The CPC decided, to their detriment, to believe that no sane voter in Canada would support “a part time drama teacher” leading a rump Liberal Party into the 2015 election campaign and propel him into the Prime Minister’s Office. In certain ways, the party messaging still stubbornly dwells on this disconnect between Conservative views of Trudeau and a large portion of Canadian voters.
It would appear that the Liberals have fallen into the same trap. Rather than spend the PR cash to frame Poilievre as one big nasty piece of work, Liberal hubris and
a well established superiority complex has clouded what is really happening on the ground. The rallies that Poilievre has spoken at in the past months are well attended, the events cross racial and income lines and most importantly has allowed Poilievre to craft his messaging for an all important election campaign. He can truthfully point out that bread and butter issues have been his focus for months, while the Liberals have consistently leveraged regulatory mandates and high levels of spending to make life unaffordable. That’s a contrast worth fighting an election over.
Trudeau is an excellent campaigner but is facing Father Time and a Best Before Date. Poilievre is untested, but the Liberals have to admit that momentum is on his side and attempts to frame him in the public eye are not only late coming but appearing desperate.
Assuming that you are meaning the CPC has a history of ditching leaders, that’s right on the money. The CPC is leading in all reputable polls and has been for quite some time now. If the Liberals are banking on internal dissent to undermine the party leader, they might want to reconsider.
Both parties do this, but right now it’s the Liberals that need the house cleaning.
Though, it’s probably much too late.
Housing and Affordability pretty much trump all other issues right now, and they have dug too deep a hole to dig out of, without reversing policy they are married too.
Partisans and non partisans alike need to understand that in order to have a robust economy, people can’t give 50% of their earnings to government, 50% of their earnings for monthly housing and expect to have disposable income to BUY FOOD, let alone furniture, vehicles clothes and raise kids.
That math doesn’t work, and this is precisely the direction many Canadians are heading. Politicians need to get serious and start making decisions that create a vibrant economy that leaves income in pockets for spending.
Yes … we had this conversation not long ago amongst my colleagues at work.
What happens to the economy when no one can “consume” … capitalism needs consumers, but left are happy to burn down capitalism … leaving us where. Fewer and fewer workers producing even less than we are today.
The basic tax rate is not 50% but in many provinces the top MARGINAL tax rate exceeds 50%. The result, of course, is folks wonder why they should work harder when they don't get to keep much of their income.
I don't see momentum on PP's side. In his attacks on housing prices he seems to forget that existing home owners don't want their home prices to go down and that's how many of us are interpreting that. PP's recent charm offensive brought his poll numbers down last week and the Abacus poll was not as glowing as Paul made it out to be. The PM has just come through some personal trauma and with that behind him we will certainly see that his best before date is some years off. I again remind you that the twitter/Instagram pic with his kids generated over 54 MILLION views. Thats monumental by any standard. Yes i am a liberal but i do look at things realistically and also realize elections do matter as the PM has shown.
I remind all readers that out of respect for the privacy of the Prime Minister and his family at this difficult time, I don’t comment on his personal life.
I will say though, that the current struggles in many Canadian households would be a barrier to taking a family to the movies. Just sayin’.
I have no problem saying JT & Sophie have been separated literally for years. It sheer nonsense to make this out as though they are reeling in shock & trying to stumble through each day. As usual, it’s politically convenient to trot out selfies w/children & to ‘thank everyone for understanding in this difficult time’ (read ‘difficult’ in italics)
Keep in mind that PM Justin Trudeau's family pictures may have generated views, but he has worked hard establishing himself as a celebrity and there are always the curious folks about celebrity goings on, but do they want them leading their government? Time will tell.
Fair comment, but the number of voters who don't own houses is going to soon outnumber those who do, if that hasn't happened already. Moreover, once that bloc starts using its voting power people should expect to see a significant increase in capital gains taxes applied.
Elections do matter, as you've noted and I would agree that the PM is a deft and capable campaigner but the 30,000 foot view of the west seems to show a voting population that has soured on aspirational agendas at the expense of getting the simple things that the majority wants. To that end, the PM doesn't have much of a record to point to and will find it hard to make a case to course-correct.
