Why Now, Rishi?

If only it were Justin Trudeau instead of Rishi Sunak. Unexpectedly, trailing by over 20 points in the polls and with some months to go in his mandate, Sunak has called a snap election for July 4. In the rain.

It has taken everyone by surprise, and it makes no sense in usual political terms. The conventional thing would be to hold on in hopes that polls might improve. As they say, a week is a long time in politics. Even at worst, holding off means a few more months to exercise power and to look for your next job.

It has to be that Sunak knows something we don’t know. The more so since this has all the appearances of being a rushed announcement, as though there is some emergency. Cabinet ministers were summoned to a sudden meeting; some of them had to cut trips abroad. Tory backbenchers were not consulted or informed. The announcement was not well staged: in the rain, without an umbrella, with opposition loudspeakers blaring. Sunak did not seem to have any particular campaign theme or message prepared.

It surely has to mean that something dreadful is likely to drop in the next few months. Sunak needs to get the election over with quickly, or the Tories will fare even worse. 

What is likely to be that drastic?

My guess is, it has to do with the Covid vaccines and the rise in mortality since the epidemic. Something may be about to come out; something worse that we have yet heard. Sunak may have seen a preliminary draft of some report.

Why the Conservatives Will Lose?

 

Don Martin, in a recent column, repeats all the tired old talking points of the leftist commentariat on how the Conservatives are unelectable, and must change their tune and stop being conservative.

First, of course, they must “move to the centre” to appeal to more voters. Despite already appealing to more voters than any other party.

Obviously bad advice. If a voter is dissatisfied with the current government, they will want to vote for something different—or why are they dissatisfied? If they are satisfied with the current government and its policies, why vote for someone merely similar? If it’s just a matter of changing names or faces, why vote at all?

Then the old saw about there being nothing the Conservatives can reasonably cut from the federal budget. As soon as they get down to details on what they would do, they are bound to cut programmes that everybody wants. They must name specific programmes they will cut. If they do not give details, and name the programmes, they have a hidden agenda. It is not as though the current government could have misspent a penny.

Here are areas where the Conservatives could cut.

To begin with, the federal payroll has grown 31% under Trudeau; while ordinary Canadians have found government services declining. Demonstrably, therefore, the federal payroll could be cut by 30% without affecting services. It is bloated. Milei in Argentina has reputedly cut their government payroll by 70%. Elon Musk did something similar with Twitter, with no visible problems. Yes, there is a huge amount of fat in the bureaucracy.

Aside from numbers of employees, work hours, and measurable productivity, in principle, in order not to become parasitic on the productive economy, no one working in government should receive a pay package as high as the equivalent job would earn in the private sector. At present, they earn more.

Reducing regulations should lead to automatic savings. Every regulation requires a bureaucracy to enforce it; while reducing economic activity and therefore tax revenues.

Next, all subsidies to the CBC and to the media should be ended. This does nothing for the public but undermine democracy.

More broadly, end all corporate welfare. Government should not play favourites in the market. It never makes economic sense in the long run, always costs the common people more, and is an open invitation to graft.

Next, although it is not a direct federal responsibility, no government transfers should pay for abortion or for gender transition therapy. Neither are legitimately health care, both are discretionary, and both raise freedom of conscience issues if taxpayer funded.

Next, no government money should go to multiculturalism. This is a waste of taxpayers’ money. It is offensive to immigrants. It is discriminatory. And it erodes the social fabric.

Although it might not be politically palatable, for many of the same reasons, the endless payouts in the name of “reconciliation” with indigenous groups should be ended. They are almost never required by treaty, they are discriminatory, they never achieve reconciliation, and they almost never do anything to improve the lives of actual Indians.

More generally, no government funding should go to advocacy groups. These increase government costs, create a feedback loop increasing bureaucracy and bureaucratic control, artificially skew the political discourse, and subvert democracy.

Is a Conservative government really going to institute such reforms? 

One can at least hope.

The Tories in Quebec City

 

The Conservative convention has just concluded in Quebec City. I can’t recall when a party convention, absent a leadership contest, ever garnered so much attention. It feels historic. Chantal Hebert, no friend to the right, noted recently on CBC that the last time a governing party was as low as Trudeau in the polls was during the Mulroney era. 

