Maple DOGE

 

Actual unretouched photograph courtesy of Craiyon

I think Trump’s DOGE is a powerful idea that would make a great campaign issue for Pierre Poilievre if he has the nerve to grab it. Of course, the Liberals would respond by pointing out that Poilievre is “taking a page from the Trump playbook.” And Trump is far from a popular figure in Canada.Poilievre would have to be ready to wear this.

I think he must. He is going to have to wear this anyway. No matter what he does or says, because he is ideologically aligned with Trump, the Liberals will say this. The smart thing to do is to walk right into it. Be a leader, not a follower; attack, don’t defend. Explain why this idea of Trump’s is a good idea, and should be done here.

The Liberals cannot co-opt this issue, as they have done with the carbon tax, because the bureaucracy is their base. It also works well against Carney, because Carney is the ultimate bureaucrat. Suddenly his supposed expertise, which looks good for confronting Trump, works against him. He is a swamp creature. And for the common taxpayer, it has to be a winner. Week by week, new revelations about ridiculous spending. And with them the hope of lower taxes, without a reduction in services.

Introducing an attention-grabbing proposal like this could take the focus off the Trump tariffs, which are a losing issue for the Conservatives. And it could remedy the problem of looking dull and squishy in light of Trump’s dramatic actions next door.

Kevin O’Leary seems to me the best outsider to enlist to manage the inquisition; he seems ready and eager for some such role. He has a talent for publicity, a public reputation for financial probity, and experience as an entrepreneur and venture capitalist. Below him, he should have the smarts to hire some guys who previously worked with Musk on DOGE. If this sounds too flashy for Canadian tastes, Stephen Harper might be up for the role. He is at least a trained economist, and the finances looked much more sound under his tenure.

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.

Bananapants

 

I think I have evidence that Leslyn Lewis follows this blog. Her response here to being accused of meeting with Christine Anderson is close to what I suggested ought to have been Pierre Poilievre's response to the charge when first raised.

What I suggested:

“Christine Anderson is a democratically elected representative of the German people. Not to entertain and to respect her shows contempt for the German people, our good friends and allies. It does not mean we agree with all her views. Cooperating with those with whom we sometimes disagree, on matters of agreement, is the lifeblood of democracy. It is the lifeblood of civil society. Much of the ill-will and suffering in Canada today is caused by a Prime Minister who refuses to even speak with those with whom he disagrees, who simply calls them names and slanders them, as ‘racists or ‘misogynists’ or ‘antisemites’ and the like. 

This man who danced around in blackface with his tongue out and a banana stuffed down his trousers.

We Conservatives do not want that kind of Canada, nor that kind of world. We respect people, the people of Germany and the people of Canada, and we welcome those who come here from abroad.”

The original post is here.

Mr. Sunshine Baby liked it:

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.

Poilievre Takes the Canadian Conservative Leadership

 

The good news continues to build. Pierre Poilievre has won the Tory leadership with over 68% of the vote.

The talking heads on CBC of course insist that he cannot win an election. He has to “pivot to the centre,” and his positions have been too radical to do that.

But if he is going to pivot to the centre, what was the point in dropping Erin O’Toole? What was the point of electing O’Toole instead of McKay? What is the point of voting Conservative instead of Liberal? What is the point of even voting? Do we all just leave it to the entrenched elite and the deep state to carry on as they have always carried on, without any awkward disruptions? The particular politicians in power just put a smiley face on the same policies, deluding the people into thinking they have made a choice and have a say.

Pivoting to the centre is not just immoral. It is bad electoral advice for the right or those out of power. The need is to make your point. The need is to lead.

Poilievre seems to be a great communicator. That is the essence of all great leaders. That is the essence of Zelenskyy in the Ukraine today. That was the essence of Winston Churchill. That was the essence of Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher. That is the essence of Donald Trump. Trump did not win by moving to the centre; he moved the centre to him. He reoriented the public agenda. If you cannot inspire, you cannot lead.

And another secret: you cannot be a great communicator if you have nothing to say. A great communicator must always have a message that sounds startling, new, radical. This was the tragedy of Boris Johnson. With magnificent pipes, after Brexit, he had no message.

