole spent 3 million dollars winning the leadership and look what it got him. It is a party of backbiters and bickerers.
I am Pierre all the way. He is smart, speaks both languages and has common sense. Something not many politicians have. He is for freedom, lowering costs (which are going to continue to rise), the end to printing money, and allowing Canada's oil and gas sector to aid all of Canada and Europe and give us energy self sufficiency. Something most people do not understand is a necessity. Unless we can have secure energy production Canada will continue to bleed money and talent. The destruction of our greatest resource, while we have nothing in place to transition to, is insanity and destructive to the entire country. All those tech workers and laptop class wont have jobs if the computers they use do not have enough energy to allow them to be turned on.
There's no point in arguing with this spiral of half truths, Marylou, so enjoy your silo and I hope there are more thinking Conservatives who see things differently. Otherwise it will be a Trudeau majority next time because Poilievre won't get to lay a glove on Trudeau in an election.
You are mostly likely as uninformed as the majority of voters out there. You have no idea what you voted for only who you voted for. Other than that you look for what you will get if you vote for the person you chose, so you vote for one thing and they shove 15 more down your throat that are completely destructive to three quarters of the country. In the last several years the elections held have been a complete and utter joke. They do not bring forward important issues such as health care, finances, and building up investment and creating jobs in Canada. Its been about climate change and only climate change. There are far bigger issues in this country at this time than worrying about climate change. The debt for instance and rising interest rates. Yet you say you would vote for Trudeau who doesn't worry about monetary policy. Its the reason Canada is done and will remain a failing Post National State under any progressive politician. They themselves have no clue on how to organize a one car parade, let alone this country. We will all be poor and destitute under their leadership as they no longer work for the people, they work for the new order they are attempting to build. That only includes them and their elite friends and people are just pons to use for their own benefit. They are dangerous to all humanity and to any country they lead. All you have to do is look at the EU and its starring at you stark eyed, yet people believe the propaganda that the main stream media pushes. They think its all about what Trudeau can do for the people which has been nothing but make life unaffordable and its only going to get worse. Justinflation!!!!! Its already too late to turn the ship around but we can elect competent people who can attempt to save what little is left after seven years of complete destruction by the elite Liberal progressives who feed off fear mongering and fascism. Be careful what and who you vote for because the end is nearing and not from climate change but from complete and utter incompetence.
I think in your quest for "freedom", you've completely abandoned the concept of "Social responsibility". His support of the convoy was actually support of anarchy; notice how fast the CPC backtracked when the US made their comments, and they figured out their position was wrong?
When has the CPC in power been fiscally responsible? Not in my 60 years.
"They are dangerous to all humanity"...but in your mind, climate change isn't. Wow.
Is there inflation anywhere on the planet or just in Canada?
Frankly, if your opinions are what come from alternative media, bring on the MSM.
Trudeau will be going to court and I hope CBC and others get taken there as well. The CBC already had to pay out millions in liability for spreading mistruths and you the tax payer have to pay for the lies and court costs they incur. They are the right arm of the Liberal Party and I hope they both are held accountable. I don’t mean by any parliamentary committee either. I mean in a court of law. CBC had to retract two of the stories filled with lies on the truckers protest already. Those people you continually degrade were the only socially responsible people brave enough to stand up for their fellow Canadians. https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/labour-and-employment/employers-will-need-to-revoke-immunization-demands-as-the-government-drops-vaccine-mandates-lawyer/364918
Socially responsible in the middle of a pandemic? Are you serious? Those people were the absolute worst of what Canada has to offer; selfish, ignorant, loud and obnoxious. They might as well be American.
The rest of your nonsense I'll believe when I see.
Have a nice night Marylou. But I think you've completely lost your perspective on what the last 2 years have been....and done....and who has really suffered. It wasn't the occupiers.
It was at the end of the pandemic, not in the middle. You are the one who’s perspective is twisted but perhaps that is due to fright. That was put forth from the Government , news media and their so called “experts”. You will find out that it was not those who fought against the elites and their dictate that took every advantage of you being frightened to push their agenda forward. How many times did Trudeau attempt to take complete control over the country due to this pandemic? He shuttered the parliament when we most needed other over sight and differing opinions. Meanwhile the media and big tech silenced anyone who spoke out. I don’t blame you for cowering in your home due to media screaming be afraid, but I do mind you denigrating others who had the courage to stand against the dictate of corrupt government and their accomplices to create the fright, hate, and division as they must keep us fighting amongst ourselves. That way they can do as as they please. We need to stand together against the elites, but you just don’t get it. You aid them in the destruction of free and democratic countries. They demonized and made you hate anyone who dare stand up for democracy and your rights and freedoms because they frightened you. They made those fighting for you the enemy and you aided in it. You will get it but I doubt that because they have your mind already made up. Be careful who you deem is the enemy as it is often those you least suspect or those creating enemies for you, who are the ones you should be doubting.