The next election, Mulroney’s Tories won two seats.

The tone was no longer the pusillanimous apologetic tone of Erin O’Toole or Andrew Scheer. There was a large banner behind the rostrum reading simply “Freedom.” Speakers returned more than once to the theme of recovering pride in Canadian heritage: “our history must be celebrated, not apologized for nor cancelled.” “We should be proud of the flag on our soldiers’ uniforms. This is the flag that should be flying from government buildings.” “Those leaders who build Canada should be celebrated, not toppled.”

In French: <<new immigrants must understand that Canada’s history is now their history. They must adopt our traditions. We must not listen to those who, like Mr. Trudeau, say that Canada has no basic culture.>>

And Poilievre himself: “English Canadians can learn this from Quebec—and I’m saying this deliberately in English-- Quebeckers do not apologize for their culture, their language, or their history.”

Poilievre and other speakers made many references to Quebec, and Quebec politics. This made sense since the convention was held in Quebec. But then too, why did the party decide to hold their convention in Quebec? It seems that Poilievre and his team are making a point of seeking Quebec support, their weakest region. This suggests confidence and a hope of running up the score.

There was also recognition of the Freedom Convoy: “If Canadians feel strongly about something, the prime minister should listen; not attack and insult them…. If thousands of Canadians feel strongly enough about something to get in their vehicles and drive all the way to Ottawa, the prime minster should pay attention.” And this got a standing ovation.

Poilievre showed his rhetorical brilliance, leading off with a story. Fine rhetorical touch, referring to the garage as “Herb’s Garage.” Make it personal; refer to an “everyday Canadian,” one of the “common people.” And one who has lost his business. He cleverly insinuated that his wife, whose first language is Spanish, was a Francophone (“What’s Ana, a smart and beautiful Quebecois, doing with this Anglophone wearing glasses?”). His praise of his wife, and her speech on his behalf, pointed cruelly to Trudeau’s marital troubles. He skillfully used alliterative phrases like “powerful paychecks,” “affordable food.” Inflation was “a silent thief, quietly picking the pockets of the poor…”

It was all devastatingly effective, and Poilievre kept getting interrupted by chants of “Bring it Home!”

We haven’t seen this kind of enthusiasm in Canadian politics since the days of Pierre Trudeau. And it is a very good thing for a country to see this kind of hope and excitement for the future.

The Promise of Poilievre

 

Last fall, when Pierre Poilievre won the Tory leadership, all the talking heads were saying his stewardship of the party was doomed. He had, after all, ru to the right in the leadership contest. Now how could he move to the centre to win an election?

I found this assumption that deceit was simply the way to do business disgusting. The first time I heard this idea, that you ran as an ideologue to win the nomination, then moved to the centre, was from Richard Nixon. I realized then that he was a crook. It is the reason I can no longer bear to look at a picture of Erin O’Toole without a sense of physical revulsion.

Besides the gross immorality, it is bad practical advice. If you make your programme indistinguishable from that of the party in power, why vote for you instead of the party in power? If they like what the other guys are doing, they will vote for them. If they don’t like it, why vote for you and just get more of the same? And then there is the inevitable suspicion, and accusation, that you have a “hidden agenda.” You are asking the people to buy a pig in a poke. For the leadership, you did not govern on the platform you ran on. Why would it be different if you came to power? How can anyone trust you?

Leadership is not about finding a parade, and rushing to the head of it. It is not about parsing the polls.  If it were, one leader would be just as good as another; anyone can do that. Only a narcissist would think that way: all that matters to him is that he is in power.

Leadership is about communicating, and convincing people. This Poilievre seems exceptionally good at. And he has already, according to several polls, opened up an eight-point lead over the present government. Proving my point: but for a bad stumble over Christine Anderson, he has not yet betrayed his principles doing it.

If Poilievre comes to power, the same rhetorical skill, the ability to bring people along with him, could make him an exceptionally good prime minister as well. This ability to communicate and inspire was the core skill possessed by Reagan, by Churchill, by Zelensky, by Thatcher; by Ralph Klein in Alberta. Although few seem to realize it, by Donald Trump, a brilliant comic performer. By Martin Luther King; by Lincoln.