I would suggest you look closer at what this govt has achieved. First and foremost to me and many others is the fact he killed the laws harper set up to take away privacy and hand it to him personally should he want to use it.
Secondly, taking a million people out of poverty is an astounding feat. The budget office has confirmed this happened.
Third, the family allowance benefits and day care plans are allowing more families to have two income earners and be able afford a house purchase. That program is just starting to have an effect.
The TMX pipeline deal that the conservatives could not do in nine years of trying and ultimately selling it to the indigenous bands along the route.
The list goes on
so what are those simple things the majority wants. I'm all eyes and ears
On the other hand, he has taken the Harper governments penchant for concealing information and secrecy to even greater levels. Journalist and ATI access is worse than ever, and our elected officials say less of substance, and accept less responsibility for their words than ever before. Coming after Harper and his crew, that's quite something.
And sure, they lifted people out of poverty by giving them money. More money equals less poverty, naturally. But here is the thing: the people are not coming out of their poverty organically. They are not earning more money or growing to the economy, and this is all being paid for with borrowed money so it is not sustainable in the long term - especially since our economic growth is not in a great place. If anything, Trudeau will be sending more people into poverty down the road with this band aid solution.
More borrowed money for day care is can at least be seen as an investment in the economy except all that has happened is some money (again borrowed) has been given to the provinces. The parts of the country that are benefitting the most are the ones with the higher incomes - which is exactly what happened in Quebec - and most of these people already have houses. The program is already underfunded and short of spaces and staff and that trend is only going to continue.
And finally, TMX. Given that the TMX expansion was proposed in 2013 and that the Liberals took over in 2015 I am not sure what this nine years of trying thing since that would go back to 2004 or 2002 which mean either Chretien or Martin....but that aside, Harper was unable to get pipelines anywhere because our regulatory structures and need to consult prevented it and you could go one further and say that Trudeau was willing to over-rule stakeholders to get it done and Harper wasn't and meanwhile the cost overruns pretty much guarantee no national benefit.
So are any of these items things that the majority would want? Less access open information? Doubtful. More deficit spending which will hollow out the middle class for an announceable poverty metric? Maybe a voter of a certain stipe but likely not the majority who are on the hook for it. A day-care system that doesn't really benefit the people who need it most and which is unsustainable? An over cost pipeline that flies in the face of public feelings on climate and which will really only benefit one province and some very lucky indigenous bands? Um, no.
What the majority would like to see is a robust economy that grows and grows because true social justice stems from meaningful economic access which is the opposite of what has been going on since 2015. The majority would like economic growth so that it's young people are not burdened with servicing a monstrous debt incurred in the name of program announcements of dubious quality that make for a good photo and not much else. They'd probably also like to see cities that are affordable and, increasingly, safer and it is no coincidence that that is why the Conservatives are homing in those two items.
"But my opinions don’t line up cleanly with the party lines in most elections and they won’t in this one."
That is why I subscribe.
You are able to generate comments, Paul, which means you got us thinking, rightly or wrongly. Myself, I have my set views, can respect opposing views being presented, and very much appreciate the opportunity to voice a rebuttal.
Love your comments, yes I much prefer your opinion than reading about how much one politician is better than the other. In the end, the public will decide based on whatever criteria is in a fashion at that moment. Interesting that the cabinet is currently meeting in PEI where the housing crisis is bad for everyone. No matter what your family budget is. I also like the fact that tonight Trudeau is invited to attend a karaoke contest at the sports page bar, which is a dive.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I see a general weariness with the selections on offer come the next election. Trudeau is not respected for all kinds of reasons - many of them associated with his seeming lack of sincerity, tendency to lecture as to what people should value and believe, and near total disregard of finance. Poilievre is not trusted and is seen as the purveyor of odd ideas such as relying on Bitcoin investments to protect one's savings from the ravages of inflation. Neither individual is seen as particularly attractive - we see Poilievre adverts making an effort to humanise the man and Trudeau defiantly claiming to be resolute in his defence of everyone's personal finances no matter the cost to the treasury.
While there is very limited enthusiasm for Trudeau, there is not a lot for Poilievre either. We're in 'a pox on both their houses' mood, which will make the dynamics around the election whenever called to be quite volatile. To be sure, the polls give the Tories a significant lead at present but I suspect it'll be a lot closer when push comes to shove.
