I didn't think your column was all that wrong. Your point was that it was a poor result for the Liberals - true, just that it was even poorer than you thought at the time. You also said that if the PM hung on, he would face a steady trickle/stream of MPs deciding to head for the exits - also true when you judge what has happened in the last six weeks when two of his caucus members decided that serving provincially and municipally might be more rewarding. I guess the mistake, such as it was, was forgetting that there were over 10k advance poll ballots waiting to be counted at the end, and that those might reasonably be expected to tilt pretty strongly to the "change" candidate.
Well the members of the LPC have shown time and time again that they'd rather be the Mayor of Van/Cal/Edm/Win/Tor/Mtl/Hfx (take your pick) than running the government of a G7 nation. You know making sure our foreign affairs, military, and borders are secure and that unlikable foreign state actors aren't mucking about in the country unsupervised. Boring stuff.
Well, Donald, they have broken foreign affairs, military, border, finances, immigration, etc., etc., (pretty much everything) so they now have to concentrate on breaking the cities.
In fact, one of those ideological fellow travelers has now broken a principal water main in my city of Calgary. Oh, she didn't actually break it but she sure tried to deflect blame over every other level of government rather than her own that had allowed the deterioration so she does fit in with the LPC.
So, yes, they definitely have job "prospects" ahead of them. Good idea (for them) as they won't have their current jobs a whole lot longer. Oh, and bad idea for the citizens of the various municipalities.
Ça me rappelle que Paul Wells a déjà dit que Ford ne serait jamais élu, ou quelque chose du genre :) Sur un autre sujet: l'autre jour, Chantal Hébert a dit beaucoup de bien du livre de M. Wells à Radio-Canada. Elle espère qu'il y aura une traduction en français. J'espère la même chose.
Absolutely not, eating the crowing column (which was also great) is reward enough. Or maybe it is, “nothing interesting will happen in Ottawa, except Paul’s writing.”
What an enjoyable exchange people are having….Mr Wells you are doing yourself proud and it is clear we can both enjoy your writing and make fun of it/you from time to time. Alas, your timing and pronouncement was a tad premature last night or for many who read it with their coffee, this morning. This is life….please continue being Mr. Wells…as imperfect as all of us…or at least some of us….!
The Conservative talking points certainly downplayed any notion that they might pull off any kind of an upset last night, but there were two interesting tells on the CBC live feed covering the results.
Texts and Tweets drifting in from Liberals to the CBC as the first results drifted in said it was a “nail biter”.
Don Stewart showed up at his campaign rally but refused to concede, even though trailing by 500 votes. Coy with reporters, he insisted that it was too early to concede or claim victory. Hmmm. There was some information that shaped that thinking, and pundits will be looking under every rock today to determine what it was.
Sheila Copps on Twitter (X) 2 hours after the polls closed…when only 10% of the polls were counted…
"Not sure which election you are watching. The Liberals are winning in double digits. Not bad for a party this is supposed to be 20 points behind on the national polls."
So, Teresa, please tell me was Sheila's diet of crow as displayed on X as elegant as that of the oh, so elegant P. Wells?
I ask because a) I don't follow X in any way, shape or form; and b) I have every expectation that S. Copps will be silent (for the first time!) on X in terms of this issue.
My suspicion is that there were certain polling stations which favoured the Conservatives that some, such as Don Stewart, were aware still had to be heard from.
My suspicion would tilt towards the high advance poll voting. 10,000 early voters were determined to be counted and the Conservatives may have firm data that indicated a high percentage of those voter were Conservative.
Both the Conservatives and Liberals would have been fairly sure the early votes tended Conservative: their campaign folks would have been trying to get known supporters to vote early (or, just as good, confirm that they have already voted early) to simplify e-day operations. In the Conservatives' case, they'd have identified many of their voters had already done that; in the Liberals', that they hadn't.
Audiobook bought! Yes Paul, there is a market for people in Ottawa and I suppose elsewhere who like to listen to great nonfiction while on walks. Happy to hear about the promissory note.
It was also a ridiculous number with one of the 84, Hamel, receiving 0 votes. What was the point of these people running? Because they could, yes, but why?
It was an organized protest by a group calling themselves the Longest Ballot Committee. They worked to get as many candidates as possible on the ballot as a protest against the lack of a move towards "electoral reform". They have done this in other by-elections also. The threshold to get on a federal ballot is surprisingly low, and they took full advantage.
They did the same last year in the Winnipeg South Centre byelection. We had 48 candidates, Likely same names as you can run without living in the Province of the riding they are running in.
Hang on! I'm just getting word that Paul Wells is still one of the best political commentators ever.
Certainly he is!
In fact, he fesses up when he messes up. Very dissimilar to a certain First Minister.
Indeed!
I didn't think your column was all that wrong. Your point was that it was a poor result for the Liberals - true, just that it was even poorer than you thought at the time. You also said that if the PM hung on, he would face a steady trickle/stream of MPs deciding to head for the exits - also true when you judge what has happened in the last six weeks when two of his caucus members decided that serving provincially and municipally might be more rewarding. I guess the mistake, such as it was, was forgetting that there were over 10k advance poll ballots waiting to be counted at the end, and that those might reasonably be expected to tilt pretty strongly to the "change" candidate.
There are rumours that Doug Ford will go to the polls early. Perhaps some Liberal MPs will find satisfaction playing in that sandbox.
Well the members of the LPC have shown time and time again that they'd rather be the Mayor of Van/Cal/Edm/Win/Tor/Mtl/Hfx (take your pick) than running the government of a G7 nation. You know making sure our foreign affairs, military, and borders are secure and that unlikable foreign state actors aren't mucking about in the country unsupervised. Boring stuff.