It seems less common on the left. JFK had it. Pierre Trudeau did. On the left, it is called “charisma.”

To be fair, Diefenbaker too had the knack, and Bill Clinton, and Boris Johnson. None of whom I would consider exceptional leaders. Which demonstrates that it is not enough. There are other elements to a great leader; empty rhetoric is still just empty rhetoric.

Canada may be exceptionally lucky, as if protected by God, to have Poilievre emerge at this moment, when our society and perhaps our civilization seems to be falling into chaos and despair. If it can be pulled back together at all, that is a job for a master rhetorician.

No guarantees; but there is cause for hope. There is cause for hope if, two years from now, Poilievre is in charge in Canada, and Trump in the USA. That might be enough to turn things around.

The Secret of Trudeau's Succes

 

It is an embarrassment to Canada that Justin Trudeau is prime minister. And not just that—he was reelected twice, albeit with a historically low share of the vote. He is clearly not qualified for the job, his temperament is reckless and self-indulgent, and his government has been plagued by scandal throughout. Aside from our own suffering, it makes us all look like craven idiots on the world stage.

This has given Trudeau a reputation as a great campaigner. What else could explain it? But this great campaigning, such as it is, is nothing more than declaring any opposition, and the Tories, white supremacists, misogynists, homophobes, Islamophobes, and so forth. This is not great campaigning so much as Canadians being craven idiots he can play like a pipe organ.

I think much of the blame belongs to the Conservatives. They have failed in their role as Her (now His) Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.  I think Peter MacKay was right to say that, in 2019, Andrew Scheer failed to score on an open net. Trudeau should have been easy to take out. And, if this is so, it is at least as true that Erin O’Toole turned in a poor performance in 2021.

I think the problem, contrary to what many politicos claim, was that these two leaders tried too hard to run toward the centre. Scheer kept a big smile pasted on his face, which looked insincere. He could not give a straight answer on abortion. The voters, or a large segment of them, had reason to suspect a “hidden agenda.” He had beaten Bernier for the leadership in a backroom deal with the milk lobby; proving himself untrustworthy.

O’Toole also smiled relentlessly and openly criticized the former Conservative government. His slogan was “not your father’s Conservative Party.” It made the Conservative Party’s supposed misdeeds, and not Trudeau’s, the issue. It was like a public admission that the party is nefarious. And, since he had run for the leadership as a “true blue” Conservative, voters again had every reason not to trust him.  He showed himself a liar: was he lying to the party faithful then, or to the voters now? Who knows what he would do if in power.

People did not vote for Trudeau. They were voting against the Tories. They were parking their votes with the devil they knew. They were being asked to buy a pig in a poke, and this scared them.

The Tory Stakes

 

Stalking horse.

It seemed to me at the time that the last Conservative leadership race was fixed. Obvious candidates kept dropping off at the last minute. Candidate were arbitrarily refused the right to run. The timeline was made tight so that no outsider could build a new base. It was all set up to coronate Peter MacKay, who, no doubt, in the eyes of party grandees, had earned it for his long service. Erin O’Toole was just supposed to be a plausible opponent, so that it wasn’t too obvious. A good soldier ready to take a little humiliation for the party. He pretended to be a right-wing figure, to fake diversity. The equivalent of the Washington Generals.

Leslyn Lewis was allowed in, no doubt, because it looked good to have a black woman in the race. Derek Sloan might have looked to unformidable to worry about: let the Christian social conservatives have their candidate. Just enough to keep them in the party.

Despite all this, the party base was not having it. Unexpectedly, they elected O’Toole. 

No problem; O’Toole remained the good soldier. He simply shifted to the same platform that MacKay might have run on. 

This was a suboptimal outcome. If you were going to run to the centre, MacKay would have been the stronger candidate.

This time, perhaps they have learned their lesson. Or perhaps Pierre Poilievre starts out too far ahead to get away with such shenanigans again; the grandees do not want Poilievre. A wide-open race becomes their best chance to defeat him. Giving us a better choice and a better spectacle.

It’s nothing personal, and it’s nothing ideological, really. It is not even that they think a centrist has a better chance to win in an election. I think that contention is dubious, and I think they are savvy enough to know it is dubious. Firebrands like Reagan or Diefenbaker have in fact racked up historic majorities. Trudeau won running to the left of the NDP. The problem is that a man of principle, regardless of the principle, cannot be managed. He is not going to be a team player.