Poilievre is a great speaker. He is great, like Thatcher and Reagan, perhaps better, at explaining economic concepts in clear terms. In his speech last night, there was the great illustration of ten loaves of bread, and ten dollars in the economy. Make that twenty dollars, and there are still only ten loaves of bread.

Yes, those he opposes say he sounds harsh. That’s how you always sound if you are winning the argument. To those who are losing, you are always going to seem worse than Hitler. As Harry Truman had it, “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth, and to them it sounds like hell.”

Poilievre is also great at social media, like Trump, so that he can bypass the media gatekeepers. The lack of this talent has hindered Maxime Bernier.

It turns out his wife is also photogenic and great at giving a speech, at least based on her performance last night.

During CBC’s coverage, Chantal Hebert noted that Poilievre is more comfortable in French than any Conservative or PC leader since the later incarnation of Joe Clark. In the leadership vote, he carried every Quebec riding but six, running against a prominent native son. His wife is also fluent in French.

He necessarily has a united and energized party behind him. Nobody’s going to soon start an internal insurrection against someone who commands 68% of the party membership; it would be political suicide. And any party opposition to him is not united: 17% for Aitchison and Charest, on his left, and 14% for Lewis and Baber on his right. Either side would rather see Poilievre than the other.

I rather hope Trudeau is arrogant enough to call a snap election this fall or spring. This would follow the old Stephen Harper playbook of defining an opponent and taking him out before the public got to know him. So he and the Liberal operatives might think this clever.

I think it would be a grave misjudgment of the moment. The Conservatives are all fired up, and it feels like a movement—Poilievremania.

Brownout

 

I have to admit to a sense of satisfaction about Patrick Brown being tossed out of the CPC leadership race by the party. It feels as though justice has been served.

There is a danger of the leadership race being manipulated by the party brass; this seems to have happened in the last race, which selected Erin O’Toole. On the other hand, candidates cannot be allowed to flout the rules, either; as seemed to happen when Patrick Brown won the Ontario leadership, or when Mulroney beat Clark for the federal job. And in Brown’s campaign, something smelled wrong. Why and how would a mere small-city mayor get so many new party members signed up, when his platform was indistinguishable from that of a much higher-profile candidate, Jean Charest? Not to mention Brown’s prior history of political jiggery-pokery. 

It feels like a much cleaner Conservative party with Brown out of the running.

Charest can hope to get the lion’s share of Brown’s support, if we count only votes that were not bought. This will allow him to mount a stronger challenge on the first ballot. But he was always likely to be a Brown voter’s second choice, and get those votes on a later ballot; or vice versa, had Brown outpolled him on the first. And the bought or fraudulent votes from the Brown campaign will probably just evaporate; improving Poilievre’s chances. If he does not take it on the first ballot, Baber’s and Lewis’s voters are likely to have him listed as a later choice. All Charest can still hope for is some of Aitcheson’s supporters. And there is no way Charest is going to lead on the first ballot.

Barring some upset, that looks like a wrap for Pierre P.

The State of the Conservative Race

 

Since more than half of the current membership of the Conservative Party have been recruited through Pierre Poilievre’s website, the strong presumption must be that he is going to win the Tory leadership on the first ballot. It is now unlikely that any Conservative politicians are going to see a future in attacking him publicly; or, indeed, supporting his rivals. We may be at the point of inevitability. 

The strategy of Jean Charest and Patrick Brown until now, of attacking Poilievre with unprecedented venom, now looks very bad for them. Especially for Charest, who has the bigger reputation, and more to lose. Given that Brown reputedly signed up 150,000 new members, Charest looks likely to come no higher than third on the first ballot. That’s especially an embarrassment for someone with his stature. Thinking only in terms of his own political future, I would bow out now, declare my enthusiastic support for Poilievre, and make much of calling for party unity. Even start actively campaigning for Poilievre. He could then look like the kingmaker, and could claim to have made a personal sacrifice for the party. If Poilievre wins the next election, he might hope for an important cabinet post. If Poiiievre loses, he has now paid his dues and would be well-positioned to run as his replacement.

If Charest drops out, will others stay in? Brown might not. Lewis might as well stay on as a spare in case emergency, and to keep it interesting; but will stop attacking the frontrunner. Baber and Atchison might as well stay in, as they were always only in to raise their profiles.

