I can’t immediately think of a book I’d rather not read. This probably for the same reasons no one has thought it necessary to write the book before now – because there are no depths to plumb; what you see is what you get. We already know Pierre’s parliamentary and government record, and are appalled. If he ever had deep thoughts on the universe, or life on this planet, and how to make it better, there would have been a scent of it long ago, and his reputation wouldn’t be comprised solely of either his acolyte’s wishful thinking, or his critic’s opprobrium.
I’m reminded of the scene in one of Paolo Sorrentino’s “New Pope” episodes, where Jude Law is praying over a severely disabled child: “Make him a Man Lord, make him a Man!”, he insists. It seems impossible that Mr. Lawton can do that for us, because everything we have observed points to the contrary.
Firstly, there is no human empathy evident; merely a cynical performance of alignment with the working poor, through a repetition of their grievances, whether real or imagined, and the assignment of blame to the prime minister, regardless of the facts. Certainly, Pierre has facts in hand; they are just not the correct ones. He “make’s shit up”, and passes it off as truth, in the manner already habituated among rightist so-called “populist” politicians across Britain, Europe, and of course, Trump!
Which brings us, secondly, to his reaction when called out for this irresponsible behavior. It seems certain that Pierre was bullied horribly when a child, because he knows the art so well, and appears still to be trapped in that adolescent state of grievance, resentment and anger, his adult reasoning perpetually subsumed under raw, unfiltered, adolescent emotion without modulation.
It’s not Pierre’s “political life” that is germane, since it’s single dimensional so uninteresting, and anyway we already have Hansard. What IS germane (and possibly interesting) is his “interior life”, but that is what Mr. Lawton apparently avoids, presumably because Pierre remains both literally and figuratively unavailable.
I wish Mr. Lawton the best of luck. In an environment without subject matter competition, his book is bound to do well, even if only North of the Queensway.
I'm no bigger a fan of Poilievre's than you are, though we disagree on some specifics. But based on Paul's recommendation and assertion that this isn't a Black-on-Trump-style hagiography, I'm going to give this book a chance. I might learn something, even if it's, "Wow, this guy's even worse than I thought."
As recently as twenty years ago, any even-remotely-notable politician would either publish a memoir or have a biography written about them. That fell off around the time Harper took office - I'm not claiming a causal link. I do think biographies of political leaders serve an important purpose, whether we like the subject or not.
I'm not gonna stop writing through the summer though! Probably should have made that clearer. We're just hitting pause on the audio podcast, which has more moving parts.
I just re-upped my subscription so I’m glad you won’t stop writing this summer. I do especially like the podcasts but I am happy to listen to reruns (while kayaking). I enjoy your voice. No matter whom you are talking with.
Somehow I am not discouraged by the state of our country or even my province. While there are always things that could be better or different I know that things here could be a lot worse.
It is amusing when it is said that no one knows who Pierre is. Pierre has always made himself known given half an opportunity. Maybe soon he will sit down with you and explain why his views, promises, demands, and threats are always short, snappy and negative.
Conservatives are the anti-Christ to progressives.
They cannot be convinced that humanity can be perfected and are impertinent enough to question the moral and intellectual superiority progressives attribute to themselves as well as their agenda.
Conservatives seek social stability in place of Marxist inspired social revolt.
Pragmatic liberalism did influence conservatives to adopt social change but that liberalism promoted benign tolerance, appealed to common sense and decency over partisanship.
The current progressive movement has morphed benign liberalism into an intolerant , common senseless creed that demonizes those who contradict its tenets as occupying the ‘far right’ of the political spectrum.
Conservatives and the remaining liberals alike seek moderation within their society and both elements are becoming evermore wary of where our progressive larded public and private institutions are leading Canada.
It is this wariness that is leading them to support Pierre Poilievre.
An interesting read is “Not My Party” by Tom McMillan, which follows the evolution of what poses as the current Conservative Party from pre-Diefenbaker through its various leaders and often internally conflicting ideologies. Today’s party is not what it once was. Robert Stanfield would be rolling over in his grave. It will be interesting to see whether all the current Conservative MPs hang in for the next election. I suspect there are some who are not 100% comfortable with their current leader. There are some fine people in their ranks. It’s baffling that they ended up with Poilievre.
Unity has never been the strong suit of the Conservative Party but the spectre of yet another Trudeau Liberal government may overcome the tendency for MP’s to jump ship under Poilievre.
I have been baffled by past choices but I believe Poilievre has the ability to defeat Trudeau and his fellow progressives.
I don’t know how he will perform as a PM but I have no illusions regarding the future of Canada should the Liberals be allowed to proceed with their agenda.
Although I am definitely not a PP’s supporter, I may get it a try and read the bio over the summer. In the current extremely toxic partisanship context, I think it’s always nice to see fact-based work not overwhelmingly based on opinions.
