I agree with Paul's (and Wicary's) assessment of the Bank of Canada announcement. I strongly suspect the Bank's reaction to adding another audit would be "ok? sure? why not?".
"Some people worry it could cause Tiff Macklem, the Bank Governor, to resign, if Poilievre gets any closer to power."
Why would anyone worry about that? I'd celebrate it! He's been wrong about inflation in this country since 2020; and therefore he's complicit in the creation of massive debt.
I feel so grateful to have such a direct access to Paul Wells’s writing ! I discovered Paul on Radio-Canada (his presence on the weekly panel is a true game-changer, as Paul’s perspective is always enriching/enhancing the discussion) and, listening to him, I had my epiphany: finally, finally, the one Canadian journalist that I had been looking for to make me better understand federal politics. Talent, witty, superb writing. Merci et Bravo !
Great piece Paul - and spoiler alert - I quote the exact reference from your (definitely not underrated) book Right Side Up in my forthcoming book, The Right Path. Had it in before I saw it here but reach same conclusion... cheers Tasha
While I'm no fan of Poilievre's, I agree that he's way more moderate than the hysteria his candidacy is arousing on the left would suggest. I also think the mismatch between the Liberal's overheated rhetoric and the reality will work in PP's favour by making the Libverrals look desperate.
Just thinking and wondering about the implications of what is going on behind the scenes that I'm not sure people talk about . The Bank of Canada has partnered with MIT in March of 2022 to explore the idea of a Digital Currency Initiative - part of the World Economic Forum . Freeland sits on the board of trustees of the WEF rubbing shoulders at Davos with the rich and powerful and her 2012 book called Plutocrats : the Rise of the New Global Super -Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else and now the privy council says it requires months to provide docs on her relationship with the WEF . Seems to me , the Canadian people need to be told ,with transparency, what exactly is going on regarding this mission ,how it will impact our banking, and the kinds of controls this government will implement . Guess I'm wondering why this agenda of the WEF is not talked about openly ? This information is easily accessible .
I like Pierre Poilievre. He first came into my view during the SNC-Lavalin scandal hearings. He was a dog with the bone and asked all the questions whirling around in my head. I thought to myself, finally someone who is not afraid to be real and yes I am a bit defensive when I feel he is being unjustly maligned.
So when you say Poilievre "accused" the Bank of Canada of printing money., I find that an odd verb, "accused". If they didn't print the money, who did because it was spent.
And yes, definitely Poilievre can engage in some hyperbole when making a point, what candidate doesn't.
As for Poilievre's calling the Bank 'financially illiterate', is that really far off the mark. Poilievre predicted the rising inflation, the Bank of Canada did not.
And of course, the reality is there is an arm's length between the government and the Bank of Canada, but their policies and actions are very much interlinked, so one does impact the other.
In closing, I would consider your comments, "an Ottawa-run cryptocurrency would be repulsive to people who financed February's truckers' convoy and who've hoped the Emergencies Act wouldn't be used to track and block their transaction" very much conjecture on your part. That the government was able to invoke the Emergencies Act and use it to freeze the bank accounts of everyday donors was complete overreach by the government, and totally unexpected by the donors and not on their radar. I believe your supposition to be hyperbole.
By the way, I want Poilievre to succeed, but definitely do not find you to be my new friend. That said, I do appreciate you generating a conversation. So, thanks!
Couple corrections - the BoC predicted that inflation would be more "transitory", which has not proven correct so far. That doesn't make them financially illiterate. And PP is reacting to inflation, and using it to his advantage - he was never out predicting it. I didn't hear him, or any other Conservative, opposing CERB or related benefits when they were announced. In fact, they pushed for them to be larger.
Replies. True, the Bank of Canada used the term "transitory" but were hesitant to provide a clear definition. Of Course, Pierre Poilievre would use data to his advantage, who would not when making an argument. He has been using the term "Justinflation" for a while now. The CPC MPs did ask for more oversight and scrutiny regarding COVID related programs, but the government was quick to limit facilitating opposition questioning. In defense of Pierre Poilievre, he has for quite some time now been expressing concern about the Trudeau government putting us too far into debt.
This is nothing new for Canadian conservatism, and it arguably goes back even further than Stephen Harper.
Preston Manning's 1990 book "A New Canada" makes for fascinating reading. Manning comes across as much more moderate than his critics would give him credit for, ranging from how he dissuaded the grassroots in one B.C. riding from nominating a local shock jock who would be an optical disaster to recounting how none of the Reform delegates at one meeting moved when he asked for a show of hands from people who wanted to abolish public healthcare, or how he flat-out said that the difference between authentic and spurious Christianity is that authentic Christianity doesn't force its solutions on people who don't want it, words that would have gotten him crucified in the American Bible Belt. More recently, he's been haranguing the conservative movement for ceding the environment as a political issue to the left, and been ripped by Ezra Levant for it.