But it’s liable to be a quiet race from here on in.

The Conservative Groundswell

 

The Pierre Poilievre campaign claims they have signed up over 300,000 new members to the Conservative Party through their website. The Patrick Brown campaign claims 150,000 more. The Poilievre figure alone more than doubles the number of members of the Conservative Party--without yet taking into account those signed up by the other campaigns, or who signed up directly, as I did, at the CPC website to participate in their leadership race.

Something important is happening in Canadian politics.

Rather than being impressed or acknowledging the historic nature of this groundswell, a panel of politicos hosted by the CBC warned that Pierre Poilievre was "playing with fire,” appealing to people who would not go along with a move to the centre for the next federal election.

Assuming Poilievre had to move to the centre for the general election.

No concern that it was dishonest to run on one platform for the leadership, and switch up for the general election. No concern that this large number of committed people supporting Poilievre deserved to be represented. The general public was, to these politicians, cattle, to be deceived and controlled. And this was spoken openly, and not hidden.

To be fair, you might argue that they are only being realistic; that to get the most votes, you need to straddle the ideological middle. However, this assumption, although it seems logical, is not borne out by the facts. Mike Harris in Ontario, Rob Ford in Toronto, Ralph Klein in Alberta, Francois Legault in Quebec, all proved highly successful in elections while maintaining a hard right position, at least rhetorically. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Stephen Harper, Donald Trump all were successful with a hard right stance. Erin O’Toole, Mitt Romney, John McCain all fell short lunging for the centre. 

It is a losing proposition for an opposition party to try to take the centre ground. What is considered the centre ground is largely defined by the party in power. If the electorate likes their policies, they are going to stick with the government. If they do not like their policies, they are still not going to see any reason to vote in a new party that promises the same policies

This is equally true for the left or the right. In the recent Ontario election, the Liberals and NDP agreed with the ruling Tories on everything. Result: win for the Tories. In 2015, Tom Mulcair’s NDP made a lunge for power by moving to the centre. Result: win for the Liberals, who ran uncharacteristically further to the left.

I assume political operatives know their business. They realize then that the idea that the Tories must move to the centre is electoral bunk. Rather, they are demanding it as an obligation to fellow members of the ruling class that everyone take the approved stand on all the issues, and not allow the common hoi polloi a say.

This is what “the centre” really means. It really means “the party line.” Only in such a situation can at leasthalf the electorate be declared “far right,” and "populism" be called "far right." That necessarily implies that “the centre” is actually well to the left on the spectrum of actual popular opinion.

The Early Odds for the Conservative Leadership

 

It is rather odd that Pierre Poilievre has announced for the Tory leadership when he did, on a Saturday, a day when people are liable to miss the news, and when other big news stories are competing for attention. He is also announcing before the date or the rules for the contest have even been set.

The announcement must have been preemptive. His people must have feared someone else might beat him to it and soak up some of his potential support. Who?

Leslyn Lewis, perhaps. But here’s another possibility: Jordan Peterson. Peterson has not dismissed political ambitions. He might or might not have been about to actually declare, but his hints of interest might have started a “draft Peterson” movement.

Peterson might be the only other candidate who stands a chance against Poilievre. Poilievre is a star in question period, and a star in social media. He is fluently bilingual. He is from Ontario, but his rightist politics are in sync with the West. He has cabinet experience. He is eloquent, and has great political instincts.

 It is hard to see who else can go up against him. John Baird has been floated; but Baird just endorsed Poilievre. Brad Wall is not bilingual, and probably not interested. Peter MacKay is still paying off debts from last time.

In theory, given that Poilievre is on the party’s right, there ought to be room for a candidate on the left. But such a candidate probably has no chance of winning. Last time out, Peter MacKay failed to win for the left wing, despite having a far higher profile and far more experience than the three right-wing candidates. This time, the rules have changed to favour the right: from one hundred votes per constituency, the party is going to one member, one vote. That means suddenly most votes are coming from Alberta and the West.

Someone has to run, just to show the flag, to show the party’s diversity, to make it a contest. And as they say, “a week is a long time in politics.” Certainly there are other names being floated. Anything can happen.

