Apparently, Nenshi is quite keen on formally seperating the Alberta NDP from the federal party. In all honesty, the only real differences between the two are over resource extraction, and with only a handful of contested issues(basically, pipelines), but that is probably enough to make the federal party increasingly unwelcome throughout the province.
He doesn't have that kind of authority. This has been discussed multiple times in multiple provinces and has always come to naught. Plus there is the question of who owns the party namw trademark, which is the federal party.
Apparently, Nenshi is quite keen on formally seperating the Alberta NDP from the federal party. In all honesty, the only real differences between the two are over resource extraction, and with only a handful of contested issues(basically, pipelines), but that is probably enough to make the federal party increasingly unwelcome throughout the province.
He doesn't have that kind of authority. This has been discussed multiple times in multiple provinces and has always come to naught. Plus there is the question of who owns the party namw trademark, which is the federal party.
Thanks. Yeah, I was wondering about how it would work with the name.
The current party structure is that each level, federal and provincial, has its own fundraising and staff and no policy veto over the other levels. There is just a a common membership list and a party name. This structure dates from the Layton Era. I. Effect, the Alberta NDP gets to fundraise off federally-provided members. They have much to lose from disffiliating.
The NDP brand federally hasn't hurt in BC ir Ontario so this is much ado about nothing.
So Toronto-St Paul, until yesterday considered a safe Liberal seat, unexpectedly went Conservative in yesterday’s by election. While the result was close - about 42% to 40.5% for the Conservatives over the Liberals, the comparison to 2021 (roughly L 49% C 25%) shows a major loss of support.
While it may demonstrate that, it primarily shows the absence of Carolyn Bennett, now Ambassador to Denmark. I knew the riding well a mere 40 years ago (demographics have been stable) and it was always a swing riding, with majorities in the 2,000-4,500 range IIRC. Barbara MacDougall (C) was the first to achieve re-election in 20 years in the free trade election of 1988. Dr Bennett was a well-known GP and women's issues activist and nourished the riding carefully to the point where it came to be known as a Liberal seat but was more accurately Carolyn Bennett's seat, held for a quarter-century. Without her, it was all up for grabs. Throw in Gaza and a good chunk of the Jewish vote (15% of the electorate) stayed home.
I thought that it was unfortunate that the winning Tory candidate Don Stewart refused interviews with the media (à la Polièvre), saying that direct contact was how he wished to communicate with voters. Admirable enough perhaps, assuming that you can get to all doors and that the doors are answered, but voters are able to assess journalists and interpret their writing, certainly as much as they are able to assess candidates. While I prefer that attitudes such as his are to be punished by voters, it wasn't this time.
Interesting. I read somewhere this morning that the Liberals tried to find someone with better name recognition than Leslie Church, who was a Liberal party insider without a lot of name recognition.
I remember MacDougall as a well-respected cabinet minister in Mulroney’s government. I didn’t know that was her riding. Curiously my first memory of Carolyn Bennett’s political career was her loss to Isabel Bassett in the 1995 provincial election, an unfortunate hiccup that seems to have had little effect on her subsequent career.
It cannot have helped the Liberals that the Globe news story about what appears to have been some fairly spectacular incompetence in vetting Birju Dattani as the new head of the Human Rights Commission broke yesterday.
Mrs MacDougall was not well-respected in Ottawa and almost lost her cabinet post over confusion on an Immigration and intelligence file (I have forgotten the exact name). To avoid her being further questioned in the House on it, she was rocketed upstairs on very short notice to External Affairs, prompting a skit at a lesser-known theatrical venue and puzzled snorts at the Lester B Pearson Ziggaraut-- to be fair she had strong presentational skills which served her well after this rocky start.
In any case, the largely Liberal Jewish community is so unhappy over Gaza that the Prime Minister's attempt to straddle the Arab/Jewish divide in Canada simply served to encourage these voters to go gardening that day. It's been a run of bad news over the past few months. Historically, Canadians prefer the Liberals in government, but they prefer efficiency.
There is a developing industry in Ottawa scrubbing social media postings over recent years.
It cannot have helped the Liberals that the Globe news story about what appears to have been some fairly spectacular incompetence in vetting Birju Dattani as the new head of the Human Rights Commission broke yesterday.
I guessed correctly that this controversy had something to do with Israel/Gaza. And, without having read much further, I'm gonna guess that Birju Dattani's transgression was along the lines of "said 'zionist' when he should have said 'likudite'."