I've seen a lot on social media recently, claiming Harper was/is some kind of closet Evangelical. It's the opposite of the Lawton's view: that Harper kept a tight lease on how much social-conservative stuff he allowed himself to champion. The social media concern came up when Harper inexplicably wanted "closer ties" to Hungary, tightly associated with America's "new fascism" politicians.
Mention this because that's the Poilievre question, too: do we have somebody who Actually Believes That Stuff, the way Justin Ling says Jason Kenney really does, the way D.Smith really appears to? Did he pump up the Convoy because he actually believes anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theories, doesn't believe in climatology...or is he just cynically using them?
If the book can't answer me that, it hasn't got what I want.
Journos and other researchers have been trying to see the contents of this Pandora's box for years, and come up with "nothing". Not in the "zen" way, because there is obviously enormous ego, but in terms of vision, ideas, beliefs, hopes and dreams.
From others, the closest the book apparently gets is to quote acolytes, who explain his odd, counter-intuitive behaviour simply as "Pierre being Pierre".
In other words, not even those closest to him professionally have a clue about what his point is. Yet they are willing to blindly follow wherever he leads. It's inexplicable.
Here's a story: in my misspent youth, I took part in a model Parliament that some actual Parliamentarians attended as spectators. My most notable contribution was a pretty aggressive anti-Conservative jeremiad.
At the bar afterwards, a pretty prominent Conservative member came up to me laughing: "That was a hell of a speech! I wish you were on our side! That was really fun! You really gave us a go!"
Ten minutes later, another pretty prominent Conservative member came up to me scowling: "Listen, jackass, Conservatives are GREAT and Liberals are TERRIBLE and as FOLLOWS is everything you were WRONG about." (I was a teenager, he was old enough to be my dad, and he was also one of the senior leaders of our country at the time, but boy, did I bug him.)
I think about that night a lot in the context of Poilievre, because if he'd been in that room, *I don't know which of those guys he would be*. Is he a happy warrior who takes pleasure in the joust? Is he a grim, joyless scold? Who is he when the cameras are off?
I'll tell you another thing that weirds me out: everybody calling him "Pierre" all of a sudden. Is he called "Pierre"? When I ran in those circles, I remember him being called "Skippy" by those who liked him and "that little (string of expletives) Skippy" by the other 99% of us. I don't remember "Skippy" being a silly gibe that Liberals took at him - I remember it being his name. So that's the state of play - here's this man I have met, whose career I have watched for twenty years, whose birth certificate says "Pierre", who has a chyron under his face saying "Pierre" every time he talks on TV, and I'm not asserting that his name *isn't* Pierre - I'm saying I have no idea whether his name is "Pierre". That's...an odd thing not to know, isn't it?
"Skippy" fits him like a glove. He acts like a Skippy, and he sounds like one. He IS a Skippy!
I suspect people are using "Pierre" these days because it's easier than his surname for those that don't French, and for journos and pundits, it may seem "unprofessional". Also, I think they may be a bit scared of him, because he barks, snaps and bites.
Perhaps that's also why nobody knows who he is; because journos are all out of ideas.
This is going to sound like some conspiracy-theory claptrap to the more conservative among us - and, again, I stress, perhaps the man has always been called "Pierre" by everyone who knows him and I'm completely wrong. But, honestly, the sudden rebranding of the Skipster as "Pierre" feels like a power move to me: "Be scared of me, I'm Daddy."
Maybe it's just my frame of reference as a Liberal, but at least once a week, somebody says to me, "I wish Pierre could be prime minister! He's way tougher and cooler than the guy who's in there now!" And I say, "Yeah, I agree! Unfortunately, he's dead. But at least we have his son," and then they look at me like *I'm* the one who's confused about who a mononymous "Pierre" is in the context of Canadian politics.
I don't want to cramp anyone's style but I've known him, the way I know a few dozen MPs at any time, for 20-ish years, since before he first ran for Parliament, and I've never heard anyone address him in any way except as "Pierre." I'm aware of the nickname but I've never heard anyone use it in his presence, and indeed I've never heard a Conservative use it behind his back, going back to when he was essentially a random very young staffer.
Thank you, Paul - this was one on which I 100% *wanted* my style cramped, if I was wrong, which apparently I was! I appreciate your insight.
Canada's a better place if its opposition leader (and likely next prime minister) is a guy named Pierre who's capable of being thoughtful and serious, rather than Skippy the Twitter troll.
Folklore states that it was Mr. Baird who applied the moniker, due to Pierre's Skippy-like, small dog behaviour when among big dogs. Obviously it stuck. Probably because it's an accurate representation. Initially it was meant to tease, but now, it's entirely pejorative, a way to incapsulate what those outside of his camp notice are his deficiencies.