It may be a good time for the rest of Canada to be as open as Quebecers in supporting new parties. We really could use some more political dynamism federally.
I am glad Paul, that you are not here to defend either Poilievre or Trudeau. Give us the facts and your opinion. We may not always agree but we need fair and non-partisan journalism which seems to be fading away. So glad I am a subscriber.
There's talk in conservative circles to significantly improve supply and in so doing devalue homes like yours. It's no wonder the Liberals still do so well in rich neighborhoods. For now, Poilievre speaks for those who wish to own.
Reading this reminded me of Hilary Clinton's biggest mistake against Trump - she and her followers, (just like the boys and girls in Trudeau's support loop) - believed so fervently in the FEELINGS of their messaging and the RIGHTNESS of their ideals, that the day would be won by their beliefs.
They have not noticed that the Pollievre gang don't give a shit - just like down South, winning is all that matters now - and the way to win (as Paul pointed out) is to pick a lane and hammer it into the heads and hearts of believers of both sides.
....and at the end of the day, if average voters don't see the Justinites actually deliver more than feel-good platitudes and $500 cheques to someone else...they will throw the bums out.
Problem is, I don't for a moment think PP has the answers - because he hasn't come up with any that I've heard - and I am afraid of what his government full of angry revengeful flag wavers would actually be like - after watching what happened after Hilary went down in flames...I don't want that here!
The Libs need to clean house and get lean and mean and fight back on the field that Pollievre has made his own - not on some imaginary field of dreams!
Ugh, while interior BC is on fire and Yellowknife has evacuated 95% of its population, Poiliviere has been MIA. I believe he is campaigning - with his wife. Without a climate change plan. So, I’ll pass on giving him a *chance*.
Cannot back up "vindictive", Ms. Flanagan will have to find that example of Poilievre's Vengance on somebody.
The rest is simply explained if you acknowledge - without agreeing, as you please - that small-l liberals the world 'round believe that a strong social safety net is a not just a kind mercy, but a society-strengthening good, which like good education and medical care, more than pays for itself; that high tax-rates on the highest incomes to pay for it are both moral and economically positive; that heavy industry needs heavy environmental regulation, as environmental damage never fall upon the elites who own the industry. In short, that liberal agendas serve a large majority of society, not just the poor. With such beliefs, to the small-l point-of-view, the whole small-c conservative world view only serves the top income decile with a better life, and is highly elitist, inherently. The 90% vs the 10%.
To bolster this viewpoint, we point to how well-funded the small-c parties and pols of the world are, by the richest people, the largest corporations, which suggests the economic elite themselves think the c's are pro-elite, too.
Again, no need to agree - or to write back explaining how wrong the small-l viewpoint is; I heard it all from Ronald Reagan's campaign speeches.
But you need never ask why the opposition thinks conservatives are "elitist"; it's kind of our whole point.
Great way to end this particular newsletter, Paul
The CPC decided, to their detriment, to believe that no sane voter in Canada would support “a part time drama teacher” leading a rump Liberal Party into the 2015 election campaign and propel him into the Prime Minister’s Office. In certain ways, the party messaging still stubbornly dwells on this disconnect between Conservative views of Trudeau and a large portion of Canadian voters.
It would appear that the Liberals have fallen into the same trap. Rather than spend the PR cash to frame Poilievre as one big nasty piece of work, Liberal hubris and
a well established superiority complex has clouded what is really happening on the ground. The rallies that Poilievre has spoken at in the past months are well attended, the events cross racial and income lines and most importantly has allowed Poilievre to craft his messaging for an all important election campaign. He can truthfully point out that bread and butter issues have been his focus for months, while the Liberals have consistently leveraged regulatory mandates and high levels of spending to make life unaffordable. That’s a contrast worth fighting an election over.
Trudeau is an excellent campaigner but is facing Father Time and a Best Before Date. Poilievre is untested, but the Liberals have to admit that momentum is on his side and attempts to frame him in the public eye are not only late coming but appearing desperate.
The Liberals need to remember that they have a long and glorious history of stabbing leaders in the back and replacing them prior to election.