Mrs MacDougall was not well-respected in Ottawa and almost lost her cabinet post over confusion on an Immigration and intelligence file (I have forgotten the exact name). To avoid her being further questioned in the House on it, she was rocketed upstairs on very short notice to External Affairs, prompting a skit at a lesser-known theatrical venue and puzzled snorts at the Lester B Pearson Ziggaraut-- to be fair she had strong presentational skills which served her well after this rocky start.
Thanks. Back in the day, I was a big fan of Ms. Macdougall(factoring in that I was and am NDP), but I had largely forgotten the details of her career.
For some reason, despite my low-key adulation of the woman, I only really have two clear memories of her...
1. Muttering a deadpan "Oh, my goodness..." while being heckled during Question Period.
2. A puff-piece in the media where she managed to work in the fact that her grandfather was an Orangeman, "...and that's something we should all be ashamed of."
(By which I assume she meant Canadians should be ashamed that they have Orangism in their history, not that we all share the personal shame of her grandfather being a sectarian hooligan.)
Being asked during QP about a new tax on gasoline or something, and replying that the tax was put in place "to finance the social programs Canadians want."
Upon reflection, a rather underwhelming enunciation of toryish noblesse oblige.
"Whaddya guys want? Social programs? We can do that! Tax on gas gets ya whatever ya want!"
Come to think of it, the above anecdote would make more sense if it was Pat Carney giving the answer, since that woulda been directly connected with her portfolio. Point remains about the transactional take on social programs.
Come to think of it, the above anecdote would make more sense if it was Pat Carney giving the answer, since that woulda been directly connected with her portfolio. Point remains about the transactional take on social programs.
Canadians have always had a reluctance to understand that things (e.g., social programmes, a military, just arrangements with the First Nations, a functioning justice system) cost money, and that nobody else will pay for it. A reluctance to address this is a common thread running through all political parties as well as the population as a whole.
So Toronto-St Paul, until yesterday considered a safe Liberal seat, unexpectedly went Conservative in yesterday’s by election. While the result was close - about 42% to 40.5% for the Conservatives over the Liberals, the comparison to 2021 (roughly L 49% C 25%) shows a major loss of support.
Wow, yeah. The Conservative average in that riding between 2011 and 2021 is 26 point something percent, and they only broke 30% once, in 2011.
I don't know the riding at all, but I assume it's more of a middle-class "Blue Liberal" demographic? The NDP got 22% in 2011, but since then, has hovered around 15%.
Much of Toronto-St. Paul sits on some very expensive real estate so (without any recollection of MacDougall’s incumbency) I would have expected a red-blue swing rather than a red-orange swing. But that said, it’s considered politically middle-of-the-road, not exactly a stronghold of Polievrist conservatism, and I gather no one was really expecting the CPC to win this time. Hence the consternation we’re seeing in Liberal circles. The Israel-Gaza conflict (and domestic repercussions) is doubtless part of the equation here though I’m not sure this issue is entirely separable from the Liberals’ more general problems with MOTR voters.
The little I can gather about Don Stewart from Wikipedia makes him look like a responsible adult (though I note Augustine’s comments about his approach to the media), but I gather he’s very connected to Jenni Byrne which is not a name I like to see on a politician’s resume.
But that said, it’s considered politically middle-of-the-road, not exactly a stronghold of Polievrist conservatism
These days, I don't think a lotta voters connect Polievre with anything they'd conceptualize as Polievrist conservatism. For all the hoopla about populism, neoliberalism, and the ideological shiftings post-Reform, the Conservative Party right now just serves the same basic electoral function as did the old PCs: a non-socialist refuge for when people get sick of being governed by the Liberals.
Granted, there is a bit of ideology mixed into the brew via issues like spending and crime, but that was there under the PCs as well.
I don’t think there was ever any doubt that the CPC would return to power sooner or later but the live question was under what circumstances and what the party would look like. The Liberals were clearly counting on Poilievre being beyond the pale (which AFAIC he is) but they’ve been making that argument for as long as they’ve been in power the upshot of which is that the electorate has stopped listening.
I don’t think there was ever any doubt that the CPC would return to power sooner or later but the live question was under what circumstances and what the party would look like. The Liberals were clearly counting on Poilievre being beyond the pale (which AFAIC he is) but they’ve been making that argument for as long as they’ve been in power the upshot of which is that the electorate has stopped listening.