Those within his camp are, until he fails, unlikely to provide the term any weight. But when he does, the next Conservative Big Thing won't be as gentle.
Good to know, but the wee one was always Skippy to me. I do believe Harper bestowed the nickname. And a picture of Skippy sitting between 2 young girls each holding their sticker books. Big grins all around.
Roy, I'm curious---have you read the book Harper published shortly after leaving office? I didn't dislike Harper in office - there was a lot I admired about him, actually - but that book was written by the guy 99% of Liberals thought Harper always was. It was a real eye-opener for me.
Based on very, very limited acquaintance (we met in passing a couple of times, decades ago), I think some of the traits Poilievre is showing are true to his character and that much of it is theatre, but I'm honestly not sure if his policy positions are sincere to his beliefs, today. Twenty years ago, he was a standard-issue "I paid $2 in taxes last year and all I got was infrastructure, a world-class education system, and free health care??? What a waste! Those were MYYYYYYYYYYY tax dollars!" conservative. But the Overton window has moved, and his views might have moved with it - I couldn't tell you. I agree that your questions are the ones I hope this book will answer.
The Harper book doesn't read like the Harper who was PM - it reads like Michael Ignatieff in 2009 doing a bad, caricatured Harper impression. Amazing to think that this was who Harper was all that time.
I gotta tell you Paul, I am shocked and amazed at how many commenters are so in favour of higher taxes, bigger government and restrictions on freedom. An anathema to a conservative like me. I would have never guessed, but it does explain a few things.
When Pierre Poilievre first became leader of the CPC I remember his position as being "smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom" and the Liberals and their supporters were like "OMG what kind of a radical right-winger do we have here?" I still don't understand which of those three ideas they don't like. The good news about all of the negative comments we are seeing about Mr. Poilievre is that Liberal supporters have tacitly admitted that Trudeau has been a disappointment and failure, and because they cannot write positive things about his reign they choose instead to attack.
Liberal here: all three of these are ideas I don't like.
To my ear, "smaller government" and "lower taxes" tends to mean "less services for those who need it". I'm not sure where you're from, but I grew up in Mike Harris's Ontario - he promised "small government" and "lower taxes", and it ended with a body count in Walkerton. Liberals actually do believe in big government and reasonable taxes, because we believe government is mostly good and mostly helps. Is this argument new to you, though? You may disagree with it, but are you surprised that some Liberals feel that way? Saying we're wrong is different from saying you don't understand that we dislike conservative ideas.
As for "more freedom", what I've seen on that from Poilievre is actually a proposal to "redistribute" freedom---for example, "more freedom" for a gang of hooligans to storm Ottawa trying to overthrow the government in the name of their right to give other people a deadly disease, and "less freedom" for people to say, "Hey, please don't overthrow the government."
I've asked a lot of people, "What freedom would Poilievre give you that you don't already have?", and every one eventually gets around to, "Well, everything's all woke these days! I can't even say (a slur) without (people thinking badly of me)!" Near as I can tell, people think Poilievre is promising a world where his supporters *are* free to say what they want, but where someone like me isn't free to think badly of them for it. I wish him luck with that. If you can name a "freedom" he's offering to extend that would benefit you and I both equally, and would not actually limit the freedom of someone else, I'd sincerely love to hear it.
Also, I disagree with you that the negative comments about Poilievre are just that Liberals don't have anything good to say about our guy. Whether you love him or hate him, I think we can all agree that Poilievre is extremely effective at geting under his opponents' skin, and Liberals do tend to find him frustrating, frightening, and also, simply viscerally annoying. That's not meant as an insult - he's *trying* to make Liberals feel that way, and he's succeeding. One really underdiscussed reason the Liberals spent a decade in the wilderness was that Stephen Harper was very effective at making Liberals so angry that we could not effectively campaign against him. Harper worked hard at that, and I'm sure Poilievre works hard at it too, but Poilievre just has a natural talent for it that Harper didn't have.
I’m curious. Why does small government get the image of poor service delivery when Big Government is a notorious poor service provider?
The Walkerton debacle was a terrible debacle that caused significant harm to a community. However, my recollection of the story was poor oversight enabled poor water sampling techniques and reporting. If people aren’t going to do their jobs properly, then disaster can strike. Railways are some of the most heavily regulated businesses environments in Canada but if an engineer doesn’t park a train on an incline following well established procedures then a Lac Megantic unfolds.
I would take small, efficient government where there are consequences for poor or careless service than Big Government that is wasteful, nobody is ever held accountable for anything and the costs are out of control.
We're agreed here, Darcy. What a government does (that is, whether it's big or small) is a separate question from how a government does it (that is, whether it's efficient or not), and I don't think anyone disagrees that a more efficient government would be better.
