• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

Part 1 of 2

Andrew Coyne (who some readers regard as the devil incarnate), writing in the Globe and Mail, on the Opinion pages I hasten to add, says:

----------

If Pierre Poilievre weren’t so unpleasant, he might get more of a hearing for his agenda. If he has one​

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

G.K. Chesterton

With the Conservatives maintaining a roughly 15-point lead in the polls, some in the party are busy measuring – well, not the drapes, but maybe the mandate. Already there is excited talk of the sweeping reforms Pierre Poilievre will bring to the federal government.

Which is interesting, because the Conservative Leader himself has not proposed any. That is not to say that he has proposed no policies: He has. Most famously, he has promised to repeal the federal carbon tax, at least as it applies to consumers: He has still not said whether he would repeal the industrial version of the tax, though he has lately said he would repeal the federal Clean Fuel Regulations.

He would also repeal, apparently, three federal bills aimed at regulating the internet: Bill C-11 (the Online Streaming Act), Bill C-18 (the Online News Act) and Bill C-63 (the Online Harms Act). He would defund the CBC, or at least the English TV service, though he has been less clear about subsidies to private media.

He has a vague and probably unworkable plan to tie federal infrastructure funding to the number of housing units built in each municipality. He would use the notwithstanding clause to preserve his criminal-justice changes from being invalidated by the Supreme Court, as Stephen Harper’s crime bills were.

After that it gets a lot hazier. He says he would bring the budget back into balance, but won’t say how or on what timeline. He would “work towards” the NATO target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence but again won’t commit to any specific date. He would likely leave in place federal subsidies for electric-vehicle battery makers, and made his party vote in favour of the Liberals’ ban on replacement workers. And while Conservatives did vote against the capital-gains tax increase, he has made no commitment to reverse it.

In other words, a whole lot of more of the same. To be fair, there’s an intriguing proposal that may or may not signal a commitment to fundamental tax reform, but so far it amounts to striking a committee.

As I say, it’s not nothing. But it doesn’t exactly add up to the sort of broad-based agenda for reform his supporters might imagine. Mostly it amounts to reversing some of the most recent, and egregious, of the Trudeau government’s oversteps. While welcome, that would still leave the federal government doing most of what it does now, spending, taxing and regulating most of the same things at more or less the same expense. A revolution it is not.

And that’s before even considering what new ways a Poilievre government might think to spend, tax and regulate in their place. If, for example, the federal carbon tax is to be scrapped, then unless it intends to renege on our emissions-reduction commitments (always a possibility) a Poilievre government will have to find something to replace it. That implies more of the same costly subsidies and regulations that the carbon tax was supposed to replace.

It’s early days, of course. Perhaps, in the year or more before the next federal election, Mr. Poilievre will give us more of a sense of what he is about. As it is, people have been left to guess. Is he one of the new breed of anti-business, pro-worker populists, as Conservative thinker Sean Speer contends, of the kind now dominant among conservatives south of the border?

Is he, by contrast, the last Reagan-Thatcher conservative, holding fast to the limited-government traditions of 20th-century conservatism? Is he a cultural conservative, willing to get into the trenches over speech codes, trans rights and the rest? Or is he in fact a social liberal, at least to judge by his stances on such traditional flashpoints as abortion and gay marriage – or at any rate a non-combatant, a kind of Switzerland in the culture wars?

The answer, of course, is a little bit of each. Mr. Poilievre is above all else a graduate of the Harper school of politics, having been a junior minister in his government. This is sometimes called “incrementalist,” which is quite wrong. Incrementalism implies slow but steady progress in a given direction. Slow the Harper government may have been, but in no discernible direction. Rather, it lurched this way and that, in keeping with the leader’s instincts for appeasing this segment or other of the Conservative coalition.