Poilievre, like Harper and Doug Ford, is canny enough to know how to court the zanies, but also to distance himself when centrists start asking questions about the company he sometimes keeps.
Honestly, I don’t see Poilievre doing a lot of distancing right now. He’s had lots of opportunities to make himself look like a responsible adult and given the choice he’s always gone for the alternative. Until close to end by contrast Harper always gave the impression of making a disciplined effort to keep not only his party’s but his own more extreme instincts in check.
Changing the topic slightly, any thoughts on whether Trudeau should stay or go? My gut says that if he was going to leave the time to do so was in the fall of 2021, to give a new leader a chance to run in, and although Trudeau is unlikely to win another election the party is likely to do better with him than without him. And frankly I cannot see anyone else wanting to take over the reins right now.
As I read this I see that I’m basically agreeing with Andrew Coyne’s latest Globe column, which is a somewhat unusual phenomenon.
Honestly, I don’t see Poilievre doing a lot of distancing right now. He’s had lots of opportunities to make himself look like a responsible adult and given the choice he’s always gone for the alternative. Until close to end by contrast Harper always gave the impression of making a disciplined effort to keep not only his party’s but his own more extreme instincts in check.
Well, put it this way...
He's distancing himself enough to win over a riding of the sociopolitical character that I understand Toronto-St. Paul to be.
Compare this to Stockwell Day in 2000, who did NOT sufficiently distance himself from the bozos, and in fact was suspected of actually being one of them, and subsequently suffered near shut-outs everywhere east of Manitoba and urban areas generally.
I think where we’re disagreeing is that you’re seeing this as more about Poilievre building enough positives in the minds of TSP voters whereas I think the result here and now (a narrow result, mind you), is more about the Liberals’ negatives. At some point the voter is going to prefer the devil they don’t know, though of course every voter’s pain threshold on that issue is going to be different. If I were Trudeau the phrase I would be fearing most at the moment is not “F*ck Trudeau” (always a minority viewpoint) but “six of the one and half-dozen of the other”.
Of course there are other factors too. As I said upthread their actual candidate in TSP appears on paper at least to be a well educated competent person with significant work experience outside politics.
I think we're more or less in agreement, it's just a question of emphasis. Alot of voters WILL just casually vote Conservative out of disgust with the Liberals' negatives, BUT would still need to be sufficiently placated about the Conservatives' lack of extremism in order to consider them a safe alternative.
At the moment, I'd say Poilievre is still viewed as basically benign. See Alberta 2012 for an example of an electorate that was(as per the standard narrative) tired of a sclerotic dynasty, ready to embrace a supposedly generic alternative, but got put off at the last minute by intimations of extremism.
One could easily have a thread on Mr Polièvre (which I would likely avoid). Conversations with a number of people in recent months suggests that they have no interest in him-- the Ukrainian vote, the convoy nonsense, the backstabbing of Erin O'Toole. Simply, he is Not-Trudeau, and that is all that many voters seem to care about. While I don't think that not analyzing a candidate is healthy, it would take a vicious and possibly unsuccesful advertising campaign to anything about it.
I think that Mr T is too burned out (11 years of party leadership and a marriage breakup) to redeem this situation, but his lack of respect for his opponent will likely motivate him to stay. As in 1984 for Mr Turner, the exhaustion of volunteers may call the day for him-- commentators who have not experienced retail politics often don't have a feel for the degree to which motivated volunteers call election results (in my experience a canvassed poll brings out 20-30 extra voters-- multiply that by 250 polls...).
Much of next year's politics will necessarily depend on the results of the US presidential election.
So Toronto-St Paul, until yesterday considered a safe Liberal seat, unexpectedly went Conservative in yesterday’s by election. While the result was close - about 42% to 40.5% for the Conservatives over the Liberals, the comparison to 2021 (roughly L 49% C 25%) shows a major loss of support.
While it may demonstrate that, it primarily shows the absence of Carolyn Bennett, now Ambassador to Denmark. I knew the riding well a mere 40 years ago (demographics have been stable) and it was always a swing riding, with majorities in the 2,000-4,500 range IIRC. Barbara MacDougall (C) was the first to achieve re-election in 20 years in the free trade election of 1988. Dr Bennett was a well-known GP and women's issues activist and nourished the riding carefully to the point where it came to be known as a Liberal seat but was more accurately Carolyn Bennett's seat, held for a quarter-century. Without her, it was all up for grabs. Throw in Gaza and a good chunk of the Jewish vote (15% of the electorate) stayed home.