What I was saying to Tom is just that when Conservatives promise a more efficient, smaller government, Liberals genuinely tend to hear, "We're going to slash the hell out of important services and kill your grandma, and also, we're not going to be more efficient or spend any less money." Maybe we're wrong, but we're not just fearmongering - that's what it sounds like to us.
I can only speak for myself, not conservatives in general, and certainly not for Pierre Poilievre. I belief in the work ethic, I believe in standing on my own two feet and paying my own way. I believe in taking care of my own family, determining my own fate and being a responsible individual. Your description of a Liberal confuses me because you sound more like a New Democrat, a socialist. I thought Liberals were more centrist in general, although obviously the PM has taken the party far to the left. Governments don't do anything well, so less government is always a good thing. From your comment I get the impression you would be in favour of everybody just working for the government and to hell with businesses. And excessive taxes are evil in my opinion, you will have to provide a definition of "reasonable taxes." I understand that a limited amount of tax is necessary for the country to function and to provide for national and border security, the military, law and order, infrastructure, international diplomacy etc., but the amount of money we throw at useless government programs is so wasteful. This government doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. I was born and raised on the left coast and so am not too familiar with the Mike Harris legacy. I have read that a lot of the policies he introduced were left in place by the McGuinty & Wynne governments, so they must have had some merit. And after McGuinty & Wynne got finished with Ontario you have the largest sub-sovereign debt of any jurisdiction in the world, well done!
There isn't any one big thing that has reduced our freedoms here in Canada, it has been a slow, incremental process. Excessive taxation certainly dampens our economic freedom, covid brought about a whole bunch of restrictions that took some of our freedom, taking firearms away from law abiding farmers, hunters and others definitely infringes on our freedom, as does trying to control free speech and having unelected bureaucrats scrutinize on-line discussion. Civil liberties are slowly being squeezed by activist judges. White males are discriminated against because of DEI hiring policies.
Your description of Poilievre getting under his opponents skin applies perfectly to Trudeau as well, who just tries to antagonize, divide and insult any Canadian who doesn't agree with his vision.
Thanks for engaging, Tom! Yeah, we really sharply disagree about quite a lot of things, but that's okay. It's good to be able to talk civilly with smart people we disagree with in this "everyone I disagree with is the bogeyman" society.
I would say I was more centrist when I was younger - a Chretien-style Liberal - and that my views have evolved leftward in a lot of ways, especially around "identity politics" stuff. I don't claim to speak for all Liberals in any way.
Smaller government has always been a red flag for me too. Why would we want a smaller government in an increasingly more complicated world? Transitioning into and out of Covid should have made clear that “smaller” gov does not translate into getting things done well or faster. Reducing regulations and red tape sounds good on the face of it but r & rt is not just devised to make people crazy or to be “unfair” but to help people stay safe, not be taken advantage of and to help maintain some order in the great scheme of things.
Freedom and woke. Two words most Conservatives cannot define. But they know it when they see it and that’s a fact!
I addressed freedom in a previous reply, so let's just talk about "woke." In the olden days, it was just called political correctness. Pulling down statues of our founding fathers, and changing the name of streets, schools and universities because of allegations of impropriety 150+ years ago is woke. Not hiring people based on merit, competence or ability, but rather based on sex, skin colour, religion or disability is woke. Giving free drugs to drug addicts because you don't want to stigmatize them is woke. Policing language because you don't want to hurt anyones feeling is woke. Not allowing females to be called women, or females, but calling them "a person with a vagina" is woke. Claiming there are dozens of genders and that we aren't born either a male or a female is woke. Trying to prevent parents from taking an active part in the raising of their children is woke. I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture.
Another interesting retort as to who might be gushing over a politician might be Arron Wherry and his love of all things Liberal. Seriously, when they put him in CBC political parties as a neutral, I keep thinking he should have to claim a contribution in kind campaign donations lol
Had a chance to listen to the interview now, thanks for it. The very last part came as a shock: PP is an impulsive micro-manager, and indecisive to boot! That's going to be fun with him as Prime Minister.
Beginning with the comment by Tom Spicer and others that follow much ado is made about “freedom.” Especially as it relates to conservatives. It has a MAGA flavour to it.. For a hilarious discussion about this see Jon Stewart’s show 2 days ag about conservatives views on this matter. Stewart points out how conservatives handle freedom within their universe.In other words they don’t want anything to do it.
Thanks for the interview and write-up! Really appreciated the insightful questions.
I can’t immediately think of a book I’d rather not read. This probably for the same reasons no one has thought it necessary to write the book before now – because there are no depths to plumb; what you see is what you get. We already know Pierre’s parliamentary and government record, and are appalled. If he ever had deep thoughts on the universe, or life on this planet, and how to make it better, there would have been a scent of it long ago, and his reputation wouldn’t be comprised solely of either his acolyte’s wishful thinking, or his critic’s opprobrium.