It made little rhetorical pitches to workers, even threw them the odd policy bone – remember the tax credit on a tradesperson’s tools? – but without any serious commitment to workers’ rights. It talked a good game on taxes, but made no cuts in top marginal tax rates (having blown the bank on cuts to the GST) while cluttering the tax code with “boutique” tax credits. It was every bit as entranced by industrial policy as any of its predecessors, and every bit as committed to protecting important industrial sectors from competition. It spent more, measured in real dollars per citizen, than any previous government.

It courted the immigrant vote with some success, then threw it away with such tilts to intolerance as the “barbaric practices” hotline. It never legislated on abortion, but still winked at pro-lifers, for example by its refusal to fund abortions in developing countries. It talked of its commitment to a strong defence, but cut military spending to historic lows as a proportion of GDP and pulled our troops out of Afghanistan. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

End of Part 1
 

Part 2 of 2

I suspect we will see much the same calculating opportunism from a Poilievre government. It could be a lot worse. So far his nods to populism have tended more to the nutty than the nasty: pandering to online paranoia about the World Economic Forum, or touting the advantages of bitcoin, rather than attacking immigrants or gays. The closest he came to crossing the line was during the Conservative leadership race, when he expressed solidarity with the Freedom Convoy befouling downtown Ottawa and threatened to fire the Bank of Canada Governor. We have seen and heard much less of this sort of thing since.

His statement, for example, in response to the Arnold Viersen affair (Mr. Viersen, a socially conservative MP, had made several wildly off-message comments on a Liberal MP’s podcast), is hard to fault. Not merely a perfunctory “we will not legislate on abortion,” it contains an unambiguous commitment to gay marriage (“Canadians are free to love and marry who they choose”) and locates these in a broader libertarian philosophy: “I will lead a small government that minds its own business, letting people make their own decisions about their love lives, their families, their bodies, their speech, their beliefs and their money.”

So we have some sense of what he won’t do. We have less sense of what he will. And if experience is any guide, it will be accompanied by a lot of partisan sniping and fight-picking: sneering at “so-called” experts, posing as the victim of media lynch mobs, mau-mauing the bureaucracy, and the like, for which Mr. Poilievre admittedly has a natural talent.

Most parties give the job of attack dog to junior ministers and backbenchers – as Mr. Harper did to Mr. Poilievre – leaving them to throw the proverbial red meat to the base while the leader stands above the fray. Mr. Poilievre is unusual in serving as his own attack dog. It is Mr. Poilievre whose antagonistic persona keeps the party’s right fringe intact, preventing it from bleeding support to the People’s Party, while more moderate MPs like Michael Chong try to reassure centrist voters.

Is that the picture, then: a mostly pretty conventional centre-right party, for good or ill, with a snarly, unpleasant leader? But character and policy are not so easily separated. We saw that in the Harper years: The partisan nastiness was not in the service of any substantive policy agenda. Rather, it was a substitute for it: something to keep the base happy without actually doing much of anything. Which is why the Harper government ended up with such a meagre legislative record, after nine years in power.

Perhaps Mr. Poilievre has broader policy ambitions than are yet visible. Doubts about his character are nevertheless bound to constrain his ability to achieve them. Perhaps he has not pandered to the extremes – lately – a voter may reasonably ask, but how much of that is principle, and how much is it just that it doesn’t pay politically? And how much confidence do I have that he would behave the same way, if the incentives were different? What does he really stand for, other than a particularly ugly mix of tribalism and expediency?

So Conservatives should temper their excitement about what a Poilievre government would mean. Talk of “cutting Chesterton’s fence,” ditching the instinctive caution of the traditional conservative in favour of a Poilievritarian revolution, is not just premature: It is unwise.

This isn’t because major changes in policy, generally in a freer-market, lower-tax direction, aren’t in order: I’ve argued on several occasions that they are, especially if we are to break out of the productivity crisis. But you can’t just spring a program of radical change on the public and expect to win the trust needed to see it through.

At the very least, you need to have sought and won a mandate for it. But more than that, you need a party and a leader that have demonstrated the sort of maturity, judgment and goodwill that can convince people the program they are advancing – rooted in principle and tested against the evidence – will make their lives better, and is not just some mad ideological tantrum.