I thought that it was unfortunate that the winning Tory candidate Don Stewart refused interviews with the media (à la Polièvre), saying that direct contact was how he wished to communicate with voters. Admirable enough perhaps, assuming that you can get to all doors and that the doors are answered, but voters are able to assess journalists and interpret their writing, certainly as much as they are able to assess candidates. While I prefer that attitudes such as his are to be punished by voters, it wasn't this time.
Refusing media interviews and viewing the national media (CBC, Globe and Mail) as horribly biased is now Tory standard procedure. Harper had a specially-constructed suite at Convervative HQ so he could do direct interviews with local outlets, whom the Tories felt were more deferential and favorable.
Conversations with a number of people in recent months suggests that they have no interest in him-- the Ukrainian vote, the convoy nonsense, the backstabbing of Erin O'Toole. Simply, he is Not-Trudeau, and that is all that many voters seem to care about. While I don't think that not analyzing a candidate is healthy, it would take a vicious and possibly unsuccesful advertising campaign to anything about it.
So just to clarify...
Are you saying that these people you spoke with are hostile to Poilievre's positions on Ukraine, the convoy, O'Toole etc, but are willing to vote for him out of a desire just to see JT gone?
FWIW, I would doubt that anyone not classifiable as a political junkie cares about whatever indignities were heaped upon Erin O'Toole in some internal-party squabble. The convoy might be more remembered among hoi poloi, because it's an easily-grasped, media-friendly issue, but even that's been over for years now, and didn't harm Doug Ford provincially.
Ulraine is somewhere in the middle, but that specific vote is not likely to be widely remembered on election day, even among people who side with Ukraine against Russia.
Perhaps I could have been clearer; they were totally oblivious to Polièvre on the Ukrainian trade treaty. It didn't matter, and none of the other considerations seemed to enter their minds-- he was not Justin, and that was enough. Issues?? what are issues??
It will be easier to determine the effect of these issues in the aftermath and they may mean much or nothing at all; I cited them simply as problematic items in Mr Polièvre's career, worthy of reflection.
PS The two Ukrainian Canadians I spoke with were virulent on the issue and woe to any Conservative canvasser coming their way.
Thanks for the clarification. No, you were pretty clear, though I was confused that you maybe meant they had no interest in him BECAUSE of the Ukrainian trade treaty.
As for alienated Ukrainian Canadians, yeah, it shows a certain ineptness for the Conervatives to alienate THAT voting bloc, given that the pro-Ukraine position is the mainstream one, so it's not like there's a lot of triangulation required on the issue. The Cons could just have been 100% pro-Ukraine, without having to worry about pissing off anyone.
Double-ineptness as Ukrainians have historically been a strong Conservative/PC constituency.
Indeed. Though I believe they tended to be Liberal back in the days of Wilfred Laurier and Clifford Sifton. Not sure if they went over to the Progressives/Farmers later on.
Double-ineptness as Ukrainians have historically been a strong Conservative/PC constituency.
Indeed. Though I believe they tended to be Liberal back in the days of Wilfred Laurier and Clifford Sifton. Not sure if they went over to the Progressives/Farmers later on.
Somewhat over half of the Ukrainian Canadian community has its origin in the post-1945 emigration- experience of life in the USSR coloured political opinions. With Dief's familiarity with the community and Michael Starr (of Oshawa) as the first U-C minister and briefly Opposition Leader in 1967 until Stanfield's election to the Commons, Ukrainian Canadian voters inclined to the Conservatives, albeit with a strong presence in the old CPC and in the CCF, then NDP.
**personal note: I provided bureaucratic support to Mr Starr for three months and found him friendly and professional, one of the better political appointees around.
Thanks. Yeah, despite being from Edmonton, I wasn't quite aware of the relative amount of of prewar vs. postwar Ukrainian immigrants. Anti-Sovietism was certainly the dominant foreign-policy worldview in the Ukrainian communities I knew back in the day, though as you indicate, earlier on some of them had gravitated toward the socialist camp.
Even into the PET era and beyond, Liberals in Alberta have always had a presence at the municipal level, with Mayors William Hawrelak and Laurence Decore, both of Edmonton, being Ukrainian Canadian politicians associated with the Liberals. Jan Reimer in Edmonton was NDP, though I'm not sure how strong her connections to the Ukrainian community were.