Same problem the Dems in America had with Bernie Sanders.

So the grandees and the talking heads are backing Charest, as their best chance to stop Poilievre. 

It also makes sense to get Patrick Brown in the race. He has a proven record for winning by selling memberships. They are going to have to sell a lot of memberships to have a chance at beating Poilievre with the party base. Brown is not a plausible victor himself, but he can move all those new votes over to Charest on a later ballot.

Maxime Bernier has already puckishly endorsed Charest. Charest is best for him. Poilievre could achieve party unity and put Bernier in the shade. If Charest wins, the Tories likely split and Bernier benefits.

Erin O'Toole as Seen from a Semi's Rear View Mirror

 

Pierre Poilievre

It looks as though Conservative leader Erin O’Toole is on his way out. No sure thing—only one third of the caucus voted to force a review. But he seems unlikely to survive such a lack of confidence even if he nominally wins a vote.

I feel relieved. Many objections might be raised to his leadership; his absence from the current Ottawa convoy protest makes him look irrelevant. But in my own mind, to be honest, there is just one. He ran for the leadership as a “True Blue” Tory, then pivoted. Not that I am any “True Blue” Tory. I am not a member of the party, and my own choice for the Tory leadership at that time would have been Jean Charest. But such blatant dishonesty in a politician should not be accepted. It showed contempt.

Pundits suggest the Conservatives are shooting themselves in the left foot: they must not cave to their right wing, as they appear to be doing now, or they are unelectable. There are just not enough conservative-minded voters in Canada.

I disagree. I used to think in those terms. I learned otherwise. I thought the Conservatives were waiving their chance of winning, in favour of rebuilding for the long term, by choosing Stephen Harper, a known hard-right ideologue, as leader. I thought the Republicans were losing their chance by choosing Ronald Reagan in 1980. Margaret Thatcher was also a hard-rightist; she did pretty well at the polls in the end.

The idea of catering to the polls is exactly wrong. So long as conservatives do this, they will always lose, because the media are against them, and the media have the dominant influence on the polls.

The only way the Conservatives can ever win is by choosing a leader who will lead: who will try to change the polls. Who will not accept the framing done by the media, but try to change the framing. Trump is a model: they can only win with someone able to appeal directly to the people. Whoever they choose, anyone who fits that profile, will automatically be condemned by the media as “extremist” and “populist.” Even a moderate like Trump.

They might as well go for Pierre Poilievre. Could make for an exciting next few years.

MacKay Weighs In

Seems to me it was a VERY good speech that hit all the right notes.

But this does not especially reflect on MacKay--he's got a really good speechwriter.

The campaign logo is also great.

A really professional effort.

He also did well by giving so much of his speech in French. He is surely aware that this is a vulnerability. I thought his French pronunciation, at least, was decent.

We'll see how it goes.

All the Way with Jean Charest?

The new frontrunner.

Peter MacKay has, as expected, entered the Conservative leadership race. He becomes the front runner. 

I am not keen on Peter MacKay.

He won the Progressive Conservative leadership years ago by cutting a secret backroom deal with David Orchard. The deal was, in large part, that he would not, under any circumstances, allow the PCs to merge with the Canadian Alliance.

This was in May, 2003. In October, 2003, MacKay merged the party with the Canadian Alliance.

It was a historic display of lack of principle.

Why would we want such a man as prime minister?

To be clear, I was delighted at the party merger. The real problem was the original pact with Orchard, which sold out the party and the conservative movement for personal ambition. But this was then compounded by the breach of trust.

MacKay is all about MacKay.

One pressing issue in the current leadership race is that the new leader must be ready to hit the ground running, to assume the prime ministership at any moment. This is a minority government situation. There will be little time to find their feet, little time to introduce themselves to the public.

This looks like a MacKay strength, because of his long resume; but his conduct as PC leader suggests otherwise. He won a leadership, and within a year surrendered it. It looks as though he really had no idea or plan for what to do with it.

It looks as though he is not temperamentally a leader.

Also in the race, so far, are Pierre Poilievre and Erin O’Toole.