That does not describe the current state of either the Conservative Party or its leader. Voter antipathy to the Liberals may be sufficient to win the election for Mr. Poilievre. But if he wants to do much more than that, he will have to start behaving less like an attack dog, and more like a prime minister.

----------
This stood out for me: "As I say, it’s not nothing. But it doesn’t exactly add up to the sort of broad-based agenda for reform his supporters might imagine. Mostly it amounts to reversing some of the most recent, and egregious, of the Trudeau government’s oversteps. While welcome, that would still leave the federal government doing most of what it does now, spending, taxing and regulating most of the same things at more or less the same expense. A revolution it is not ... [and] ... Is he, by contrast, the last Reagan-Thatcher conservative, holding fast to the limited-government traditions of 20th-century conservatism? Is he a cultural conservative, willing to get into the trenches over speech codes, trans rights and the rest? Or is he in fact a social liberal, at least to judge by his stances on such traditional flashpoints as abortion and gay marriage – or at any rate a non-combatant, a kind of Switzerland in the culture wars? ... [but] ... Perhaps Mr. Poilievre has broader policy ambitions than are yet visible. Doubts about his character are nevertheless bound to constrain his ability to achieve them. Perhaps he has not pandered to the extremes – lately – a voter may reasonably ask, but how much of that is principle, and how much is it just that it doesn’t pay politically? And how much confidence do I have that he would behave the same way, if the incentives were different? What does he really stand for, other than a particularly ugly mix of tribalism and expediency?"
 
... If Canada is against socialism, I fully expect PP to rail against the evil socialist countries of checks notes Norway, Sweden, and Denmark if they form the next govt.
Didn't get that far into the tweet. Good point - maybe always standing against totalitarianism or authoritarianism might have been a broader message. I guess that moves the needle more towards the "socialism =/= freedom and democracy" end of the dial.

Wonder how NATO allies Denmark, Norway, Sweden & Finland are coping with their respective gulags, and lack of freedom and democracy these days? :)

Part 1 of 2

Andrew Coyne (who some readers regard as the devil incarnate), writing in the Globe and Mail, on the Opinion pages I hasten to add, says:

----------

If Pierre Poilievre weren’t so unpleasant, he might get more of a hearing for his agenda. If he has one ...​

I believe he has an agenda - all politicians do, whether it's in writing or not.

What we're not seeing yet is a single summary of what he commits to do if elected PM - bits and pieces here and there, and a policy document saying what the party wants him to do so far.
 
Didn't get that far into the tweet. Good point - maybe always standing against totalitarianism or authoritarianism might have been a broader message. I guess that moves the needle more towards the "socialism =/= freedom and democracy" end of the dial.

Wonder how NATO allies Denmark, Norway, Sweden & Finland are coping with their respective gulags, and lack of freedom and democracy these days? :)
Obviously they need some invadin’ for oil…er…freedom :ROFLMAO:

I believe he has an agenda - all politicians do, whether it's in writing or not.

What we're not seeing yet is a single summary of what he commits to do if elected PM - bits and pieces here and there, and a policy document saying what the party wants him to do so far.
The CPC seems divided on whether they’re campaigning or not. They can’t officially start campaigning until the writ is dropped but it’s pretty clear that it’s already unofficially started. But then, they will say that they don’t want to release too much lest the LPC, etc can attack them on it…but again, it’s not officially campaign season yet.

If someone were to look in from outside, it would seem to them that Canada is in an election campaign from one party, but not from the others.
 
Poilievre isn't wrong though... This is a classic example of using a technicality to ignore the spirit of the argument. It's like ignoring that tomatoes are healthy for you because someone calls them a vegetable.
First rule of Staff Work: words mean stuff.

Not all words are interchangeable to convey a point. Especially when there are very specific definitions for the point you're trying to make.

If you're going to send a tweet out, especially a political statement, words mean stuff.

This isn't picking fly shit out of pepper, this is definitely a "you either meant to say something inflammatory or you're an idiot; explain which one it is" scenario.
 