Pawns! It took forever but I sorted it out....not pons, pawns. That sentance has been making me nuts.
New order? When does a person become an elite? Is it a monetary number? $2m probably isn't enough but $5m maybe?
What happened in the EU other than have close neighbours are fighting a war.
Silly nicks.
Fear mongering and fascism? Who exactly?
Brexit, the monetary issues, and the near collapse of the EU, its banks. Remember Greece? They are all ready to financially collapse. I don't imagine you really look into things very well. Perhaps your mainstream news is somewhat misleading though so I don't blame on for your lack of knowledge. They still blame Brexit on misinformation campaigns when in fact the people (voters)wanted to leave because the EU and its centralized Government does not take into consideration the actual people. Just as Justin Trudeau's government cares little for any Canadians outside his biggest voting zone. He is trying to consolidate power in Ottawa by taking it from the Provinces, just like his father did. Those wanting centralized control always try to dictate over all and its their goal to have power over all. Canada is a big country just as the EU is a large conglomerate of countries. The Government loves power, so they love the Union. Its the people who have little say in any centralized power. The closer the power is to the people the more its inclusive. Hence your municipal council and mayor are your best choice to run your interests as they are accessible and can be influenced by their public. The further the power is away from your community, the less influence people have over their governance. Hence the more power Ottawa takes from the Provinces the less those people can influence their politicians for what's best for that area. When people who have no idea what is involved in keeping the Provinces on the other side of the country or the Territories, are trying to dictate over them, the more angrier the people become. The EU is centralized power that is run by unelected people at the top. The countries then send in representatives to speak on behalf of the people. What happens is the further away from the people the governing class is, the less they meet the needs of their people. Hence you had Brexit. The WEF is on line and you can go there and read everything you like about the plans for the future they all have. These are the influencers that Trudeau and Freeland are a great part of. Klaus even says they have penetrated the cabinets of many Governments with their students. You should go and look as they are not shy about discussing the reset or the plans they have for you. Trudeau, Freeland, Carney are into the WEF completely as two sit on the Board of Trustees. They are following Claus, all you have to do is go to the sight. They are very open about the plans they have and we are seeing that indeed, the Trudeau cabinet is in lockstep with the WEF. Its not a conspiracy as they don't hide anything. Not at all. Go and look for yourself and then you too can be said to spreading misinformation. Conspiracy theory, priceless. Its written in black and white. They even have videos of conferences and presenters. The eugenics is the interesting part so they can play god. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRvoHa3M_2AhV9IjQIHQS3D8UQwqsBegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DnpfShBTNp3Q&usg=AOvVaw3oHIzOyTrs8jn_jVKIkSpO. There is also https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/justin-trudeau, https://yournews.com/2022/02/19/2302307/video-canadian-mp-censored-for-pointing-out-wefs-corrupt-influence/ They tell you it is a conspiracy theory and cut it out of the information on the internet, remove it from twitter, and try to control the information people see but it does get out there. Its not a conspiracy as they talk about their plans openly. They write books on the Reset and the leaders all parrot it. https://www.weforum.org/about/world-economic-forum https://www.weforum.org/about/leadership-and-governance Yes a Conspiracy theory. So who is misleading the public. The tech giants censor and the mainstream media propagates for the Government. The penetrated cabinet. They are penetrated all right. lol
You do realize that Stephen Harper is a big fan of the WEF. And that means the Conservative Party of Canada is on board with it also.
Yes and Stephen Harper has written a book on how to move into the future which did not include throwing the country to the WEF agenda but having our country benefit from trade and transactions. Trudeau wants his Post National State removing any identity or culture behind to which his wealthy friends become wealthier and so does he. Meanwhile the people will be destitute with no borders and no money to go anywhere. At least if open borders shall be, let us live out our days in a warm climate. As for the plans of making us one world with no borders, no culture, no identity, no nothing, (yes and we shall be happy or else) there will be no reason to visit other places as we will all be post national states with no culture , no identity and nothing different to tell us apart. Except weather. Sounds like prison to me.
Of course, you will. Skippy is strident in two languages and I do think he's smart. But he has no real-life experience at anything and little common sense.
What wanna-be PM is not for freedom?
Don't worry about the laptop class and the tech workers. They'll be fine. And the lights are not about to go out.
