I don’t usually post two comments - but since I was reading very quickly, let me go back to this good read from Paul Wells: in a time of social media whiplash and attention disorder, the best part of this article is the chance to think on things like Henry V and think back in time to days when Harper changed the way press conferences were held. Our short attention spans these days impedes thinking long and deep. Thanks Paul for that kind of writing - we need these chances to think harder.
Nobina, I agree that "Our short attention spans these days impedes thinking long and deep."
Now, having said that I agree with you, I must respectfully argue that the short attention spans are our own individual responsibility and we cannot simply blame others, television, the internet, the this, the that, and so forth. In other words, we are our own worst enemy and that means that we must each take charge to ensure that we consider things fully.
Perhaps I am overly optimistic about the ability of the populace to handle that responsibility but ....
Great read Paul. I think that what might have been discussed is if the PM might be playing 'rope a dope" with the "trickster". The libs appear to be on a road to recovery from their sleepy summer and early fall lack of energy so it makes me wonder when the PM will become king of the hill again as he can do if he so chooses.
Totally agree with you Nobina. And as I’m days late in reading Paul’s writing, I read it twice and enjoyed it even more the second time.
I do agree that PP has some power, I don’t believe it’s deep or lasting. He’s loving it though and hamming it up for all it’s worth. People are in a weird place of wanting to believe half a dozen impossible things as if it would make any difference to the world they inhabit. Common sense is one of those more ephemeral offerings. Everyone agrees on what it is until asked to define it then it slips away.
PP is no Jack Nickelson or Jack Ryan, nor is he the smartest guy in the room. But so long as people keep clapping he won’t stop. His basket of never-ending Lib issues to bash is repetitive and boring. The new look is pedestrian and also boring. After being a pencil-necked bespectacled twerp forever we are supposed to embrace PP with shoulders and contacts (which look uncomfortable).
What is scary is PPs' short attention span. He has counted on the fact that he can distract the voters to only look at what he wants them to see. If he refuses to answer any of the myriad questions that have been asked by many, he scrum-like changes the topic and moves on or walks away.
Galloping Gerty was a treat as was Groucho. Thanks
Jason, I refer you to Nobina Robinson's post about short attention spans. Why do I make that reference? Well, it seems to me that anyone who can quickly form an opinion on a new party with a new leader and new candidates and new policies, etc. might well have a short attention span and not be sufficiently interested in the hard work of considering, evaluating, etc. But then, I am somewhat of a stick in the mud so you might find my thoughts not to your liking.
Ken, I’d posit that even now the one voter or so out of ten that decides elections probably meets your description of hasty, gut-reaction decision-making.
It’s a political marketplace. If folks can’t find what they’re really hoping for, someone should step in to fill that need. This country and many others have had some good leadership historically. Why settle for less?
We Quebecers have the advantage of an unlikely-to-win alternative to default to when we don’t like the other candidates: PQ provincially and Bloc for federal. I just wish those two parties wouldn’t flatter themselves so much when they win more votes than usual.
This column was a bit too discursive for my limited attention span, but that doesn't mean others might not enjoy it. Overall, however, I think it danced around Poilievre's amoral and transactional approach to politics. He is clever, he is hard-working, but he is entirely focused on winning power and profile for himself and settling some ancient unspecified grudge. Scrums can be stupid, pack dog attacks _ especially if the victim shows any signs of weakness _ but sometimes a question is just a question. The CP reporter asked a perfectly valid question; indeed, she gave Poilievre an opportunity to apologize for jumping the gun and a moment to express relief that the bridge incident wasn't terrorism-related. But that would be a different politician. Poilievre is fragile as new ice on a pond in November. If he can't tolerate a relatively calm question from a reporter, you wonder about how his caucus must feel about even uttering doubts about party policy/positioning in private. When people show you who they are, etc etc...