Justin Ling reports in the Star that Steven Guilbaukt, Environment Minister was in Toronto taking the temperature of the Liberal caucus. He had the idea to do said calls in the Union zstation lounge, right next to Justin Ling.
You can't make this stuff up.
Ling drops three names of Liberals who want the PM to resign.
Justin Ling reports in the Star that Steven Guilbaukt, Environment Minister was in Toronto taking the temperature of the Liberal caucus. He had the idea to do said calls in the Union zstation lounge, right next to Justin Ling.
You can't make this stuff up.
Ling drops three names of Liberals who want the PM to resign.
It's Amateur Hour in Ottawa.
Reminds me of Andy Scott casually discussing sub rosa details of the APEC Inquiry with a total stranger, while sitting on a plane behind an attentive NDP MP.
The general practice in Ottawa with respect to discretion and secrecy has to be seen to be believed. In my time I've heard security plans for royal visits discussed very audibly in bars, confidential aspects of staffing in elevators, purchasing plans for defence procurement in the Bay, and (like Guilbeault and Scott) rather confidential political matters (juicy ones!!) in airport lounges.
I sometimes wondered if I was the only person to stay awake during their security briefings. There's no need for espionage, just capable eavesdroppers.
The general practice in Ottawa with respect to discretion and secrecy has to be seen to be believed. In my time I've heard security plans for royal visits discussed very audibly in bars, confidential aspects of staffing in elevators, purchasing plans for defence procurement in the Bay, and (like Guilbeault and Scott) rather confidential political matters (juicy ones!!) in airport lounges.
Heh. Kinda goes against the whole stereotype of taciturn, ultra-efficient mandarins manning the Canadian civil service.
The general practice in Ottawa with respect to discretion and secrecy has to be seen to be believed. In my time I've heard security plans for royal visits discussed very audibly in bars, confidential aspects of staffing in elevators, purchasing plans for defence procurement in the Bay, and (like Guilbeault and Scott) rather confidential political matters (juicy ones!!) in airport lounges.
Heh. Kinda goes against the whole stereotype of taciturn, ultra-efficient mandarins manning the Canadian civil service.
I was taciturn and ultra-efficient; Satan had arranged for their promotion over me.
The general practice in Ottawa with respect to discretion and secrecy has to be seen to be believed. In my time I've heard security plans for royal visits discussed very audibly in bars, confidential aspects of staffing in elevators, purchasing plans for defence procurement in the Bay, and (like Guilbeault and Scott) rather confidential political matters (juicy ones!!) in airport lounges.
Heh. Kinda goes against the whole stereotype of taciturn, ultra-efficient mandarins manning the Canadian civil service.
They exist, my deputy director is good on that. Security comes first. I spent too much time getting this job to waste it on a stupid indiscretion.
But what happens is that mandarins get drunk on power, combined with dealing with such matters all day leaves little outlet. Neither is an excuse.
Thankfully the deputy director believes security is a priority, you handle secure materials properly or not at all, if the higher-ups what it faster than security will allow, they will have to wait.
And remember, always wash you hands after handling secret information. That stuff is filthy.
I'm less generous; I do not think that they become drunk on power-- I think that they become incompetent fools, looking for the easy, sloppy, way out. At least Drunk on Power would provide us with amusement and material for an opera libretto.
For more boredom in this vein; I was once firmly told that, dealing with contractors, as long as one of their staff was cleared, then we needn't worry. I differed and wrote the contractor to keep the document(s) under key unless the cleared staff, and they alone, were working with them, that copies were not to be made, etc. My then manager was furious but expressed her brain-melt in front of the wrong people. I was quaffing schadenfreude cocktails for weeks.
John the Baptist this year will be remembered principally for the windstorm and power failure. 😞
I’ve been reading Stephen Maher’s book on JT. Appreciative but not adulatory. Only about a third of the way into the book so will report back when finished.
Our maverick MP, Wayne Long has written to caucus suggesting Trudeau should resign. Long had previously announced he was not running for re-election. Maybe it is time for Singh to lead a coalition government? ;^))
Just encountered the random factoid that according to some data collected by a law firm somewhere NL, NS, and PEI have the longest average workweeks (around 38 hours). A curious statistic and assuming it has any validity at all (it might not) I wonder why. Offshore oil drilling might explain NL, but NS and PEI not so much.
Why doesn't Trudeau follow Biden's example and do the right thing? Why doesn't Singh do the right thing and kick Trudeau to the street?
Because both are power-hungry.