Assuming that you are meaning the CPC has a history of ditching leaders, that’s right on the money. The CPC is leading in all reputable polls and has been for quite some time now. If the Liberals are banking on internal dissent to undermine the party leader, they might want to reconsider.
Both parties do this, but right now it’s the Liberals that need the house cleaning.
Though, it’s probably much too late.
Housing and Affordability pretty much trump all other issues right now, and they have dug too deep a hole to dig out of, without reversing policy they are married too.
Partisans and non partisans alike need to understand that in order to have a robust economy, people can’t give 50% of their earnings to government, 50% of their earnings for monthly housing and expect to have disposable income to BUY FOOD, let alone furniture, vehicles clothes and raise kids.
That math doesn’t work, and this is precisely the direction many Canadians are heading. Politicians need to get serious and start making decisions that create a vibrant economy that leaves income in pockets for spending.
Yes … we had this conversation not long ago amongst my colleagues at work.
What happens to the economy when no one can “consume” … capitalism needs consumers, but left are happy to burn down capitalism … leaving us where. Fewer and fewer workers producing even less than we are today.
Even the right wing Fraser Institute acknowledges that Canadians do not pay 50% of their income in taxes https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/high-tax-rates-on-top-earners-in-atlantic-canada-and-quebec
Jason, yes, but, but, but, but ....
The basic tax rate is not 50% but in many provinces the top MARGINAL tax rate exceeds 50%. The result, of course, is folks wonder why they should work harder when they don't get to keep much of their income.
I don't see momentum on PP's side. In his attacks on housing prices he seems to forget that existing home owners don't want their home prices to go down and that's how many of us are interpreting that. PP's recent charm offensive brought his poll numbers down last week and the Abacus poll was not as glowing as Paul made it out to be. The PM has just come through some personal trauma and with that behind him we will certainly see that his best before date is some years off. I again remind you that the twitter/Instagram pic with his kids generated over 54 MILLION views. Thats monumental by any standard. Yes i am a liberal but i do look at things realistically and also realize elections do matter as the PM has shown.
I remind all readers that out of respect for the privacy of the Prime Minister and his family at this difficult time, I don’t comment on his personal life.
I will say though, that the current struggles in many Canadian households would be a barrier to taking a family to the movies. Just sayin’.
Trudeau made his family his brand, so fair game I fear.
I have no problem saying JT & Sophie have been separated literally for years. It sheer nonsense to make this out as though they are reeling in shock & trying to stumble through each day. As usual, it’s politically convenient to trot out selfies w/children & to ‘thank everyone for understanding in this difficult time’ (read ‘difficult’ in italics)
Do you have any proof that they have long been separated or is this like the anonymous comments Paul gets from whomever has the latest rumour.
Keep in mind that PM Justin Trudeau's family pictures may have generated views, but he has worked hard establishing himself as a celebrity and there are always the curious folks about celebrity goings on, but do they want them leading their government? Time will tell.
In Ukraine, an actor was elected President, and became a Churchillian leader. In Canada, an actor was elected Prime Minister, and remained an actor.
He did? That's not what the overwhelming comments about his covid success have said. That was an Oscar performance if acting is your thing
Omg so hilarious, so true!
Fair comment, but the number of voters who don't own houses is going to soon outnumber those who do, if that hasn't happened already. Moreover, once that bloc starts using its voting power people should expect to see a significant increase in capital gains taxes applied.
Elections do matter, as you've noted and I would agree that the PM is a deft and capable campaigner but the 30,000 foot view of the west seems to show a voting population that has soured on aspirational agendas at the expense of getting the simple things that the majority wants. To that end, the PM doesn't have much of a record to point to and will find it hard to make a case to course-correct.
I would suggest you look closer at what this govt has achieved. First and foremost to me and many others is the fact he killed the laws harper set up to take away privacy and hand it to him personally should he want to use it.
Secondly, taking a million people out of poverty is an astounding feat. The budget office has confirmed this happened.
Third, the family allowance benefits and day care plans are allowing more families to have two income earners and be able afford a house purchase. That program is just starting to have an effect.
The TMX pipeline deal that the conservatives could not do in nine years of trying and ultimately selling it to the indigenous bands along the route.