I’m reminded of the scene in one of Paolo Sorrentino’s “New Pope” episodes, where Jude Law is praying over a severely disabled child: “Make him a Man Lord, make him a Man!”, he insists. It seems impossible that Mr. Lawton can do that for us, because everything we have observed points to the contrary.
Firstly, there is no human empathy evident; merely a cynical performance of alignment with the working poor, through a repetition of their grievances, whether real or imagined, and the assignment of blame to the prime minister, regardless of the facts. Certainly, Pierre has facts in hand; they are just not the correct ones. He “make’s shit up”, and passes it off as truth, in the manner already habituated among rightist so-called “populist” politicians across Britain, Europe, and of course, Trump!
Which brings us, secondly, to his reaction when called out for this irresponsible behavior. It seems certain that Pierre was bullied horribly when a child, because he knows the art so well, and appears still to be trapped in that adolescent state of grievance, resentment and anger, his adult reasoning perpetually subsumed under raw, unfiltered, adolescent emotion without modulation.
It’s not Pierre’s “political life” that is germane, since it’s single dimensional so uninteresting, and anyway we already have Hansard. What IS germane (and possibly interesting) is his “interior life”, but that is what Mr. Lawton apparently avoids, presumably because Pierre remains both literally and figuratively unavailable.
I wish Mr. Lawton the best of luck. In an environment without subject matter competition, his book is bound to do well, even if only North of the Queensway.
I'm no bigger a fan of Poilievre's than you are, though we disagree on some specifics. But based on Paul's recommendation and assertion that this isn't a Black-on-Trump-style hagiography, I'm going to give this book a chance. I might learn something, even if it's, "Wow, this guy's even worse than I thought."
As recently as twenty years ago, any even-remotely-notable politician would either publish a memoir or have a biography written about them. That fell off around the time Harper took office - I'm not claiming a causal link. I do think biographies of political leaders serve an important purpose, whether we like the subject or not.
Maybe you and Marc-André could get back to Optimist and me and let us know what you think.
I too like a good political biography now and then but my summer reading stack is quite full already, including, The Longer I Am Prime Minister.
I’ll miss your comments through the summer Paul. I find the state of our country extremely discouraging and look forward to your analysis.
I'm not gonna stop writing through the summer though! Probably should have made that clearer. We're just hitting pause on the audio podcast, which has more moving parts.
Thanks for your kind note.
I just re-upped my subscription so I’m glad you won’t stop writing this summer. I do especially like the podcasts but I am happy to listen to reruns (while kayaking). I enjoy your voice. No matter whom you are talking with.
Somehow I am not discouraged by the state of our country or even my province. While there are always things that could be better or different I know that things here could be a lot worse.
It is amusing when it is said that no one knows who Pierre is. Pierre has always made himself known given half an opportunity. Maybe soon he will sit down with you and explain why his views, promises, demands, and threats are always short, snappy and negative.
Conservatives are the anti-Christ to progressives.
They cannot be convinced that humanity can be perfected and are impertinent enough to question the moral and intellectual superiority progressives attribute to themselves as well as their agenda.
Conservatives seek social stability in place of Marxist inspired social revolt.
Pragmatic liberalism did influence conservatives to adopt social change but that liberalism promoted benign tolerance, appealed to common sense and decency over partisanship.
The current progressive movement has morphed benign liberalism into an intolerant , common senseless creed that demonizes those who contradict its tenets as occupying the ‘far right’ of the political spectrum.
Conservatives and the remaining liberals alike seek moderation within their society and both elements are becoming evermore wary of where our progressive larded public and private institutions are leading Canada.
It is this wariness that is leading them to support Pierre Poilievre.
An interesting read is “Not My Party” by Tom McMillan, which follows the evolution of what poses as the current Conservative Party from pre-Diefenbaker through its various leaders and often internally conflicting ideologies. Today’s party is not what it once was. Robert Stanfield would be rolling over in his grave. It will be interesting to see whether all the current Conservative MPs hang in for the next election. I suspect there are some who are not 100% comfortable with their current leader. There are some fine people in their ranks. It’s baffling that they ended up with Poilievre.
Unity has never been the strong suit of the Conservative Party but the spectre of yet another Trudeau Liberal government may overcome the tendency for MP’s to jump ship under Poilievre.
I have been baffled by past choices but I believe Poilievre has the ability to defeat Trudeau and his fellow progressives.
I don’t know how he will perform as a PM but I have no illusions regarding the future of Canada should the Liberals be allowed to proceed with their agenda.
Although I am definitely not a PP’s supporter, I may get it a try and read the bio over the summer. In the current extremely toxic partisanship context, I think it’s always nice to see fact-based work not overwhelmingly based on opinions.