Poilievre looks great in parliament; he is fluently bilingual, and has Western roots. Yet I fear he is handicapped by this vital consideration, that the new leader be ready to assume command. Poilievre’s talent is in opposition. One remembers John Diefenbaker: the segue into government is not an easy one, it is in many ways an opposite role, and Dief turned out not to have the personality for it.

Poilievre would have made better sense last time, when the task appeared to be to rally forces for a long haul in opposition.

He might be great, but it’s a bit of a shot in the twilight.

I like O’Toole. However, he too is not ready for this. He only came third last time, in a weaker field. His government experience is as Minister of Veterans Affairs, not a major portfolio. He has no natural regional power base—coming up through the military means he is not really from anywhere.

Jean Charest has not announced, but rumours are swirling around him.

I like Jean Charest. He has at least as impressive a resume as MacKay; and it includes actual governing experience, as Quebec premier.

Yet there seems to be a lot of resistance to him within the party. I think there is a special resentment, in the West, towards there being so many national leaders from Quebec. They feel, by comparison, excluded.

One can sympathize, but in pragmatic terms, Quebec is important; it has a lot of seats. The Tories already have the West secured; Atlantic Canada is not seat-rich; and Ontario too likes leaders from Quebec, while Quebec is not impressed by leaders from Ontario.

Somebody has crafted a pre-emptive assault by pointing out that Charest has been advising Huawei. This supposedly makes him a Manchurian candidate. Kind of like Trump with Russia.

I’m not impressed by this claim either. My greatest criticism of the current, Trudeau, government, is that it has been trying to hector other countries on how they should conduct their business. Given Canada’s lack of either financial or military might, this does no good for anyone, and only harm to Canadians. I’d rather stick to trying to be friends to everyone, and being fair to everyone. And doing business with everyone.

Stephen Harper, rumours say, also strongly resists Charest’s bid. He has just resigned from the Conservative National Fund, reputedly so he is free to work against Charest.

I think this is a matter of protecting his legacy; if Charest wins, it will no longer be Stephen Harper’s party. It will be the old Progressive Conservatives again.

I too would prefer it to remain in Harper’s mold. And, frankly, I am probably not going to vote Conservative next time, with Charest or any of the others here as leader. But this is also an indication of how competent a leader Charest is. MacKay too comes from the old PC, yet Harper does not so fear him.

At this point, I think the CPC would do best to choose Charest.

Jean Charest Is In

Tom Mulcair has said unequivocally that Jean Charest will seek the Conservative leadership. He also claims he hears that Charest’s bid will keep Peter MacKay out.

Frankly, simply in terms of his resume, nobody else looks like a better choice. Charest has actually served previously as Tory leader. He has been deputy prime minister; served for nine years as premier of the second-largest province. He is perfectly bilingual.

Ought to take the leadership easily.

Charest also contrasts well with Trudeau. Trudeau looks callow, lightweight, underqualified and inexperienced. Charest is the opposite: he’s been around forever, and has an almost surreally strong resume. Looks like a man against a boy.

The only problem is that he is an old-line Progressive Conservative. He will look too leftist to many in the party. This may be an incentive for someone prominent on the right to enter. Mulcair thought Rona Ambrose, although early indications are that she is not running. Brad Wall? Who else has the stature to compete?

Having been out of federal politics for a while, Charest may have maneuvering room to adopt some policies to soothe the right wing.

Sticking with Scheer

Some argue he just looks too much like a chipmunk to ever be prime minister.

Everyone is now out to get Andrew Scheer. Odd, since he was the most successful of the three big party leaders in the last election. Trudeau lost votes and seats. Singh lost votes and seats. Scheer gained both.

This, however, follows old and honoured Tory tradition. Since at least the dying days of Diefenbaker, they have ever been quick to form a circular firing squad at the hint of adversity.

It did the NDP no good to dump Mulcair after one election loss. It did the Liberals no good to dump Dion after one election loss. It may as well do the Tories no good again; unless perhaps they have some clear idea that a distinctly different sort of leader and leadership is required. A Churchill, say, instead of a Chamberlain. A Trump instead of a Romney or a Jeb Bush.