First rule of Staff Work: words mean stuff.

Not all words are interchangeable to convey a point. Especially when there are very specific definitions for the point you're trying to make.

If you're going to send a tweet out, especially a political statement, words mean stuff.

This isn't picking fly shit out of pepper, this is definitely a "you either meant to say something inflammatory or you're an idiot; explain which one it is" scenario.
You're right, and you're wrong.

You're right in that there are specific meanings for words, and in official and technical documents people should use the most correct word to express their meaning. As a CAF member that is the world that we live in daily, so it makes sense for CAF members to view everything through that lens.

You're wrong in that in informal language we use words incorrectly, to evoke an emotional response in those who are listening/reading. Most of the human population exists in this world, understands what he means, and what others mean when they use hyperbole or other linguistic tricks to evoke emotions. The last thing you saw and called awesome was not technically "awesome", might have been cool, but I doubt it was awe inspiring. Tweets are specifically designed to be short, and emotional, so using technical language in them is ridiculous. Which is why 99% of the political "discussion" on Twitter is people picking fly shit out of pepper.

Words change over time, and in politics the lifespan of word meaning is shorter than is generally the case for non-political/ideological words.

This sort of "gotcha" silliness is what causes people to tune out of political discussions.
 
You're right, and you're wrong.

You're right in that there are specific meanings for words, and in official and technical documents people should use the most correct word to express their meaning. As a CAF member that is the world that we live in daily, so it makes sense for CAF members to view everything through that lens.

You're wrong in that in informal language we use words incorrectly, to evoke an emotional response in those who are listening/reading. Most of the human population exists in this world, understands what he means, and what others mean when they use hyperbole or other linguistic tricks to evoke emotions. The last thing you saw and called awesome was not technically "awesome", might have been cool, but I doubt it was awe inspiring. Tweets are specifically designed to be short, and emotional, so using technical language in them is ridiculous. Which is why 99% of the political "discussion" on Twitter is people picking fly shit out of pepper.

Words change over time, and in politics the lifespan of word meaning is shorter than is generally the case for non-political/ideological words.

This sort of "gotcha" silliness is what causes people to tune out of political discussions.
As a parent of three teenagers, I agree that language changes and social media is a main driving force. (Skibidi rizz, no cap... or whatever the hell that means).

I will disagree that socialism, communism, totalitarianism, authoritanism, fascism, democracy are words that you can interchange in a political discussion. Specifically because they all mean entirely different things (as referenced in my earlier post showing the quadrant chart of Political and Economic ideologies).

As much as we like to belittle our electorate as apathetic or ignorant, we have a large swath of out population that fled authoritarian regimes of both fascist and communist regimes. We have others that have sought refuge in our liberal socialist democracy here in Canada.

The CPC trying to play a fast and loose game of "socialism is evil" in Canada in 2024 will have far more "well actually..." responses than you'd expect. If its not wired tight going out, even in a Tweet, you're setting yourself up for backlash.

Ask DAPA how well their latest rebranding went when they released it into the Memeiverse. Incoherent messaging is an easy target for ridicule:1000022138.png
 
As a parent of three teenagers, I agree that language changes and social media is a main driving force. (Skibidi rizz, no cap... or whatever the hell that means).
Yeah... I think it's like much of the silliness that was said by "trendy" people when we were younger, silliness to be "different". Most of the slang of the last 60 years has fades into obscurity within a year or two of being trendy. When is the last time you heard some call something "phat" instead of cool?

I will disagree that socialism, communism, totalitarianism, authoritanism, fascism, democracy are words that you can interchange in a political discussion. Specifically because they all mean entirely different things (as referenced in my earlier post showing the quadrant chart of Political and Economic ideologies).
In a broad sense I agree with you, but in daily use each of those words is thrown around by all points of the political spectrum to praise or belittle the others, with little regard for the technical meaning.