I'm always interested in what you have to say!
I've seen a lot on social media recently, claiming Harper was/is some kind of closet Evangelical. It's the opposite of the Lawton's view: that Harper kept a tight lease on how much social-conservative stuff he allowed himself to champion. The social media concern came up when Harper inexplicably wanted "closer ties" to Hungary, tightly associated with America's "new fascism" politicians.
Mention this because that's the Poilievre question, too: do we have somebody who Actually Believes That Stuff, the way Justin Ling says Jason Kenney really does, the way D.Smith really appears to? Did he pump up the Convoy because he actually believes anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theories, doesn't believe in climatology...or is he just cynically using them?
If the book can't answer me that, it hasn't got what I want.
Journos and other researchers have been trying to see the contents of this Pandora's box for years, and come up with "nothing". Not in the "zen" way, because there is obviously enormous ego, but in terms of vision, ideas, beliefs, hopes and dreams.
From others, the closest the book apparently gets is to quote acolytes, who explain his odd, counter-intuitive behaviour simply as "Pierre being Pierre".
In other words, not even those closest to him professionally have a clue about what his point is. Yet they are willing to blindly follow wherever he leads. It's inexplicable.
Here's a story: in my misspent youth, I took part in a model Parliament that some actual Parliamentarians attended as spectators. My most notable contribution was a pretty aggressive anti-Conservative jeremiad.
At the bar afterwards, a pretty prominent Conservative member came up to me laughing: "That was a hell of a speech! I wish you were on our side! That was really fun! You really gave us a go!"
Ten minutes later, another pretty prominent Conservative member came up to me scowling: "Listen, jackass, Conservatives are GREAT and Liberals are TERRIBLE and as FOLLOWS is everything you were WRONG about." (I was a teenager, he was old enough to be my dad, and he was also one of the senior leaders of our country at the time, but boy, did I bug him.)
I think about that night a lot in the context of Poilievre, because if he'd been in that room, *I don't know which of those guys he would be*. Is he a happy warrior who takes pleasure in the joust? Is he a grim, joyless scold? Who is he when the cameras are off?
I'll tell you another thing that weirds me out: everybody calling him "Pierre" all of a sudden. Is he called "Pierre"? When I ran in those circles, I remember him being called "Skippy" by those who liked him and "that little (string of expletives) Skippy" by the other 99% of us. I don't remember "Skippy" being a silly gibe that Liberals took at him - I remember it being his name. So that's the state of play - here's this man I have met, whose career I have watched for twenty years, whose birth certificate says "Pierre", who has a chyron under his face saying "Pierre" every time he talks on TV, and I'm not asserting that his name *isn't* Pierre - I'm saying I have no idea whether his name is "Pierre". That's...an odd thing not to know, isn't it?
"Skippy" fits him like a glove. He acts like a Skippy, and he sounds like one. He IS a Skippy!
I suspect people are using "Pierre" these days because it's easier than his surname for those that don't French, and for journos and pundits, it may seem "unprofessional". Also, I think they may be a bit scared of him, because he barks, snaps and bites.
Perhaps that's also why nobody knows who he is; because journos are all out of ideas.
This is going to sound like some conspiracy-theory claptrap to the more conservative among us - and, again, I stress, perhaps the man has always been called "Pierre" by everyone who knows him and I'm completely wrong. But, honestly, the sudden rebranding of the Skipster as "Pierre" feels like a power move to me: "Be scared of me, I'm Daddy."
Maybe it's just my frame of reference as a Liberal, but at least once a week, somebody says to me, "I wish Pierre could be prime minister! He's way tougher and cooler than the guy who's in there now!" And I say, "Yeah, I agree! Unfortunately, he's dead. But at least we have his son," and then they look at me like *I'm* the one who's confused about who a mononymous "Pierre" is in the context of Canadian politics.
I don't want to cramp anyone's style but I've known him, the way I know a few dozen MPs at any time, for 20-ish years, since before he first ran for Parliament, and I've never heard anyone address him in any way except as "Pierre." I'm aware of the nickname but I've never heard anyone use it in his presence, and indeed I've never heard a Conservative use it behind his back, going back to when he was essentially a random very young staffer.
Thank you, Paul - this was one on which I 100% *wanted* my style cramped, if I was wrong, which apparently I was! I appreciate your insight.
Canada's a better place if its opposition leader (and likely next prime minister) is a guy named Pierre who's capable of being thoughtful and serious, rather than Skippy the Twitter troll.
Folklore states that it was Mr. Baird who applied the moniker, due to Pierre's Skippy-like, small dog behaviour when among big dogs. Obviously it stuck. Probably because it's an accurate representation. Initially it was meant to tease, but now, it's entirely pejorative, a way to incapsulate what those outside of his camp notice are his deficiencies.