But the early line has to be overwhelmingly Poilievre.

Gunter: O'Toole Is a Dud

 

I'm getting the same feeling.

So Much for Canada's International Crredibility

Seems I'm not the only one who was shocked by recent CBC coverage of the Epoch Times.

I was delighted, by the w3ay, to find the Epoch Times's special edition in my mailbox.

I figure it's a collectable now.

The CBC's Falun Gong Show

Someone wise once said we should never attribute to malice what can be explained by ordinary human incompetence.

Clinging desperately to that principle, I am stunned by the journalistic incompetence of this report by the CBC.

To begin with, this is not news. Some average Canadian is upset by a piece of unsolicited mail? Dog bites man. First rule of journalism broken.

Second, any news story is supposed to include both sides of a controversy. Second rule of journalism broken. The piece should quote Epoch Times in response to the woman’s charges. It should also quote an expert who thinks the virus originated in the Wuhan lab. There are many. I believe this has become the majority opinion among the experts.

Certainly, the assertion by the average Canadian featured that “we know scientifically that’s just not true” needed to be challenged. It was objectively false.

The CBC narrator later says Epoch Times claims the virus was developed as a bioweapon. This is objectively false as well. The Epoch Times did not say this; it only referred to it as a possibility. Fake news.

The anonymous average Canadian interviewee is quoted calling the Epoch Times “racist,” without this being challenged.

The Epoch Times is here being highly critical of the Chinese Communist Party. The Epoch Times is owned and run by a group of Chinese Americans. Same race.

The Epoch Times is affiliated in some way with Falun Gong. The CBC refers to them as “a dissident group that has locked horns with the Chinese Communist Party.” It might be debatable to what extent and in what way the Falun Gong has been persecuted in China—organ harvesting or no organ harvesting—there is no question that they are being persecuted. And the is no question the dispute began with the CCP attacking Falun Gong, not vice versa, in violation of the principle of freedom of religion which we consider a human right. Speaking of them as having “locked horns” with the CCP, is like referring to the German Jews having “locked horns” with Hitler. This is not a conflict in which a moral person can be neutral. Much less support, as the CBC does here, the Chinese Communists.

Can you imagine them having supported the Soviet government against Sakharov or Solzhenitsyn, declaring the latter racists? The difference in treatment of Russian Communist governments and Chinese Communist governments indeed suggests racism—on the part of the CBC.

It interviews an unidentified woman saying that, because the Epoch Times “always has the same position on a particular issue,” “that’s not journalism. Is it propaganda?” Cleverly worded, perhaps, so the CBC cannot be sued. But by this standard, The Economist magazine is also propaganda, not journalism. It has a consistent position on free markets. Essentially all magazines or newspapers have consistent editorial positions: it is the usual reason for starting a journal, and the usual reason for subscribing to one. In a word, it is journalism.

This is at the same time an example of the simplest and most easily recognized of all logical fallacies: an ad hominem argument. Not the sort of thing a professional journalistic outlet should ever be guilty of; the sort of thing a professional journalistic outlet should be educating the public out of. The reporting of the Epoch Times, like any reporting, must be evaluated on its merits.

The narrator’s arch concluding comment: ““If people don’t like it, they can always drop it in the recycling bin.”

The tragedy is, Canadians cannot do the same with the CBC. We are forced to pay for it, even if we are not forced to watch it.

Someone should be fired over this.

Advice for the New Canadian Tory Leader

The possible result

Scott Gilmore of MacLean’s has offered 10 helpful suggestions that, he maintains, would “guarantee” the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada a win.

Never take advice from an adversary. They will not vote for you anyway, and they do not have your best interests in mind.

Gilmore’s ten suggestions:

1. “Stop fetishizing rural Canada”

2. “Be Canadian.”

3. “Understand demographics”

4. “Have some shame”

5. “Respect parliament”

6. “Believe in climate change”

7. “Believe in free markets”

8. “Believe in individual liberty”

9. “Have a plan to share”

10. “Want to be prime minister”

And, unnumbered, but inserted at the end: “Ovaries.”

It should be obvious from the subheads that Gilmore is not about helping the Conservatives; these are just thinly disguised criticisms.