Canada is a democracy, in that we vote for our MPs, but we aren't a direct democracy. People will still refer to us as a democracy in casual speak, because specifying a "Westminster style parliamentary democracy" is cumbersome.

The Nazis literally called themselves socialist, and had socialist policies. They also had a lot of ultra-nationalism, xenophobia, racism, antisemitism, authoritarianism, etc...
The CPC trying to play a fast and loose game of "socialism is evil" in Canada in 2024 will have far more "well actually..." responses than you'd expect. If its not wired tight going out, even in a Tweet, you're setting yourself up for backlash.
It will have those responses from about the same 24% of the population that will support the LPC regardless of what the CPC says...

Note who on here has been commenting with negative responses regarding the tweet. Notice that all of them have been from posters who are largely inclined to dislike the CPC, and PP more specifically? Echo chambers are a thing, even here on Army.ca.
 
In a broad sense I agree with you, but in daily use each of those words is thrown around by all points of the political spectrum to praise or belittle the others, with little regard for the technical meaning.
A bug or a feature in the past 10- 15 years of political discourse? Disinformation and doublespeak are powerful tools to sow animosity and further split voters into factions, vice actually targeting issues outside the party narrative.

Canada is a democracy, in that we vote for our MPs, but we aren't a direct democracy. People will still refer to us as a democracy in casual speak, because specifying a "" is cumbersome.
Westminster style constitutional monarchy 😉 which in itself gets some hackles up in Republican sects of the country. Never the less, I agree with your point.

The Nazis literally called themselves socialist, and had socialist policies. They also had a lot of ultra-nationalism, xenophobia, racism, antisemitism, authoritarianism, etc...
What's in a name? As the Bard would ask on this situation. 1920s Germany saw The Communists/Bolsheviks as a threat to their fragile Republic, especially after the bloody Russian Civil War and the rather... well... murderous tendencies of Lenin and his ilk.

Socialism is a nice soft moniker to adopt. Its social, for the people, everything is for the Greater Good right?

The NAZIs very quickly moved full tilt into fascist and authoritarian rule, using Mussolini's Italy as a guiding model. Because he ruled with an iron fist, he was able to turn Italy's economy around on a dime (sound familiar?).

Words do have meaning, but their perversion is just as deliberate. The CPC's interchangeably of socialism for fascism is just as deliberate.

It will have those responses from about the same 24% of the population that will support the LPC regardless of what the CPC says...
Not everyone who raising an eyebrow at incompetence is on the other side of the fence. I have no passion for the LPC nor outright hostility for the CPC, merely a "wow... that was a stupid thing to say" stance that I would take regardless of whatever colour of Parliamentarian made it.
Note who on here has been commenting with negative responses regarding the tweet. Notice that all of them have been from posters who are largely inclined to dislike the CPC, and PP more specifically? Echo chambers are a thing, even here on Army.ca.

I will agree that this is a case with any specific set of demographics. Its also why I distrust polling as a metric for predicting elections.

As was stated above by @Colin Parkinson

We have a long road ahead before we cast a ballot. Minor dents add up, no matter how big a lead they have.

Intention is everything in politics, at least in my eyes. Poorly worded Tweets show a lack of it and makes me more eager to scrutinize things like platforms, policy decisions, and where I want my ballot to head on or before October 2025.
 
Fascism and communism are both authoritarian, and hence both are eventually tyrannical. Neither is enthusiastic about independent key institutions like legislatures, courts, and media. Where they differ is mainly in the realm of economics, and specifically the idea of state ownership. "Fascist" is the intellectually lazy epithet progressives use for conservatives, and "communist" is the intellectually laze epithet used by conservatives for progressives.
 
Not everyone who raising an eyebrow at incompetence is on the other side of the fence. I have no passion for the LPC nor outright hostility for the CPC, merely a "wow... that was a stupid thing to say" stance that I would take regardless of whatever colour of Parliamentarian made it.
This goes back to my first point, we exist in a different language world than the average person.