Well, Donald, they have broken foreign affairs, military, border, finances, immigration, etc., etc., (pretty much everything) so they now have to concentrate on breaking the cities.
In fact, one of those ideological fellow travelers has now broken a principal water main in my city of Calgary. Oh, she didn't actually break it but she sure tried to deflect blame over every other level of government rather than her own that had allowed the deterioration so she does fit in with the LPC.
So, yes, they definitely have job "prospects" ahead of them. Good idea (for them) as they won't have their current jobs a whole lot longer. Oh, and bad idea for the citizens of the various municipalities.
It's like Felix Salmon once said: if you're never wrong, you're never interesting.
It ain't over 'til (the woman who's a tad short for her width) sings.
All good. Stay calm and carry on.
You're still the best political journalist in the country.
All of us get to eat a little crow from time to time. This was served up quite elegantly, good job.
Ça me rappelle que Paul Wells a déjà dit que Ford ne serait jamais élu, ou quelque chose du genre :) Sur un autre sujet: l'autre jour, Chantal Hébert a dit beaucoup de bien du livre de M. Wells à Radio-Canada. Elle espère qu'il y aura une traduction en français. J'espère la même chose.
L'influence de Chantal H sur mes choix dépasse peut-être ses attentes.
Will the Liberals finally start to realize that some of their policies are very unpopular, or will they assume it’s just a matter of improving comms?
Are they even capable of that reflection?
The NDP also should be concerned. They are another party that should be questioning their leadership now. Very poor showing.
Methinks this calls for and, by George we need, a new Well’s rule.
Absolutely not, eating the crowing column (which was also great) is reward enough. Or maybe it is, “nothing interesting will happen in Ottawa, except Paul’s writing.”
And Terry Glavin
What an enjoyable exchange people are having….Mr Wells you are doing yourself proud and it is clear we can both enjoy your writing and make fun of it/you from time to time. Alas, your timing and pronouncement was a tad premature last night or for many who read it with their coffee, this morning. This is life….please continue being Mr. Wells…as imperfect as all of us…or at least some of us….!
The Conservative talking points certainly downplayed any notion that they might pull off any kind of an upset last night, but there were two interesting tells on the CBC live feed covering the results.
Texts and Tweets drifting in from Liberals to the CBC as the first results drifted in said it was a “nail biter”.
Don Stewart showed up at his campaign rally but refused to concede, even though trailing by 500 votes. Coy with reporters, he insisted that it was too early to concede or claim victory. Hmmm. There was some information that shaped that thinking, and pundits will be looking under every rock today to determine what it was.
Sheila Copps on Twitter (X) 2 hours after the polls closed…when only 10% of the polls were counted…
"Not sure which election you are watching. The Liberals are winning in double digits. Not bad for a party this is supposed to be 20 points behind on the national polls."
How embarrassing is that?
Can Shiela Copps be embarrassed?
However, I did my own early bedtime call and woke up looking stupid too.
So, Teresa, please tell me was Sheila's diet of crow as displayed on X as elegant as that of the oh, so elegant P. Wells?
I ask because a) I don't follow X in any way, shape or form; and b) I have every expectation that S. Copps will be silent (for the first time!) on X in terms of this issue.
My suspicion is that there were certain polling stations which favoured the Conservatives that some, such as Don Stewart, were aware still had to be heard from.
Good comments.
My suspicion would tilt towards the high advance poll voting. 10,000 early voters were determined to be counted and the Conservatives may have firm data that indicated a high percentage of those voter were Conservative.
Both the Conservatives and Liberals would have been fairly sure the early votes tended Conservative: their campaign folks would have been trying to get known supporters to vote early (or, just as good, confirm that they have already voted early) to simplify e-day operations. In the Conservatives' case, they'd have identified many of their voters had already done that; in the Liberals', that they hadn't.
As to the 'blip' - my father's [Irish immigrant] adage "I'm not always right but I am never wrong".
Stuff happens
Audiobook bought! Yes Paul, there is a market for people in Ottawa and I suppose elsewhere who like to listen to great nonfiction while on walks. Happy to hear about the promissory note.
What was Tyler Meredith tweeting about this morning?
Tyler mostly reposts what others said…
Will be interesting to hear the ‘concession’ remarks - and the latter-day justifications for the loss. And are late results going to be the norm?
Only when there are 84 candidates on the ballot as there were last night. That made hand counting a nightmare, I would imagine...
It was also a ridiculous number with one of the 84, Hamel, receiving 0 votes. What was the point of these people running? Because they could, yes, but why?
It was an organized protest by a group calling themselves the Longest Ballot Committee. They worked to get as many candidates as possible on the ballot as a protest against the lack of a move towards "electoral reform". They have done this in other by-elections also. The threshold to get on a federal ballot is surprisingly low, and they took full advantage.
...and they think annoying people is a clever campaign strategy? Makes me all the readier to ignore anything they say - especially about elections.
The threshold of everything in the past almost 9 years is incredibly low. (Election Canada rules included)
In particular, the threshold of governmental competence is incredibly low.
They did the same last year in the Winnipeg South Centre byelection. We had 48 candidates, Likely same names as you can run without living in the Province of the riding they are running in.
I find that truly amazing. Did he not even vote for himself?
It is insane! Is it a real person?
I don't see why, one "X" in 84 boxes would stand out!
And can we expect a, "what this defeat means to Singh column?"
Chicken à la King comes with a dollop of cream sauce; Crow à la Wells with a dollop of self-dep and a side of good humour. Love it!