“Stop fetishizing rural Canada.” Eerily echoing the classic “when did you stop beating your wife?” “Fetishizing” is not a neutral term.

The Conservatives do appeal more to people outside the largest urban centres, with significant caveats: they blow out the other parties in Calgary and Edmonton, both among Canada’s largest metro areas. In Quebec, they do best in Quebec City. They often dominate the suburbs of Toronto. The current mayor of Toronto, like the last one, is a Tory. If, then, there is a rural/urban split, it may be more a Liberal than a Tory problem.

It is also hard to believe that the Conservatives do not want more votes from the cities. Are they really “fetishizing” rural voters at the expense of such an appeal? Gilmore would need to give evidence of where and how this is so.

Grant for the sake of argument that the Tories seem to pay more attention to rural concerns than either the Liberals or the NDP. If the Tories too concentrated on the cities, where would that leave the rural voters and their concerns? Is it really good for democracy if all the parties are saying the same thing and favouring and ignoring all the same groups?

“Be Canadian.” Suggestion two accuses the Conservatives of not being a national party, of caring only for the West. This is the same criticism the Tories level at the Liberals: that they are not a national party, having no representation in either Alberta or Saskatchewan. The Tories have no representation in Newfoundland or PEI; but these are smaller provinces. Regionalism is a standard and longstanding Canadian problem, affecting all parties. It would be great if one of them could unite the country. A feat last accomplished by Stephen Harper.

But the same issue arises here as with the urban/rural divide: if both the Liberals and Tories tend to favour Ontario and Quebec, and neglect the West, is that really better? And is it better to take this matter out of the hands of voters?

“Understand demographics.” This is the stock appeal to youth: “Be the party of the next generation, not just our grandparents’ generation.” It presupposes that young people are as a body further to the left than older people, and they will remain on the left as they age. Both premises are dubious. There are indications that the youngest among us are starting to buck the politically correct dogmas of their elders. Political pendulums swing, and not being sensitive to that can be a good way to march yourself right off a cliff. Ask the UK Labour Party.

There are also lots of indications that the average person moves rightward in their politics once they start a family, assume a mortgage, and get more skin in the social game.

This second factor gains more significance in a time when we are not reproducing at replacement level. And, as someone has observed, people with conservative values tend to have more children. Over time, all else being equal, the centre of political gravity is at least as likely to shift to the right.

“Have some shame”? This is a call for honesty in politics. Which is a good point for all politicians, certainly not just Tories, and increasingly important. Yet this is an argument against the rest of the points Gilmore is advancing: it is an argument against tacking and trimming one’s ideological principles for electoral gain.

It seems to me that the tendency to do so is what held Scheer back in the last election. Sincerity and consistency is what is giving Sanders his surge over Elizabeth Warren. In the current climate, with social media catching you out when you prevaricate, it is better to own your beliefs.

It would be especially effective against Justin Trudeau, who now comes across to most Canadians as deeply insincere.

“Respect parliament.” This too speaks to a real problem. The Canadian parliament has become a monkey show unbefitting a democracy. It is a national disgrace. However, it is the Liberals who created the problem, by giving Chretien as leader the power to reject candidates he did not like. This makes the party leader a dictator over their caucus. Unfortunately, the same disease has infected the Conservatives. But it is clearly not as bed; for Andrew Scheer was forced out rather easily. It is also Michael Chong, on the Conservative side, if as a private member, who has tried to rectify this imbalance.

“Believe in climate change.” Besides the appeal to dishonesty—one should not choose one’s beliefs for electoral advantage, but on the evidence—this is even bad advice in electoral terms. The Liberals, NDP, and Greens are all in on climate change, competing over who can sound most extreme. Even if a majority of Canadians support strong government measures here, that majority is therefore split three ways. The Conservatives, by holding back, are in a much stronger position if this becomes the key issue in an election.

The same problem is seen again here as in so many of Gilmore’s proposals: it would leave the three major parties—four, counting the BQ—holding the same position on an issue on which there is considerable room for disagreement, leaving Canadians disenfranchised.