Those within his camp are, until he fails, unlikely to provide the term any weight. But when he does, the next Conservative Big Thing won't be as gentle.
Good to know, but the wee one was always Skippy to me. I do believe Harper bestowed the nickname. And a picture of Skippy sitting between 2 young girls each holding their sticker books. Big grins all around.
Roy, I'm curious---have you read the book Harper published shortly after leaving office? I didn't dislike Harper in office - there was a lot I admired about him, actually - but that book was written by the guy 99% of Liberals thought Harper always was. It was a real eye-opener for me.
Based on very, very limited acquaintance (we met in passing a couple of times, decades ago), I think some of the traits Poilievre is showing are true to his character and that much of it is theatre, but I'm honestly not sure if his policy positions are sincere to his beliefs, today. Twenty years ago, he was a standard-issue "I paid $2 in taxes last year and all I got was infrastructure, a world-class education system, and free health care??? What a waste! Those were MYYYYYYYYYYY tax dollars!" conservative. But the Overton window has moved, and his views might have moved with it - I couldn't tell you. I agree that your questions are the ones I hope this book will answer.
Yeah, maybe I'll have to look that up; Harper news has surprised me in his retirement!
The Harper book doesn't read like the Harper who was PM - it reads like Michael Ignatieff in 2009 doing a bad, caricatured Harper impression. Amazing to think that this was who Harper was all that time.
Yes. I have the same questions, and the answers would be very important for how I ultimately vote.
It won’t
Thank you! I always look forward to your substack and podcasts!
I gotta tell you Paul, I am shocked and amazed at how many commenters are so in favour of higher taxes, bigger government and restrictions on freedom. An anathema to a conservative like me. I would have never guessed, but it does explain a few things.
George! Well said!
When Pierre Poilievre first became leader of the CPC I remember his position as being "smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom" and the Liberals and their supporters were like "OMG what kind of a radical right-winger do we have here?" I still don't understand which of those three ideas they don't like. The good news about all of the negative comments we are seeing about Mr. Poilievre is that Liberal supporters have tacitly admitted that Trudeau has been a disappointment and failure, and because they cannot write positive things about his reign they choose instead to attack.
Liberal here: all three of these are ideas I don't like.
To my ear, "smaller government" and "lower taxes" tends to mean "less services for those who need it". I'm not sure where you're from, but I grew up in Mike Harris's Ontario - he promised "small government" and "lower taxes", and it ended with a body count in Walkerton. Liberals actually do believe in big government and reasonable taxes, because we believe government is mostly good and mostly helps. Is this argument new to you, though? You may disagree with it, but are you surprised that some Liberals feel that way? Saying we're wrong is different from saying you don't understand that we dislike conservative ideas.
As for "more freedom", what I've seen on that from Poilievre is actually a proposal to "redistribute" freedom---for example, "more freedom" for a gang of hooligans to storm Ottawa trying to overthrow the government in the name of their right to give other people a deadly disease, and "less freedom" for people to say, "Hey, please don't overthrow the government."
I've asked a lot of people, "What freedom would Poilievre give you that you don't already have?", and every one eventually gets around to, "Well, everything's all woke these days! I can't even say (a slur) without (people thinking badly of me)!" Near as I can tell, people think Poilievre is promising a world where his supporters *are* free to say what they want, but where someone like me isn't free to think badly of them for it. I wish him luck with that. If you can name a "freedom" he's offering to extend that would benefit you and I both equally, and would not actually limit the freedom of someone else, I'd sincerely love to hear it.
Also, I disagree with you that the negative comments about Poilievre are just that Liberals don't have anything good to say about our guy. Whether you love him or hate him, I think we can all agree that Poilievre is extremely effective at geting under his opponents' skin, and Liberals do tend to find him frustrating, frightening, and also, simply viscerally annoying. That's not meant as an insult - he's *trying* to make Liberals feel that way, and he's succeeding. One really underdiscussed reason the Liberals spent a decade in the wilderness was that Stephen Harper was very effective at making Liberals so angry that we could not effectively campaign against him. Harper worked hard at that, and I'm sure Poilievre works hard at it too, but Poilievre just has a natural talent for it that Harper didn't have.
I’m curious. Why does small government get the image of poor service delivery when Big Government is a notorious poor service provider?
The Walkerton debacle was a terrible debacle that caused significant harm to a community. However, my recollection of the story was poor oversight enabled poor water sampling techniques and reporting. If people aren’t going to do their jobs properly, then disaster can strike. Railways are some of the most heavily regulated businesses environments in Canada but if an engineer doesn’t park a train on an incline following well established procedures then a Lac Megantic unfolds.
I would take small, efficient government where there are consequences for poor or careless service than Big Government that is wasteful, nobody is ever held accountable for anything and the costs are out of control.