Perhaps not where you are but they just may in many other Canadian cities and towns. Especially in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and the Yukon. Your short sighted and only think of yourselves just like the Government and your laptop class.
Looks like Poilievre will indeed be the next to be evicted from Stornaway, after Scheer, O’Toole and Bergen. I think there’s a historical plaque in the works.
Choosing Poilievre almost guarantees another Liberal government. A less extremist leader might offer Canadians a viable choice. I have no doubt the Liberals DREAM of having Poilievre as their opponent.
PP best path to victory is focusing on issues of affordability. The Liberals, regardless of leader, could end up alienating the electorate with their focus on less tangible issues such as climate action.
I lean about 90% Libertarian and 10% Nihilist, so the CPC is my only potential home. PP is a great attack dog and organizer. He has yet to demonstrate leadership skills, particularly that most important for the CPC: caucus management. His leadership campaign is focusing on issues which will likely resonate in coming years and into the next federal election: inflation and housing costs.
I find the oft repeated notion of PP representing the "Harper wing" of the party perplexing. Harper was cerebral and disciplined. Even non-supporters generally acknowledged his intellect, work ethic and overall competence. PP represents more the "Trudeau wing" in that he only offers instant gratification.
I agree with your assessment of Harper and, while Poilievre has a very different style, he is a loyal soldier for Harper's "Conservative Movement" ideology.
I also agree with you on the problem of caucus management. I think that problem is due to how Harper built the party. He traded Red Tories for So-Cons because they are easier to manipulate. I doubt any other potential CPC leader has his talent for manipulation, though. That leaves the party essentially unmanageable.
I still don't see the lineage. Harper focused on fiscal conservativism, clearer delineation between federal and provincial jurisdiction and economic growth. Perhaps that is seen as "extreme" from a Laurentian perspective. PP seems to lack any cohesive plan or long term vision, hence the Trudeau comparison.
Also disagree that Harper was manipulative. He was effective because he was almost always the smartest person in the room and most disciplined.
The lineage is that P.P. was/is one of Harper's closest lieutenants. There's no reason to believe that he differs policy-wise from Harper in any way. If you want to see where that policy leads take a look at the current Republican Party down south.
All good leaders need to be manipulative in some kind of way. Harper stands out because he seemed to really enjoy playing with people. He certainly played the anti-abortion crowd like a piano and look at how he milked Senate reform. He got years of fundraising out of that when he knew all along that it takes a constitutional amendment to change it.
Very smart, yes, but he also neglected to groom any successors because he didn't want any capable threats around. The party is now suffering because of that. Skippy has nowhere near the gravitas that Harper did... and neither does anyone else in the party.
If he was a fiscal conservative, why did he never balance a budget? FIPA is an unmitigated disaster, so I'm not really sure he was smartest either and I voted for him 3 times because of the alternatives..
Harper had a balanced budget heading into the GFC even with the GST cut, and almost had it back to balance in 2015, despite the oil crash. The alternatives would have spent much, much more.
But under financing numerous departments including Veterans Affairs. It was pure optics.
In Joseph Hardy's Jude The Obscure, Arabella, a maiden sitting in a creek washing pig entrails, gets Jude's attention by catching him fair in the ear with a pig's testicle. Every time I see Pierre Poilievre on camera I think of poor, shrill Arabella.
I took a look at the attack ad against Patrick Brown and, with regard to climate change and sex education, P.P. seems to be accusing Brown of being able to learn. What bothers me the most about P.P. is that he clearly offers nothing to anyone who isn't a rabid conservative ideologue. Stephen Harper figured how to get absolute power in our system with about 38% of the vote . That's just the flaws in our system but what is is disturbing is that he and his disciples don't care about the 62% of us. They're not trying to win us over. As far as they are concerned most Canadians can go pound sand.
38% is still substantially higher than the 32% Trudeau earned last fall. No political victor will come even close to representing the majority of citizens.
Frankly, I'm assuming Matt & Jen are still on vacation. Hopefully, that affords an explanation and why we will see less of such uninspired trolling in future.
As a paid subscriber I disagree with your assessment of this article. I rather liked it.
As a fellow paid subsciber (and sometimes paid contributor), I appreciate the sentiment! I'm fairly new to this whole political commentary thing and still have a good deal to learn :)
No quarrel there, my assessment was not that you wouldn't like it.
Just curious, I don't follow the 'paid subscriber' distinction. Are assessments to be evaluated in some way based on whether we're pitching paid-for opinions? I thought we were all travelling 'first class' here, or are some folks relegated to 'coach'? Perhaps Matt and Jen should provide clearer signage when we board this bus.