Besides the anti-democratic effect, this is a formula for unrest. It was the same sense of being denied a choice, over Charlottetown and Meech Lake, that led to the rupture of the Progressive Conservatives a generation ago. It was the same sense of being denied a choice that led to Brexit. Heck, it was the same sense of being denied a choice that led to the American Revolution.

“Believe in free markets.” This is cynical, claiming that the Tories must not believe in free markets if they do not support a carbon tax. Whatever the merits of alternative proposals, a carbon tax imposed to alter the market forces is not a free market solution. The free market approach would be to leave it to consumers if they want to pay extra for “green” products. Some clearly will.

“Believe in individual liberty.” The Tories according to Gilmore care too much about “who I sleep with, what I smoke or what gender I choose.” But that is the Tory position: they do not care about such things. They do not want to raise these issues. They do not want the government involved. It is the left that has been raising these issues. It is also the left that has been aggressively infringing on individual liberty over the years on each of them: now you MUST march in pride parades, you MUST cater gay weddings, you MUST use whatever pronouns a transgender demands, you MUST NOT smoke, you MUST NOT vape, and so forth.

“Have a plan to share”: i.e., release a clear and detailed platform. I think this, at least, is good advice for Tories. Not that voters care that much about the details of a platform. But otherwise they are inevitably going to be accused of having some “hidden agenda.”

“Want to be prime minister.” In other words, abandon all Tory principles, or you will lose.

So much for Gilmore’s call for sincerity. I think he is right there, and so wrong here. People are not so easily conned as they once were.

The trick is that you have to stand up and defend your beliefs. This was Reagan’s secret, and Margaret Thatcher’s, and Bernie Sanders’, and Winston Churchill’s. That is what we have leaders for.

“Ovaries”: in a healthy, egalitarian, non-sexist society, it should be anathema to make one’s sexual organs a qualification for office. But even in practical terms, how well did it go for the Tories last time they tried that gimmick? Kim Campbell—worst defeat in Canadian history. How well did that go for the NDP? Compare how Audrey McLaughlin or Alexa MacDonaugh did electorally with Ed Broadbent, before them, or Jack Layton, after them. How well did it go when the REpublicans chose Sarah Palin as VP candidate? How well did it go for the Democrats when they chose Geraldine Ferraro? Worst presidential defeat since 1936. How well did it go when they chose Hillary Clinton as their nominee?

It is usually a gimmick, usually involving advancing some woman beyond her level of competence just because she is a woman. Voters know it is a gimmick, and tend to recoil. They are not the stupid rubes the commentariat thinks them to be.

My own advice for the next Tory Leader:

1. Speak French.

2. Lean libertarian as ground on which Tories can unite and appeal to new voters.

3. Be sincere.

4. Defend your views aggressively with the press.

5. Try a moderately disruptive tone rather than smiling conciliation. Tap the populist discontent.

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.

Proposed Platform for the Conservative Party of Canada

These proposals are perhaps radical, but I think they are realistically marketable. Unfortunately, politicians tend to bow to popular opinion and, even worse, the consensus in the press, instead of advocating for policies and trying to change opinions. The latter is real leadership. It was what Reagan, Thatcher, and Churchill were so good at. But it is very hard to do: you have to be an exceptional communicator to bypass the press.

National Unity

Move the capital to Montreal. I would propose doing this slowly, piece by piece, to keep the costs down. First up: the GG’s residence and the Houses of Parliament. Government departments can remain in Ottawa for the time being, but any new physical plant, as needed, is in Montreal. The reasoning for this has been given elsewhere: it makes Quebec separation almost unthinkable.

Reform the Senate: make it elected, but have senators elected not by province or region, but by proportional representation from a Canada-wide franchise. Everybody votes for all senators. The Senate becomes the house of national unity. Bypasses bickering about how many senators per province, too.

Promise to appoint only non-political figures as GG and LG. In practice, appoint distinguished actors, for reasons given elsewhere. The GGship, in the hands of a skilled actor, can be a powerful image of nationhood and a force for national unity.

Give preference for immigration to Christians and Jews. This ought to be uncontroversial: we similarly give preference to those who already speak English or French, because they will more readily fit in. In the same way, Christians and Jews will more readily fit in than others, because they share a crucial element of culture with the existing majority. This is not religious discrimination under the Charter, because the guarantee of freedom of religion legally applies to citizens, not foreigners. This would allay some of the fears in Quebec which have generated the Quebec Charter of Values. It would also be justifiable on grounds of human rights, because currently, Jews and Christians face widespread discrimination and physical danger in large parts of the world. In the meantime, shared values really do make for a more unified nation.