But I see no trace of this in the public reasons given for Scheer to go. They seem completely wrong, and harmful as advice. Scheer was a smiling face, and certainly tried to come across as a moderate. Yet according to all the pundits, he failed to do better because of his personal social conservative views, and because he was not enough like the Liberals on fighting climate change.

According to the rolling polls, this is wrong. What hurt Scheer most was simply the public prediction that he might win a majority government. That scared many on the left into the Liberal camp as a strategic move.

As to the Conservatives’ relatively weak showing in Ontario, I hear that their “vaunted ground game” did not materialize this time. As a local deputy returning officer on the day, I found it notable that they managed no candidate’s representative at my polling station for the count.

This strongly suggests that the problem was a lack of enthusiasm. The same thing that killed Romney. It was not that the Conservative platform differed too markedly from that of the NDP or Liberals. It was that it did not differ enough, giving ideologically-driven volunteers and voters little reason to come out.

It is often said by Liberals that they lose whenever they run to the right. We saw the same for the NDP in 2015: they veered towards the centre, the Liberals swung over to their left. The Dippers dropped to third, the third-place Liberals surged improbably to power.

People in general value sincerity and principle more than any specific ideology. This is ever more so in these days of democratized information, or, to use the journalistic cliché, “social media.” Witness the witless rise below the undefended border of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez.

But even going with ideological voting, and a cynical approach based on reading the polls, it makes the best sense for Conservatives to pull right and not left on social issues and climate change. One does not need a majority of the vote to get a majority government in Canada; one needs something approaching 40%. Four parties, the Liberals, NDP, Greens, and BQ, are splitting the vote that supports unregulated abortion, carbon taxes, special rights for transsexuals, laws against “hate speech,” stiffer gun bans, and so forth. Yet polls suggest that roughly half or even more of the electorate do not hold these positions. If any of these became the decisive issue in an election, and the Tories were the only party to vote for if you were on that side, it would actually mean a crushing Tory majority.

But even leave aside all partisan considerations, and consider the health of the Canadian democracy. How good a situation is it when a large portion of the electorate, perhaps even a majority, has no vote—that is, no party to vote for that represents their views? Not great for peace, order, or good government.

That this is so commonly now the case is why we see everywhere else the rise of “populist” parties. We are overdue in Canada—held back, I suspect, because in a way we were the first out of that gate, with Preston Manning’s Reform Party. That led to an unreasonable fear of “splitting the vote on the right.” So we have lapsed right back into the untenable situation that then forced Reform to form: the way, under Mulroney, there was nothing to choose between Tories and Grits, and no one to vote for if you were not keen on Charlottetown or Meech Lake and a new, unamendable, constitution.

If there is a problem with Scheer, it is that he is not forceful enough, fiery enough, in his public persona, to make a populist case. He radiates business as usual. The problem with his view on abortion in the TVA debate was not that he was opposed to abortion, but that he tried to fudge it and be on both sides of the issue. Same with climate change.

But suppose Scheer is jettisoned, who replaces him as Tory leader? Where’s our white knight? Maxime Bernier would have been best last time; but it is too late to turn to Bernier now. He has declared the entire Tory party corrupt. Were he to run, he would automatically lose the principled image that makes him appealing.

Peter MacKay? As a so-called “Red Tory,” a classic conservative, he would if anything further reduce the distance between the Liberal and Conservative platforms, exactly the wrong move by my estimation. MacKay notoriously has no charisma. And he is a model of the unprincipled politician: he captured the PC leadership by a backroom guarantee to David Orchard that he would never unite the PCs with the Alliance. Then he immediately moved to unite the PCs with the Alliance. Political dishonesty could not get much more butt naked than that.

Jason Kenney? He’s just been elected as premier of Alberta. It is way too soon for him to make the jump; it would look too opportunistic. Doug Ford? Same problem, plus his current unpopularity in any case. Brad Wall? Has the problem of not being bilingual. Lisa Raitt? Just lost her seat.

There are certainly possible stars in the caucus and beyond. Candice Bergen; Rona Ambrose; Erin O’Toole; Pierre Poilevre. But nobody seems an obviously better option than Scheer, or suggests a strikingly different style or approach.

Ontario PC Leadership Debate

What of any use do we really learn from leadership debates?

I just sat through the Ontario PC leadership faceoff in Ottawa.