Trudeau knows he is done so he is hanging on. Singh knows this is the only time the NDP will have this kind of power so he is hanging on.
Most in office qualify as power-hungry. If we were at all honest, our most favourite figures would lose the humility test. I do not know of any candidate who believes that the last should be first. A defeated politician once said in my presence that the work is so exhausting that only an ego like a locomotive would seek office, and only the locomotive keeps one functioning in it. There are rare individuals for whom it is otherwise.
Mr Singh reads the polls as well as anyone, and an immediate election would see his cause become powerless-- while I do not speak for NDP thinkers, few would choose to repeat the 2011 election which resulted in a Conservative majority and a lack of influence. The NDP is an ideological party and exists to get its preferred measures implemented; its leaders are not fools and can tell the difference between half a loaf and a loaf.
As far as Mr Trudeau is concerned, I suspect that he so despises Mr Polièvre that he would not want to be accused of making way for him. (their respective flaws are so well-known that I won't refer to them).
It would then appear that we will wait another year for an election.
Comments
He doesn't have that kind of authority. This has been discussed multiple times in multiple provinces and has always come to naught. Plus there is the question of who owns the party namw trademark, which is the federal party.
Thanks. Yeah, I was wondering about how it would work with the name.
The NDP brand federally hasn't hurt in BC ir Ontario so this is much ado about nothing.
While it may demonstrate that, it primarily shows the absence of Carolyn Bennett, now Ambassador to Denmark. I knew the riding well a mere 40 years ago (demographics have been stable) and it was always a swing riding, with majorities in the 2,000-4,500 range IIRC. Barbara MacDougall (C) was the first to achieve re-election in 20 years in the free trade election of 1988. Dr Bennett was a well-known GP and women's issues activist and nourished the riding carefully to the point where it came to be known as a Liberal seat but was more accurately Carolyn Bennett's seat, held for a quarter-century. Without her, it was all up for grabs. Throw in Gaza and a good chunk of the Jewish vote (15% of the electorate) stayed home.
I thought that it was unfortunate that the winning Tory candidate Don Stewart refused interviews with the media (à la Polièvre), saying that direct contact was how he wished to communicate with voters. Admirable enough perhaps, assuming that you can get to all doors and that the doors are answered, but voters are able to assess journalists and interpret their writing, certainly as much as they are able to assess candidates. While I prefer that attitudes such as his are to be punished by voters, it wasn't this time.
I remember MacDougall as a well-respected cabinet minister in Mulroney’s government. I didn’t know that was her riding. Curiously my first memory of Carolyn Bennett’s political career was her loss to Isabel Bassett in the 1995 provincial election, an unfortunate hiccup that seems to have had little effect on her subsequent career.
It cannot have helped the Liberals that the Globe news story about what appears to have been some fairly spectacular incompetence in vetting Birju Dattani as the new head of the Human Rights Commission broke yesterday.
In any case, the largely Liberal Jewish community is so unhappy over Gaza that the Prime Minister's attempt to straddle the Arab/Jewish divide in Canada simply served to encourage these voters to go gardening that day. It's been a run of bad news over the past few months. Historically, Canadians prefer the Liberals in government, but they prefer efficiency.
There is a developing industry in Ottawa scrubbing social media postings over recent years.
I guessed correctly that this controversy had something to do with Israel/Gaza. And, without having read much further, I'm gonna guess that Birju Dattani's transgression was along the lines of "said 'zionist' when he should have said 'likudite'."
Thanks. Back in the day, I was a big fan of Ms. Macdougall(factoring in that I was and am NDP), but I had largely forgotten the details of her career.
For some reason, despite my low-key adulation of the woman, I only really have two clear memories of her...
1. Muttering a deadpan "Oh, my goodness..." while being heckled during Question Period.
2. A puff-piece in the media where she managed to work in the fact that her grandfather was an Orangeman, "...and that's something we should all be ashamed of."
(By which I assume she meant Canadians should be ashamed that they have Orangism in their history, not that we all share the personal shame of her grandfather being a sectarian hooligan.)
Being asked during QP about a new tax on gasoline or something, and replying that the tax was put in place "to finance the social programs Canadians want."
Upon reflection, a rather underwhelming enunciation of toryish noblesse oblige.
"Whaddya guys want? Social programs? We can do that! Tax on gas gets ya whatever ya want!"