Well, I'm less impressed when commentators claim to see n-dimensional chess, when what we're getting from pols is typically their built-in, true-to-form, almost always very limited skill range. The idea that these guys have a closet full of strategic costumes to wear in their political closets and we ultimately assess their ability to perform well in any or all of them does not seem like an accurate assessment of pols. Remember Justin's visit to India? Strategic chess?
Flip flopping is usually not a big selling point. That these folks can pivot like an Olympic figure skater is not borne out by the dull political theatre to which we are typically subjected. More characteristic is, these guys throw themselves against the wall to see what sticks, and then leap to their feet in triumph if they hear a smattering of applause or scamper for cover when the boos and hisses start washing up on stage.
So we'll see how clever it all is as it unfolds. But I wouldn't expect a multi-layered whodunit full of clever plot twists, and perhaps reserve the word 'genius' for the likes of Trump and Putin. It remains to be seen into which camp Vaccine Vendetta Pete tumbles.
This I would literally love to see— "these guys throw themselves against the wall to see what sticks."
Well put, Robert!
Thanks, I realize my first response was perhaps a tad too snarky. Perhaps the price of responding too immediately to my morning reading after but one cup of coffee and before I've mellowed into the calmer reflections of afternoon ; )
I literally just said that Poilievre enjoys playing chess in his free time and then conceded that I have no idea what he/Byrne are trying to accomplish with their opening-week attacks 🤷🏽♂️
That's just it, Skippy has no free time. He will have no free time for months. He will be the star of far too many videos of why he should be PM and too many on Twitter or FC or Telegram will tell him you don't run for PM in Canada. Didn't he use to date Byrne? It's his voice. I cannot abide Skippy's voice. I can't even say what it is that makes me cringe. But it's horrible.
The way he looks strikes me as political cosplay. He grooms himself like a 1930s populist. It seems very calculated and very fake. I'm not sure he lives in the same world as the rest of us.
Fun fact: this article is two clicks away from a photo of Poilievre and Byrne kissing! Please let me know if you find it
Sorry not sure if this is meant as a response to my comment. If it is, your entire piece is wrapped in allusions to partisan gamesmanship using chess metaphors. The implication being we are watching some kind of strategic process unfold with analytical layers akin to the moves of chess masters. Unless you're suggesting you intended no relation between form and content.
I appreciate the Poilievre camp would have preferred a shorter campaign with less time for opponents to sign up members and that campaigns have strategies. However, all told I find the style a bit too glossy and fawning for the ink-stained reality of the pol in question. Kind of like that gunslinger pose Justin's dad used to brandish his image in a glossy magazine. But it was a different time, and folks bought into it.
By comparison, Poillievre tries way too hard, his yearning ambition appears overwrought and presumptuous. In other words, I don't find the style of the piece matches the apparent reality of the pol being described, even if the pol so wishes it did. It appears to buy what Poillievre wants so desperately to sell us. So to say, I'm just not buying it, form or content.
Yes, it was a response to your earlier comment. From what I understand, the Queen’s Gambit is a high-risk/high-reward chess opening (I don’t play chess myself). I felt like I could draw a parallel to Poilievre’s “opening” (i.e.: punching down as the early frontrunner) last week. Felt like a premise that I could squeeze 650 readable words out of. That and I always like to find ways to connect my old home (Canada) with my new one (Kentucky). Here’s the link to my first article with The Line: https://theline.substack.com/p/what-mcconnell-means-to-kentucky?fbclid=IwAR0TvMe3RUOegKJjDdU8lwWxEPxdER9MXT2gZ4ed97L81vzymDIphWdLZsg&s=r
Like I said, I’m still fairly new to this public commentary thing and I’m always open to constructive criticism. I’ll be sure to check out your writing with CanYuck in the near future. Have a good evening.
I'm going to save McConnell for the morning.
It was written right after he sailed by Amy McGrath, who forked over $100 million just to lose by 20 points
Update: looks like Canada’s most celebrated living writer is on my side - https://twitter.com/margaretatwood/status/1504468906936659978?s=21
Careful, all Maggie said was that it is 'interesting'!
👏👏👏
Interesting (because I don't play chess either) to have such folks debating the appropriateness of chess metaphors. So be it. Now, if Maggie admits to not playing chess either, we have a threesome.
'Four!' (ah, I don't golf either.)