After watching these things for years, you can predict many of the answers.

How will you balance the budget? What services will you cut? What taxes will you raise?

“I will cut waste.”

How will you improve health care?

“I will listen to the doctors and nurses.”

What will you do about sexual harassment at Queen’s Park?

“Sexual harassment is unacceptable.”

Yawn. Are we really going to believe that no one else has ever tried to cut waste? That other governments have never consulted with doctors and nurses about health care? That other governments have been in favour of sexual harassment?

Of course, you know why they do this. Being honest loses votes. You cite a specific tax you will raise, and everyone affected campaigns and votes against you. You say you will fire 100,000 civil servants, and all the civil service unions campaign against you. And on and on. Anything you say is going to rile a special interest group. Definitely, you do not say anything against doctors and nurses. That’s a lot of voters, with a lot of money to spend.

Or imagine even the best case. Imagine you enunciate a specific policy that defies all odds and proves to be widely popular. Given a little time before the election, the party running against you will simply steal it for their own platform once you’ve taken all the risks. No need for anyone to vote for you just because you thought of it first.

So, as I have said before, these things are not debates, and they are not about policy. They are beauty contests, in which we get to see how the candidates handle themselves and whether we would like then in our living rooms for the next four or five years. They are about tone.

On that basis, I think Doug Ford easily won the debate.

Paul Wells, in the Post, thinks Christine Elliott won, on the grounds that she sounded responsible, and that the other candidates all attacked her. That suggests they all think she is the front-runner. As polls so far indeed show.

I think just running as responsible is pretty weak tea. In her summation speech, although it was her best moment, her case for herself was simply that she would be a better manager than Kathleen Wynne. She would go through the budget “line by line.” She knows how to do this sort of thing.

Problem: if the issue is responsible budgetary management, why vote for Elliott, a lawyer, instead of Doug Ford, a businessman? Ford offers the patina of business savvy, and he has a fairly well-known background of budget cutting at Toronto City Hall.

Elliott seems here to be looking past the leadership contest to the next election. I think that is fatal. It does not seem to me to be a pitch that works for Elliott in this field of candidates. Elliott rather accentuated her problem here herself when Doug Ford said, earlier in the debate, that he would go through the budget line by line, and Elliott actually responded “That’s not enough. You have to go through the budget line by line.”

Eh?

I don’t think ignoring what Ford said is going to impress voters. They heard him. She only comes across as an insincere political hack who will say anything. A charge Ford soon levelled against her.

Given that the average Tory in Ontario is mad as hell at Wynne and the Liberals, I do not think they are in the mood to support someone who, like Patrick Brown before her, promises to do things on the whole the same way the Liberals have, but do them better.

Plain vanilla, I think, is not the flavour of the month.

The candidate who was most forthcoming was, inevitably, Tanya Allen. So some people are saying she won the debate. She got cheers when she brought up the sex ed curriculum.

But this is not fair. She had it easy. She is not going to win anyway, she has nothing to lose, nobody is going to hold her to account for what she says two years from now, so she is free to be a fire-eater. She is not being brave; just doing what politics suggests. For my part, she came across as unreasonably uncharitable towards Patrick Brown. I wish one of the other candidates had responded to her at that point, “Whatever I might feel about Patrick Brown, this is not the time for that. I am not going to kick a man when he is down.”

I also wish at least one of the candidates had given the obvious and necessary response to the question, “Why don’t we save money by closing down the separate Catholic and French school boards?” The candidates all said no, they would save money in other ways—again, seemingly just a matter of not offending any identifiable constituency. But the proper response is: “I cannot. Nobody can, without seriously breaking faith. It is in the constitution, and has been since 1867. It is in large part the deal on which Canada was founded.” It was either dishonest or ignorant to say anything else.

Paul Wells does not seem to see it, but I think Caroline Mulroney lost badly in the debate. Early on, in an answer on green energy, she was only too obviously padding her answer with pure platitudes to fill out the time. It was a cringe-worthy moment. I think it was historically bad. She also unwisely attacked Doug Ford on internal party corruption, an issue on which she was herself vulnerable, and he was not. And got nailed for it, not by Ford, but worse, by a third party, Allen. She was also the only candidate audibly booed by the audience. Maybe that is to her credit: she took a clear stand on an issue. It just was not the conservative stand.