We're agreed here, Darcy. What a government does (that is, whether it's big or small) is a separate question from how a government does it (that is, whether it's efficient or not), and I don't think anyone disagrees that a more efficient government would be better.
What I was saying to Tom is just that when Conservatives promise a more efficient, smaller government, Liberals genuinely tend to hear, "We're going to slash the hell out of important services and kill your grandma, and also, we're not going to be more efficient or spend any less money." Maybe we're wrong, but we're not just fearmongering - that's what it sounds like to us.
Maybe Liberals need to get their hearing checked?
I can only speak for myself, not conservatives in general, and certainly not for Pierre Poilievre. I belief in the work ethic, I believe in standing on my own two feet and paying my own way. I believe in taking care of my own family, determining my own fate and being a responsible individual. Your description of a Liberal confuses me because you sound more like a New Democrat, a socialist. I thought Liberals were more centrist in general, although obviously the PM has taken the party far to the left. Governments don't do anything well, so less government is always a good thing. From your comment I get the impression you would be in favour of everybody just working for the government and to hell with businesses. And excessive taxes are evil in my opinion, you will have to provide a definition of "reasonable taxes." I understand that a limited amount of tax is necessary for the country to function and to provide for national and border security, the military, law and order, infrastructure, international diplomacy etc., but the amount of money we throw at useless government programs is so wasteful. This government doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. I was born and raised on the left coast and so am not too familiar with the Mike Harris legacy. I have read that a lot of the policies he introduced were left in place by the McGuinty & Wynne governments, so they must have had some merit. And after McGuinty & Wynne got finished with Ontario you have the largest sub-sovereign debt of any jurisdiction in the world, well done!
There isn't any one big thing that has reduced our freedoms here in Canada, it has been a slow, incremental process. Excessive taxation certainly dampens our economic freedom, covid brought about a whole bunch of restrictions that took some of our freedom, taking firearms away from law abiding farmers, hunters and others definitely infringes on our freedom, as does trying to control free speech and having unelected bureaucrats scrutinize on-line discussion. Civil liberties are slowly being squeezed by activist judges. White males are discriminated against because of DEI hiring policies.
Your description of Poilievre getting under his opponents skin applies perfectly to Trudeau as well, who just tries to antagonize, divide and insult any Canadian who doesn't agree with his vision.
Thanks for engaging, Tom! Yeah, we really sharply disagree about quite a lot of things, but that's okay. It's good to be able to talk civilly with smart people we disagree with in this "everyone I disagree with is the bogeyman" society.
I would say I was more centrist when I was younger - a Chretien-style Liberal - and that my views have evolved leftward in a lot of ways, especially around "identity politics" stuff. I don't claim to speak for all Liberals in any way.
Smaller government has always been a red flag for me too. Why would we want a smaller government in an increasingly more complicated world? Transitioning into and out of Covid should have made clear that “smaller” gov does not translate into getting things done well or faster. Reducing regulations and red tape sounds good on the face of it but r & rt is not just devised to make people crazy or to be “unfair” but to help people stay safe, not be taken advantage of and to help maintain some order in the great scheme of things.
Freedom and woke. Two words most Conservatives cannot define. But they know it when they see it and that’s a fact!
I addressed freedom in a previous reply, so let's just talk about "woke." In the olden days, it was just called political correctness. Pulling down statues of our founding fathers, and changing the name of streets, schools and universities because of allegations of impropriety 150+ years ago is woke. Not hiring people based on merit, competence or ability, but rather based on sex, skin colour, religion or disability is woke. Giving free drugs to drug addicts because you don't want to stigmatize them is woke. Policing language because you don't want to hurt anyones feeling is woke. Not allowing females to be called women, or females, but calling them "a person with a vagina" is woke. Claiming there are dozens of genders and that we aren't born either a male or a female is woke. Trying to prevent parents from taking an active part in the raising of their children is woke. I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture.
Bravo Mr. Spicer.
Liberals/NDP know so much about conservatives but very little about themselves. Interesting.
Another interesting retort as to who might be gushing over a politician might be Arron Wherry and his love of all things Liberal. Seriously, when they put him in CBC political parties as a neutral, I keep thinking he should have to claim a contribution in kind campaign donations lol
Had a chance to listen to the interview now, thanks for it. The very last part came as a shock: PP is an impulsive micro-manager, and indecisive to boot! That's going to be fun with him as Prime Minister.
Interesting insight…sounds like a boss I used to have…and I didn’t like him either.
Beginning with the comment by Tom Spicer and others that follow much ado is made about “freedom.” Especially as it relates to conservatives. It has a MAGA flavour to it.. For a hilarious discussion about this see Jon Stewart’s show 2 days ag about conservatives views on this matter. Stewart points out how conservatives handle freedom within their universe.In other words they don’t want anything to do it.