The list goes on
so what are those simple things the majority wants. I'm all eyes and ears
That's one way of looking at it for sure.
On the other hand, he has taken the Harper governments penchant for concealing information and secrecy to even greater levels. Journalist and ATI access is worse than ever, and our elected officials say less of substance, and accept less responsibility for their words than ever before. Coming after Harper and his crew, that's quite something.
And sure, they lifted people out of poverty by giving them money. More money equals less poverty, naturally. But here is the thing: the people are not coming out of their poverty organically. They are not earning more money or growing to the economy, and this is all being paid for with borrowed money so it is not sustainable in the long term - especially since our economic growth is not in a great place. If anything, Trudeau will be sending more people into poverty down the road with this band aid solution.
More borrowed money for day care is can at least be seen as an investment in the economy except all that has happened is some money (again borrowed) has been given to the provinces. The parts of the country that are benefitting the most are the ones with the higher incomes - which is exactly what happened in Quebec - and most of these people already have houses. The program is already underfunded and short of spaces and staff and that trend is only going to continue.
And finally, TMX. Given that the TMX expansion was proposed in 2013 and that the Liberals took over in 2015 I am not sure what this nine years of trying thing since that would go back to 2004 or 2002 which mean either Chretien or Martin....but that aside, Harper was unable to get pipelines anywhere because our regulatory structures and need to consult prevented it and you could go one further and say that Trudeau was willing to over-rule stakeholders to get it done and Harper wasn't and meanwhile the cost overruns pretty much guarantee no national benefit.
So are any of these items things that the majority would want? Less access open information? Doubtful. More deficit spending which will hollow out the middle class for an announceable poverty metric? Maybe a voter of a certain stipe but likely not the majority who are on the hook for it. A day-care system that doesn't really benefit the people who need it most and which is unsustainable? An over cost pipeline that flies in the face of public feelings on climate and which will really only benefit one province and some very lucky indigenous bands? Um, no.
What the majority would like to see is a robust economy that grows and grows because true social justice stems from meaningful economic access which is the opposite of what has been going on since 2015. The majority would like economic growth so that it's young people are not burdened with servicing a monstrous debt incurred in the name of program announcements of dubious quality that make for a good photo and not much else. They'd probably also like to see cities that are affordable and, increasingly, safer and it is no coincidence that that is why the Conservatives are homing in those two items.
I repeat again. I wish this was a reality show.
I will say one thing. Covid ravaged economies and its taking a longer period to get past the pandemic. Short memories not withstanding
In a lot of ways it is a reality show, and it feels about as real as one to boot.
"But my opinions don’t line up cleanly with the party lines in most elections and they won’t in this one."
That is why I subscribe.
You are able to generate comments, Paul, which means you got us thinking, rightly or wrongly. Myself, I have my set views, can respect opposing views being presented, and very much appreciate the opportunity to voice a rebuttal.
Great read as usual, Paul. Always fun and illuminating. Many thanks.
I gladly pay for this. So well put.
Love your comments, yes I much prefer your opinion than reading about how much one politician is better than the other. In the end, the public will decide based on whatever criteria is in a fashion at that moment. Interesting that the cabinet is currently meeting in PEI where the housing crisis is bad for everyone. No matter what your family budget is. I also like the fact that tonight Trudeau is invited to attend a karaoke contest at the sports page bar, which is a dive.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I see a general weariness with the selections on offer come the next election. Trudeau is not respected for all kinds of reasons - many of them associated with his seeming lack of sincerity, tendency to lecture as to what people should value and believe, and near total disregard of finance. Poilievre is not trusted and is seen as the purveyor of odd ideas such as relying on Bitcoin investments to protect one's savings from the ravages of inflation. Neither individual is seen as particularly attractive - we see Poilievre adverts making an effort to humanise the man and Trudeau defiantly claiming to be resolute in his defence of everyone's personal finances no matter the cost to the treasury.
While there is very limited enthusiasm for Trudeau, there is not a lot for Poilievre either. We're in 'a pox on both their houses' mood, which will make the dynamics around the election whenever called to be quite volatile. To be sure, the polls give the Tories a significant lead at present but I suspect it'll be a lot closer when push comes to shove.