We live in a world of technical documents, policy, and regulations. Words mean things, and they have to be both specific and correct, or things fall apart. I was the expert in the CAF WRT weather observing and instruments for the last five years. I also worked on national regulations WRT weather observations and standards alongside Transport Canada, Environment Canada, and Nav Canada. I get being picky about wording.

My point was and is, this nitpicking is a tempest-in-a-teapot, and the sort of pedantic foolishness that drives people away from political discussions.

The people who dislike PP will see it as him attempting to dismantle healthcare and other social programmes, and the people who like him see it as a stance against an authoritarian trend in Western governments.

Most of the population is unaware that he even tweeted it, nor do they care.
 
Fascism and communism are both authoritarian, and hence both are eventually tyrannical. Neither is enthusiastic about independent key institutions like legislatures, courts, and media. Where they differ is mainly in the realm of economics, and specifically the idea of state ownership. "Fascist" is the intellectually lazy epithet progressives use for conservatives, and "communist" is the intellectually laze epithet used by conservatives for progressives.
Well summed up for both sides there.

Back to the original tweet, though, if what he meant was standing against tyranny, or totalitarianism, or dictatorship, he could have used those words. These tweets don't send that message. Within the context of the older tweet, while he may be against authoritarianism, the words points to painting "socialism", not authoritarianism, as the bogeyman.
Poilievre isn't wrong though... This is a classic example of using a technicality to ignore the spirit of the argument ...
That could also be seen as another version of, "you KNOW what they mean." And we know how well reading other people's tea leaves goes in political discussions.
This goes back to my first point, we exist in a different language world than the average person ... I get being picky about wording. My point was and is, this nitpicking is a tempest-in-a-teapot, and the sort of pedantic foolishness that drives people away from political discussions.
I agree with you re: the gang that hangs out here tends to look at words more closely, but ....
... Most of the population is unaware that he even tweeted it, nor do they care ...
... while in general correct, how people read certain words can come back to haunt someone. A recent example from our southern neighbours ...
"We" KNOW what he "meant", but that didn't stop his critics.

Can't disagree with this, either, at the extremes ....
... The people who dislike PP will see it as him attempting to dismantle healthcare and other social programmes, and the people who like him see it as a stance against an authoritarian trend in Western governments ....
I don't see it as trying to dismantle programs per se, but there's a case that it's a clear dig at "socialism", which he defines as both fascism and communism. And it'll be interesting to see how some might use these tweets as proof of whatever THEIR definition of "socialism" is not on.

It's all in the eye of the beholder.
 
Edit to add: If Canada is against socialism, I fully expect PP to rail against the evil socialist countries of checks notes Norway, Sweden, and Denmark if they form the next govt.
I would argue that the Scandinavian countries are not “socialist”. The governments do not own the means of production. They have a thriving market economy with many successful private companies. I would consider them “welfare states”. 🙂
 
Well summed up for both sides there.

Back to the original tweet, though, if what he meant was standing against tyranny, or totalitarianism, or dictatorship, he could have used those words. These tweets don't send that message. Within the context of the older tweet, while he may be against authoritarianism, the words points to painting "socialism", not authoritarianism, as the bogeyman.

That could also be seen as another version of, "you KNOW what they mean." And we know how well reading other people's tea leaves goes in political discussions.

I agree with you re: the gang that hangs out here tends to look at words more closely, but ....

... while in general correct, how people read certain words can come back to haunt someone. A recent example from our southern neighbours ...
"We" KNOW what he "meant", but that didn't stop his critics.

Can't disagree with this, either, at the extremes ....

I don't see it as trying to dismantle programs per se, but there's a case that it's a clear dig at "socialism", which he defines as both fascism and communism. And it'll be interesting to see how some might use these tweets as proof of whatever THEIR definition of "socialism" is not on.

It's all in the eye of the beholder.
I read something recently that argued that facts bolster both sides’ arguments bc of confirmation bias, rather than decisively prove one side over another.

Not 2+2=4, but like a mass shooting would embolden both gun control supporters and 2A folks in the US, to diametrically opposed arguments.
 
Back
Top