I've been fascinated by the challenge political parties have of keeping their bases happy while appealing to undecided voters. I think Mr. Wells may have hit on one of the tricks here in making people feel like they've been listened to and their opinions taken into account, even if the policy changes that result are minimal.
In my opinion, Pierre is fiscally conservative and socially moderate. For a lot of us his appeal beyond those credentials is his stand on freedom and free speech. Thus his opposition to a Bank of Canada digital currency is required to protect against further encroachment of our freedoms by the surveillance state. I don't think you should scoff at bitcoin either. If you haven't seen video of Poilievre's visit to a falafel joint in London, I recommend it. It's both instructive on bitcoin's role and hilarious.
It's called "lip service", isn't it? When you say the right things but don't follow up with action?
GW Bush was famous for pandering to American Evangelicals, but the guy in the White House outreach office to them resigned for lack of resources, even other personnel: he was only there for lip service, not action.
But pandering to evangelicals, ever since they switched sides. After 1965 voting rights, the "south was lost for a generation" - actually going on three - mostly via evangelicals switching. They went 84% for Nixon, higher than their Trump vote.
Poilievre, or any politician, was surely thrilled to find that there was a Canadian demographic so passionate about their hot buttons, and so ignorant of the actual structure and laws of government (MOU, anybody?) that they can become big voters, donors, volunteers, just with some verbal BS and symbolic, empty gestures, like the American Evangelicals.
It's a good analysis, and we should definitely remember that he's in "fire up the base" mode to win the leadership. I think what's different now than Harper-era populism is the cultural force of Trump-ism, and how PP is tapping into that vein. Maybe he'll shift tone a bit for the general election, but right now he's busy whipping up anti-establishment sentiment, and bordering dangerously on conspiracy theorizing (sometime crossing the border) to do it. He knows that more of the population are are thinking in those terms, and it's a potentially ripe voter base. But, feeding their hunger for an enemy (BoC, WEF, journalists, experts, etc.) has major social implications that will last well beyond the next election.
Paul, have there been any more sightings of the Millenium Falcon and did you ever get your weekend at the Peoples' Cottage up at Harrington Lake. I still get a smile thinking back to that article. Keep up the great work.
I guess mashing the "like" button says enough! But wanted to add - this is the classic Wells I wait for !
I agree with Paul's (and Wicary's) assessment of the Bank of Canada announcement. I strongly suspect the Bank's reaction to adding another audit would be "ok? sure? why not?".
"Some people worry it could cause Tiff Macklem, the Bank Governor, to resign, if Poilievre gets any closer to power."
Why would anyone worry about that? I'd celebrate it! He's been wrong about inflation in this country since 2020; and therefore he's complicit in the creation of massive debt.
I feel so grateful to have such a direct access to Paul Wells’s writing ! I discovered Paul on Radio-Canada (his presence on the weekly panel is a true game-changer, as Paul’s perspective is always enriching/enhancing the discussion) and, listening to him, I had my epiphany: finally, finally, the one Canadian journalist that I had been looking for to make me better understand federal politics. Talent, witty, superb writing. Merci et Bravo !
Great piece Paul - and spoiler alert - I quote the exact reference from your (definitely not underrated) book Right Side Up in my forthcoming book, The Right Path. Had it in before I saw it here but reach same conclusion... cheers Tasha
Paul, happy to see you back in action.
While I'm no fan of Poilievre's, I agree that he's way more moderate than the hysteria his candidacy is arousing on the left would suggest. I also think the mismatch between the Liberal's overheated rhetoric and the reality will work in PP's favour by making the Libverrals look desperate.
Just thinking and wondering about the implications of what is going on behind the scenes that I'm not sure people talk about . The Bank of Canada has partnered with MIT in March of 2022 to explore the idea of a Digital Currency Initiative - part of the World Economic Forum . Freeland sits on the board of trustees of the WEF rubbing shoulders at Davos with the rich and powerful and her 2012 book called Plutocrats : the Rise of the New Global Super -Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else and now the privy council says it requires months to provide docs on her relationship with the WEF . Seems to me , the Canadian people need to be told ,with transparency, what exactly is going on regarding this mission ,how it will impact our banking, and the kinds of controls this government will implement . Guess I'm wondering why this agenda of the WEF is not talked about openly ? This information is easily accessible .
Good morning,
I like Pierre Poilievre. He first came into my view during the SNC-Lavalin scandal hearings. He was a dog with the bone and asked all the questions whirling around in my head. I thought to myself, finally someone who is not afraid to be real and yes I am a bit defensive when I feel he is being unjustly maligned.
So when you say Poilievre "accused" the Bank of Canada of printing money., I find that an odd verb, "accused". If they didn't print the money, who did because it was spent.
And yes, definitely Poilievre can engage in some hyperbole when making a point, what candidate doesn't.