Canadians have always had a reluctance to understand that things (e.g., social programmes, a military, just arrangements with the First Nations, a functioning justice system) cost money, and that nobody else will pay for it. A reluctance to address this is a common thread running through all political parties as well as the population as a whole.
Much of Toronto-St. Paul sits on some very expensive real estate so (without any recollection of MacDougall’s incumbency) I would have expected a red-blue swing rather than a red-orange swing. But that said, it’s considered politically middle-of-the-road, not exactly a stronghold of Polievrist conservatism, and I gather no one was really expecting the CPC to win this time. Hence the consternation we’re seeing in Liberal circles. The Israel-Gaza conflict (and domestic repercussions) is doubtless part of the equation here though I’m not sure this issue is entirely separable from the Liberals’ more general problems with MOTR voters.
The little I can gather about Don Stewart from Wikipedia makes him look like a responsible adult (though I note Augustine’s comments about his approach to the media), but I gather he’s very connected to Jenni Byrne which is not a name I like to see on a politician’s resume.
These days, I don't think a lotta voters connect Polievre with anything they'd conceptualize as Polievrist conservatism. For all the hoopla about populism, neoliberalism, and the ideological shiftings post-Reform, the Conservative Party right now just serves the same basic electoral function as did the old PCs: a non-socialist refuge for when people get sick of being governed by the Liberals.
Granted, there is a bit of ideology mixed into the brew via issues like spending and crime, but that was there under the PCs as well.
Poilievre, like Harper and Doug Ford, is canny enough to know how to court the zanies, but also to distance himself when centrists start asking questions about the company he sometimes keeps.
As I read this I see that I’m basically agreeing with Andrew Coyne’s latest Globe column, which is a somewhat unusual phenomenon.
Well, put it this way...
He's distancing himself enough to win over a riding of the sociopolitical character that I understand Toronto-St. Paul to be.
Compare this to Stockwell Day in 2000, who did NOT sufficiently distance himself from the bozos, and in fact was suspected of actually being one of them, and subsequently suffered near shut-outs everywhere east of Manitoba and urban areas generally.
Of course there are other factors too. As I said upthread their actual candidate in TSP appears on paper at least to be a well educated competent person with significant work experience outside politics.
I think we're more or less in agreement, it's just a question of emphasis. Alot of voters WILL just casually vote Conservative out of disgust with the Liberals' negatives, BUT would still need to be sufficiently placated about the Conservatives' lack of extremism in order to consider them a safe alternative.
At the moment, I'd say Poilievre is still viewed as basically benign. See Alberta 2012 for an example of an electorate that was(as per the standard narrative) tired of a sclerotic dynasty, ready to embrace a supposedly generic alternative, but got put off at the last minute by intimations of extremism.
I think that Mr T is too burned out (11 years of party leadership and a marriage breakup) to redeem this situation, but his lack of respect for his opponent will likely motivate him to stay. As in 1984 for Mr Turner, the exhaustion of volunteers may call the day for him-- commentators who have not experienced retail politics often don't have a feel for the degree to which motivated volunteers call election results (in my experience a canvassed poll brings out 20-30 extra voters-- multiply that by 250 polls...).
Much of next year's politics will necessarily depend on the results of the US presidential election.
Refusing media interviews and viewing the national media (CBC, Globe and Mail) as horribly biased is now Tory standard procedure. Harper had a specially-constructed suite at Convervative HQ so he could do direct interviews with local outlets, whom the Tories felt were more deferential and favorable.
So just to clarify...
Are you saying that these people you spoke with are hostile to Poilievre's positions on Ukraine, the convoy, O'Toole etc, but are willing to vote for him out of a desire just to see JT gone?
FWIW, I would doubt that anyone not classifiable as a political junkie cares about whatever indignities were heaped upon Erin O'Toole in some internal-party squabble. The convoy might be more remembered among hoi poloi, because it's an easily-grasped, media-friendly issue, but even that's been over for years now, and didn't harm Doug Ford provincially.
Ulraine is somewhere in the middle, but that specific vote is not likely to be widely remembered on election day, even among people who side with Ukraine against Russia.
It will be easier to determine the effect of these issues in the aftermath and they may mean much or nothing at all; I cited them simply as problematic items in Mr Polièvre's career, worthy of reflection.
PS The two Ukrainian Canadians I spoke with were virulent on the issue and woe to any Conservative canvasser coming their way.
Thanks for the clarification. No, you were pretty clear, though I was confused that you maybe meant they had no interest in him BECAUSE of the Ukrainian trade treaty.