It's all a bit depressing.
It may be a good time for the rest of Canada to be as open as Quebecers in supporting new parties. We really could use some more political dynamism federally.
Agreed! Good comment!
There are 3 main parties. If enough people vote for the NDP they will be in power. Oh my.
I am glad Paul, that you are not here to defend either Poilievre or Trudeau. Give us the facts and your opinion. We may not always agree but we need fair and non-partisan journalism which seems to be fading away. So glad I am a subscriber.
There's talk in conservative circles to significantly improve supply and in so doing devalue homes like yours. It's no wonder the Liberals still do so well in rich neighborhoods. For now, Poilievre speaks for those who wish to own.
Proud subscriber 👏🏻👊🏻 last paragraph 👩🏼🍳 💋
Reading this reminded me of Hilary Clinton's biggest mistake against Trump - she and her followers, (just like the boys and girls in Trudeau's support loop) - believed so fervently in the FEELINGS of their messaging and the RIGHTNESS of their ideals, that the day would be won by their beliefs.
They have not noticed that the Pollievre gang don't give a shit - just like down South, winning is all that matters now - and the way to win (as Paul pointed out) is to pick a lane and hammer it into the heads and hearts of believers of both sides.
....and at the end of the day, if average voters don't see the Justinites actually deliver more than feel-good platitudes and $500 cheques to someone else...they will throw the bums out.
Problem is, I don't for a moment think PP has the answers - because he hasn't come up with any that I've heard - and I am afraid of what his government full of angry revengeful flag wavers would actually be like - after watching what happened after Hilary went down in flames...I don't want that here!
The Libs need to clean house and get lean and mean and fight back on the field that Pollievre has made his own - not on some imaginary field of dreams!
Why not give Polievre a chance before condemning? Just asking.
maybe ...because I don't think the WEF is a secret star chamber like SPECTRE...
Ugh, while interior BC is on fire and Yellowknife has evacuated 95% of its population, Poiliviere has been MIA. I believe he is campaigning - with his wife. Without a climate change plan. So, I’ll pass on giving him a *chance*.
Trudeau is more like Trump if people really listened and watched behaviours. 🤦🏼♀️ Enough with the pearl clutching about Pierre being “dangerous”...
I don’t know, Peter, PP May surprise us! We do know JT, and that he’s not a fan of any colleague who might prove to be a better leader.
Hubris has been the undoing of many who started out with sunny days ahead....
Great ending for an excellent piece
Most Canadians are in the same boat …we do not agree 100% with any party, we pick the one that’s close, that’s the best it can ever be.
As always, Sir, a great dispatch.
Thats why we like you, Paul.
Liberals don’t think that Poiliviere is phoney, weak and elitist. How quaint. They think he’s a lying, vindictive conman.
And you base this on?
I'd say she was projecting, the LIBERALS are phony, weak, and elitist!
Huh????
Cannot back up "vindictive", Ms. Flanagan will have to find that example of Poilievre's Vengance on somebody.
The rest is simply explained if you acknowledge - without agreeing, as you please - that small-l liberals the world 'round believe that a strong social safety net is a not just a kind mercy, but a society-strengthening good, which like good education and medical care, more than pays for itself; that high tax-rates on the highest incomes to pay for it are both moral and economically positive; that heavy industry needs heavy environmental regulation, as environmental damage never fall upon the elites who own the industry. In short, that liberal agendas serve a large majority of society, not just the poor. With such beliefs, to the small-l point-of-view, the whole small-c conservative world view only serves the top income decile with a better life, and is highly elitist, inherently. The 90% vs the 10%.
To bolster this viewpoint, we point to how well-funded the small-c parties and pols of the world are, by the richest people, the largest corporations, which suggests the economic elite themselves think the c's are pro-elite, too.
Again, no need to agree - or to write back explaining how wrong the small-l viewpoint is; I heard it all from Ronald Reagan's campaign speeches.
But you need never ask why the opposition thinks conservatives are "elitist"; it's kind of our whole point.
Facts. The list of mistruths and misinformation is way too long for this space..
Yes, by all means more housing. At the same time, what are they doing to keep the existing ones from burning down?