I was surprised at the political skill and poise Doug Ford demonstrated. I had always thought it was his brother who had the political talent, whatever his other failings, and that Doug was just a wooden replica. But no, he has real talent himself.

Yeah, he said very little of substance, but that was a given. But he was good at telling stories. He was good at summing things up as slogans. He showed himself, in sum, to be a fine communicator.

He came across—no mean skill—as both likeable and no-nonsense. And at the same time, he did not sound like a loose cannon. He sounded managerial.

Given that all we really accomplish with such debates is tone, it was Ford who pulled off the best tone.

The Federal Tory Platform

Borden.

Kellie Leitch’s proposal for values testing of immigrants is clearly popular with the public—75% want it. I hope that, whoever wins the Tory leadership, they take it on. It’s not just a good idea. It is a vote-getter.

I hope they also take on Maxime Bernier’s plan to end “supply management.” It is a cruelty to the poor. Sure, it is a great deal for a few farmers. But it probably hurts more farmers than it helps. It also complicates any free trade negotiations with other countries. It ought to be a vote winner too: everyone will notice a drop in the price of eggs and milk. At no cost to government.

And I like Erin O’Toole’s support of free trade, free movement, and coordinated security among Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Nobody will likely care one way or the other in Quebec, but in the ROC, it ought to be attractive for lessening our unilateral dependence on the US. It will open up opportunities for Canadians, and attract desirable immigrants to Canada.

I also hope that whomever is chosen takes up Hugh Segal’s Guaranteed Minimum Income concept. Besides being a sensible idea, it would do a lot to counter left-wing claims that the Tories are only for “the rich.” And we must do something to respond to the current crisis of the North American working class. People are dying. Properly done, if we can count on it being properly done, it might not cost more than what we are doing now. Money now going to bureaucrats would simply go directly to the poor.

Last up, the Canadian Conservatives should embrace Trump’s idea that any new regulation must come with the elimination of two old ones. For one thing, it is a promise that would cost nothing in tax dollars. For another, of course, it would actually lessen the costs of government. For a third, it would encourage business formation, and so boost the economy. What could be better? Sliced bread?

There are lots more things that should be done, but these ideas seem to be out there now, and, together, look to me like a winning platform in the next election. And one that could unite all the strands of the party behind it: libertarians with the end of supply management and cutting regulations, Red Tories with the GAI proposal, traditionalists with CANZUK, Trump-types with the immigrant vetting.

Why the Polls Were Wrong

Why were the polls so wrong in the recent British election?

Most of the speculation I have seen has centred on the “Shy Tory syndrome.” Similar to the “Bradley effect,” this is the possibility that right-leaning voters, assuming they are being polled by a media biased against them, hide their true intentions until they get to the ballot box.

It seems to me this cannot be the explanation here. For if it were “Shy Tory syndrome,” the exit polling ought to have been similarly biased. But it was the exit polling that first revealed the discrepancy.

I believe it must instead have been a case of the undecided falling disproportionately to the Conservatives at the last moment.

Thesis: a large number of voters in England were holding back on their choice waiting to see how strong the Scots Nats looked. They wanted to vote Labour, or UKIP, or Lib Dem, but their first priority was to stave off the possibility of a coalition including the Scots Nats. In the end, the only way to prevent this was indeed to vote Tory.

And in doing this, as believers in a United Kingdom, they were surely wise. Ed Miliband had of course dismissed the possibility of a coalition with the Scots Nats. As a politician, he had to do that, and the voters were smart enough to realize this, and largely discount it. It would mean nothing if it turned out that the only possible parliamentary majority, saving a grand coalition, would have to include the Scots Nats. Even if there was no formal coalition, Miliband would have to meet many of their demands. And their stated objective was to break up the UK.

This was exactly the scenario the nation was facing if the final polls were right.

In light of that, a lot of sensible people voted at the last minute for the Tories.

No Demographic Doom

Isn't this what I've been saying? The Canadian Conservatives can be a model for the American Republicans. There is no reason for the right to fear the immigrant vote.

In other news, someone has pointed out that the Republicans are actually doing better nationwide in state legislatures than at any time since the 1920s. So much for demographic doom.