As for alienated Ukrainian Canadians, yeah, it shows a certain ineptness for the Conervatives to alienate THAT voting bloc, given that the pro-Ukraine position is the mainstream one, so it's not like there's a lot of triangulation required on the issue. The Cons could just have been 100% pro-Ukraine, without having to worry about pissing off anyone.
Indeed. Though I believe they tended to be Liberal back in the days of Wilfred Laurier and Clifford Sifton. Not sure if they went over to the Progressives/Farmers later on.
Somewhat over half of the Ukrainian Canadian community has its origin in the post-1945 emigration- experience of life in the USSR coloured political opinions. With Dief's familiarity with the community and Michael Starr (of Oshawa) as the first U-C minister and briefly Opposition Leader in 1967 until Stanfield's election to the Commons, Ukrainian Canadian voters inclined to the Conservatives, albeit with a strong presence in the old CPC and in the CCF, then NDP.
**personal note: I provided bureaucratic support to Mr Starr for three months and found him friendly and professional, one of the better political appointees around.
Thanks. Yeah, despite being from Edmonton, I wasn't quite aware of the relative amount of of prewar vs. postwar Ukrainian immigrants. Anti-Sovietism was certainly the dominant foreign-policy worldview in the Ukrainian communities I knew back in the day, though as you indicate, earlier on some of them had gravitated toward the socialist camp.
Even into the PET era and beyond, Liberals in Alberta have always had a presence at the municipal level, with Mayors William Hawrelak and Laurence Decore, both of Edmonton, being Ukrainian Canadian politicians associated with the Liberals. Jan Reimer in Edmonton was NDP, though I'm not sure how strong her connections to the Ukrainian community were.
You can't make this stuff up.
Ling drops three names of Liberals who want the PM to resign.
It's Amateur Hour in Ottawa.
Reminds me of Andy Scott casually discussing sub rosa details of the APEC Inquiry with a total stranger, while sitting on a plane behind an attentive NDP MP.
I sometimes wondered if I was the only person to stay awake during their security briefings. There's no need for espionage, just capable eavesdroppers.
Heh. Kinda goes against the whole stereotype of taciturn, ultra-efficient mandarins manning the Canadian civil service.
I was taciturn and ultra-efficient; Satan had arranged for their promotion over me.
They exist, my deputy director is good on that. Security comes first. I spent too much time getting this job to waste it on a stupid indiscretion.
But what happens is that mandarins get drunk on power, combined with dealing with such matters all day leaves little outlet. Neither is an excuse.
Thankfully the deputy director believes security is a priority, you handle secure materials properly or not at all, if the higher-ups what it faster than security will allow, they will have to wait.
And remember, always wash you hands after handling secret information. That stuff is filthy.
For more boredom in this vein; I was once firmly told that, dealing with contractors, as long as one of their staff was cleared, then we needn't worry. I differed and wrote the contractor to keep the document(s) under key unless the cleared staff, and they alone, were working with them, that copies were not to be made, etc. My then manager was furious but expressed her brain-melt in front of the wrong people. I was quaffing schadenfreude cocktails for weeks.
Merry Octave of John the Baptist, everybody!
I’ve been reading Stephen Maher’s book on JT. Appreciative but not adulatory. Only about a third of the way into the book so will report back when finished.
Liberals only exceptionally buy memberships in their own party, and would likely be puzzled at the idea of purchasing another's.
Because both are power-hungry.
Trudeau knows he is done so he is hanging on. Singh knows this is the only time the NDP will have this kind of power so he is hanging on.
Most in office qualify as power-hungry. If we were at all honest, our most favourite figures would lose the humility test. I do not know of any candidate who believes that the last should be first. A defeated politician once said in my presence that the work is so exhausting that only an ego like a locomotive would seek office, and only the locomotive keeps one functioning in it. There are rare individuals for whom it is otherwise.
Mr Singh reads the polls as well as anyone, and an immediate election would see his cause become powerless-- while I do not speak for NDP thinkers, few would choose to repeat the 2011 election which resulted in a Conservative majority and a lack of influence. The NDP is an ideological party and exists to get its preferred measures implemented; its leaders are not fools and can tell the difference between half a loaf and a loaf.
As far as Mr Trudeau is concerned, I suspect that he so despises Mr Polièvre that he would not want to be accused of making way for him. (their respective flaws are so well-known that I won't refer to them).
It would then appear that we will wait another year for an election.