End all funding to “multiculturalism.” Canadian government money should only be funding Canadian culture.


The Economy

A no-brainer, and no longer even controversial: seek free trade deals wherever possible.

End all subsidies to corporations. This, David Lewis showed years ago, can be sold as “ending corporate welfare.” It is a waste of money for the government to try to manipulate the free market by subsidizing this or that industry or player. It is also obviously unjust. And it is an open door to graft and corruption. One reason why it is so popular with politicians. End it, and the economy should benefit quickly from the lack of this distortion.

Simplify the income tax code. I’d say “introduce a flat tax,” but nobody really wants a flat tax in the literal sense. The idea is to simplify the tax code as much as is realistically possible to reduce its distortions of the economy and to reduce the huge costs in money and time in conforming to it.

Remove the right to strike for all public employees. The idea of a strike against the public is an ideological mooncalf, nonsensical on any respectable theory of government. This should prevent disruptions to the economy and reduce the costs of government.

Legally limit compensation for public employees to a fixed percentage of the average compensation for Canadians performing the same or a similar job in the private sector. Do the same for public employee pensions. As a matter of course, public servants should make somewhat less than those in the private sector, in return for their relative job security. They now make more--creating an unelected ruling class. Of course, this will also save money, and should boost the economy.


Health Care

This is a growing issue as the population ages; savings are needed. Health is, of course, properly under provincial jurisdiction, but the Federal government has taken a major role with the Canada Health funding mechanism.

First, allow pharmacists to prescribe. This will drastically reduce the need for doctor visits, and so drastically reduce the costs of health care.

Second, permit a small deductible to Canada Health, to discourage frivolous use. Maybe $5 per visit or procedure? Not much more than a city bus ride, after all.

De-fund abortion and contraception. These are obviously, at a minimum, elective procedures, not to mention unrelated to health and a violation of freedom of religion if government funded.

Allow private hospitals or clinics to collect from Canada Health. This simply introduces the element of competition, and is standard throughout Europe. It is disastrous not to allow it, especially now that Canadians may soon no longer be able to go to the US for procedures.


Human Rights

Abolish the hate laws. They are an obvious and automatic violation of freedom of speech.

Abolish all “affirmative action.” As American Chief Justice Roberts put it, “The way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating.”

End all federal funding for advocacy groups. Government funding for advocacy groups is a violation of equal protection. Save money and end graft at the same time.

Pass common-sense restrictions on abortion: no abortion after the first trimester, say. While I would prefer a stronger ban, I bow here to political realities. But Canada is one of only four countries in the world that have no restrictions at all on abortion. And two of the other three are not good company.

Decriminalize marijuana use; “look into” decriminalizing other drugs. A bow here to the libertarians—a constituency we want to nail down. The “war on drugs” has been about as effective as Prohibition, for all the same reasons. It is time to wake up to this and move on. Doing so should sharply reduce crime and violence, and boost the economy (tourism from the US, for example…not to mention BC agriculture…). I’d rather decriminalize all drug use; but that is probably too radical politically. Decriminalize cannabis for now, and strike a commission to start the national debate.


Foreign Affairs

Don’t abolish the CBC; turn it into an international service. At home, it is an unjustifiable intrusion into the free market; not to mention being totally unnecessary in this era of low-cost media. Beamed abroad, however, it could be a useful experiment in “soft power”: establishing and promoting the Canadian brand, Canadian influence, and the popular desire for Canadian products. No harm in letting Canadians pick it up on cable and satellite as well; but the mission statement needs to change.

Key foreign aid strictly to human rights. Canada is in an enviable position; it can afford to really do this. Big powers cannot; they have too many geopolitical interests to protect. By doing this consistently, we again boost the Canadian brand and soft power throughout the world.

Be nice to the Americans. It is puerile to cause them any unnecessary grief—and it looks like that to the rest of the world. Aside from anything else, being a good neighbor is just good manners.