Funny you find the article ‘fawning’; I’ve been afraid it would put me on Jenni Byrne’s list: https://twitter.com/rmohamed_ky/status/1504469883764969485?s=21
Regarding writing. I think there is a matter of context to consider. This piece might fit fine in a glossy sendup of a pol in an entertainment rag or a lit chapbook or, given the geographical cultural references, a travel guide. As mentioned, Pierre Trudeau striking a gunslinger pose for a fawning magazine piece, back in the day.
However, The Line bills itself as "Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit." This piece is not irreverent, in fact, that's my beef, way to much 'reverence' wrapped around someone who has yet to earn it. It reads too much like a PR piece pumped out by the Petey Committee, thus, my original description as "trolling".
So here, in the land of the irreverent, no reverence.
Nevertheless, good morning : )
I am looking forward to the debates between the candidates. Lewis & Brown can't debate in french. I remember Charest doing well in the 1993 debates against Kim Campbell & the 1997 federal election debates against Preston Manning,PM Jean Chretien, & Duceppe.
There is no better example of why first past the post is the best system than the Conservative Party's leadership race.
I've decided to take another swing at this piece in order to clarify why I respond with concern to it.
First, I'm not against mixing literary categories. So looking at the conduct of political figures through a lens of criticism from another genre, film, literature, or chess for that matter, is fair enough. Perhaps a different lens may shed a different, helpful light.
However, my first reaction to this piece is it has drawn way too heavily upon the constructed analytical vantage point of fanboy fiction. Of course, partisan reflections in the realm of politics are not to be unexpected. So why not just roll with it?
Pols are not fictional characters in fictional stories valued for the cleverness of their authors. There is no master author sitting behind the master narrative pulling clever strings. Nor are they typically susceptible to the scrutiny of a Bobby Fischer versus Boris Spassky geopolitical melodrama, without some potentially fateful suspension of disbelief.
Second, partisans can be very dangerous.
Partisans appear to be an unavoidable price to be paid for democratic politics. However, hyper-partisans are preoccupied with one thing: winning! The game comes first. Fine if the game is fiction, not so much if it's reality. Especially a reality shared with millions of other folks with partisans yanking at the puppet strings of our collective governance and well-being.
The most dangerous partisan, I would contend, is the unabashed narcissist. In love with the sound of their own slippery tongues. Marvelling at their ability to wrap words around any situation. Unrestricted self-love is their calling card.
I put Vaccine Vendetta Pete, at this point, in a very similar camp with Jason Kenney. Kenney simply gushes with the thrill of his own self-confidence. And thus, Kenney simply could not resist starring in the narrative drama he imagined for himself, where he parted the Covid seas and would lead us all to the promised land on the other side of the raging river no one else dared to cross. An enthralling heroic fantasy, if only...
Raising the question: how many Albertans died unnecessarily because Kenney just could not resist the starring role he cast for himself, held aloft by the roaring swells of the anticipated applause. Reality be damned! Kenney will overcome! Narcissists tend not to be burdened by pangs of caution.
So my take is, anyone who hollers 'Vaccine Vendetta' in the middle of a pandemic has the potential to be a very dangerous person. Wrapping such a person in the heroic tropes of fanboy fiction and the inflated rhetoric of hyper-partisan gamesmanship does little service to the reality we may find ourselves unhappily sharing with our all too happy hero. Is Vaccine Vendetta Pete a sufficiently nimble dancer to navigate the heroic fantasy and our collective reality?
Or is the more timely question, how soon before Petey becomes the most hated pol in Canada?
Well put! I agree with you that chess metaphors are probably played out in the realm of political writing. Perhaps you could write a response to this piece titled something along the lines of “The Narcissist’s Gambit”?
Thanks.
My response above probably offers a better insight into why the choice of folding a political assessment into a gaming metaphor, while perfectly appropriate from the standpoint that politics involves elections and thus, winners and losers, and the strategies that accompany such endeavours, raises my concern that such partisanship may eclipse the public policy decisions these folks get control over.
The hyper-partisans seem so addicted to the us-vs-them reflex that our collective well-being is not likely well served by it. I assume a good idea can come from any corner. And no one has a monopoly on all the good ideas. Thus the need for and value of democratic dialogue providing different offerings.
Finally, I should note, I'm not suggesting your piece was not well-written. It was more a concern about the implications of stylizing a political strategy (aggressive hyper-partisanship) that may have real consequences. Anyhoo, thanks for your replies. And yes, 'she' did tweet about it. So bravo : )
You used the word “partisan trolling” in your first comment, which made it 100% clear that you weren’t knocking my style/writing to begin with. I see what you mean about reimagining real life politics (which, as you point out above, has real life consequences) as an episode of House of Cards/The West Wing — that CAN be dangerous. I’ll keep this note in mind going forward.
Have a great weekend!