As for Poilievre's calling the Bank 'financially illiterate', is that really far off the mark. Poilievre predicted the rising inflation, the Bank of Canada did not.
And of course, the reality is there is an arm's length between the government and the Bank of Canada, but their policies and actions are very much interlinked, so one does impact the other.
In closing, I would consider your comments, "an Ottawa-run cryptocurrency would be repulsive to people who financed February's truckers' convoy and who've hoped the Emergencies Act wouldn't be used to track and block their transaction" very much conjecture on your part. That the government was able to invoke the Emergencies Act and use it to freeze the bank accounts of everyday donors was complete overreach by the government, and totally unexpected by the donors and not on their radar. I believe your supposition to be hyperbole.
By the way, I want Poilievre to succeed, but definitely do not find you to be my new friend. That said, I do appreciate you generating a conversation. So, thanks!
Couple corrections - the BoC predicted that inflation would be more "transitory", which has not proven correct so far. That doesn't make them financially illiterate. And PP is reacting to inflation, and using it to his advantage - he was never out predicting it. I didn't hear him, or any other Conservative, opposing CERB or related benefits when they were announced. In fact, they pushed for them to be larger.
Replies. True, the Bank of Canada used the term "transitory" but were hesitant to provide a clear definition. Of Course, Pierre Poilievre would use data to his advantage, who would not when making an argument. He has been using the term "Justinflation" for a while now. The CPC MPs did ask for more oversight and scrutiny regarding COVID related programs, but the government was quick to limit facilitating opposition questioning. In defense of Pierre Poilievre, he has for quite some time now been expressing concern about the Trudeau government putting us too far into debt.
This is nothing new for Canadian conservatism, and it arguably goes back even further than Stephen Harper.
Preston Manning's 1990 book "A New Canada" makes for fascinating reading. Manning comes across as much more moderate than his critics would give him credit for, ranging from how he dissuaded the grassroots in one B.C. riding from nominating a local shock jock who would be an optical disaster to recounting how none of the Reform delegates at one meeting moved when he asked for a show of hands from people who wanted to abolish public healthcare, or how he flat-out said that the difference between authentic and spurious Christianity is that authentic Christianity doesn't force its solutions on people who don't want it, words that would have gotten him crucified in the American Bible Belt. More recently, he's been haranguing the conservative movement for ceding the environment as a political issue to the left, and been ripped by Ezra Levant for it.
I've been fascinated by the challenge political parties have of keeping their bases happy while appealing to undecided voters. I think Mr. Wells may have hit on one of the tricks here in making people feel like they've been listened to and their opinions taken into account, even if the policy changes that result are minimal.
In my opinion, Pierre is fiscally conservative and socially moderate. For a lot of us his appeal beyond those credentials is his stand on freedom and free speech. Thus his opposition to a Bank of Canada digital currency is required to protect against further encroachment of our freedoms by the surveillance state. I don't think you should scoff at bitcoin either. If you haven't seen video of Poilievre's visit to a falafel joint in London, I recommend it. It's both instructive on bitcoin's role and hilarious.
"... sounds like pitchforks but looks like auditors ..."
Truly a delicious - and deliciously skewering - descriptive. I congratulate you, Sir.
It's called "lip service", isn't it? When you say the right things but don't follow up with action?
GW Bush was famous for pandering to American Evangelicals, but the guy in the White House outreach office to them resigned for lack of resources, even other personnel: he was only there for lip service, not action.
But pandering to evangelicals, ever since they switched sides. After 1965 voting rights, the "south was lost for a generation" - actually going on three - mostly via evangelicals switching. They went 84% for Nixon, higher than their Trump vote.
Poilievre, or any politician, was surely thrilled to find that there was a Canadian demographic so passionate about their hot buttons, and so ignorant of the actual structure and laws of government (MOU, anybody?) that they can become big voters, donors, volunteers, just with some verbal BS and symbolic, empty gestures, like the American Evangelicals.
It's a good analysis, and we should definitely remember that he's in "fire up the base" mode to win the leadership. I think what's different now than Harper-era populism is the cultural force of Trump-ism, and how PP is tapping into that vein. Maybe he'll shift tone a bit for the general election, but right now he's busy whipping up anti-establishment sentiment, and bordering dangerously on conspiracy theorizing (sometime crossing the border) to do it. He knows that more of the population are are thinking in those terms, and it's a potentially ripe voter base. But, feeding their hunger for an enemy (BoC, WEF, journalists, experts, etc.) has major social implications that will last well beyond the next election.
Paul, have there been any more sightings of the Millenium Falcon and did you ever get your weekend at the Peoples' Cottage up at Harrington Lake. I still get a smile thinking back to that article. Keep up the great work.
Well done on the “hate” front. When both sides of the political spectrum are calling you awful things it is indeed a badge of honour in punditocracy.