‘Trying to be the smartest guy in the room by betting on limited information’ - does not equal exemplary leadership material. Poiliviere may be a wizard in his own mind, but he is losing points quickly. Apparently he has yet to appear in the HoC after his foray into repeating Fox News reportage. *Those* American reporters he trusts. Amateur hour. Eye roll far back into head.
I've said this in 3 different ways but about that CP reporter-Give me a break! She is an adult grown woman able to fight her own battles-supposedly. So many safety nets thrown her way (Coyne and the three Muskateers) for example. If the fossils of the industry molly coddled me that way I would say BACK OFF- I GOT THIS. I encouraged her to pick up the phone, email, text- anything and ask for a tete a tete one on one with Pierre, but for all that's good and holy stand up for your rights as a FEMALE reporter. Before long Chantal will accuse Pierre of skinning cats on Parliament Hill. Furthermore, no excuses of course, but Poilievre has been across the country in every berg and township for the last ten months or so protesting $6000.00/night hotel guy in charge of our failing economy all the while belting out QUEEN when he should lead by example.He's transparent alright. So give Poilievre some slack- he's trying to save us from $MILLION slush funds to Liberal friends and economic disaster.
If you think PP would have a one on one phone call or any kind of chat with her.. I have some swamp in Sask I would like you to buy.. PP has no interest in talking unless he can belittle the questioner and make himself the victim and walk away self satisfied
Bang on! Love the fool references. Mr. PP, the attack dog, is being hoisted on his own petard. I am really, really tired of his fomenting rage (ie) rage farming. He is so out of his depth. I am also really, really tired of the CPC not having anything to offer by way of platform. They seem intent on just criticising and securing media attention.
That tends to be common among politicians. Look no further than the PM. Which woman for the Liberals. I do not see much bench strength there and all part of a long in the tooth govt. Carney a lot like Ignatieff. As always Paul has some interesting thoughts put together clearly and with humor.
Ouch. A very perceptive look at Pierre Poilievre's appeal: he's someone who's willing to break the rules and point out hypocrisy and stupidity, like a court jester or the Joker. But also his weaknesses as a future Prime Minister: his overconfidence and his underestimation of risk (Jen Gerson's post on Kenney comes to mind), his being pulled in different directions by the conflicting demands of the real world and the expectations of "his most excitable supporters."
That's why it'll be interesting to see what happens if Poilievre actually becomes Prime Minister and he becomes the one responsible for addressing people's concerns about prices, pollution, fires, etc. Being the court jester can be fun...but what I'd like to see is how the jester handles being given the crown, declared the new king and told that now he has to figure out how to solve the realm's problems.
If PP is chosen to be PM all we will get is more of the same. For at least 2 years it will be blame and shame the Libs over and over. After that, it will be somewhat less but still thick but stifling enough. Moving closer to an election it will be blame and shame full-bore all of the time. People’s concerns, not so much.
I cannot even imagine programs or suggestions for anything people may need.
I don’t look forward to Poilievre’s policies (whatever they turn out to be, because right now who the hell knows what he’s for other than killing the carbon tax) but I do actually look forward to his *being* Prime Minister so that he has to finally face some reality. The smug UofC campus conservative schtick will wear thin very quickly.
I’m not going to invest much trust in the economic prowess of a politician who genuinely thought that investing in crypto would be an excellent way to hedge against inflation.
Current spending levels are still higher than pre-pandemic. There is no declared urgency from the Liberals to address this, in fact they are pushing out a return to balance even farther.
Obviously the reporter when asking "Do you think it was responsible of you to call the explosion...terrorism..." used wording to misconstrue Pierre Poilievre's words in the House of Commons. Not adhering to the unwritten book of scrum decorum, he immediately went into debate mode, attacked her news outlet for misinformation, and pointed out how in her question she essentially misconstrued his words. Amongst friends that would be considered healthy debate, but as you subtly suggest does not fit well with reporters in the scrum tradition.
Perhaps Pierre needs to accept that reporters need their bread and butter, and are constantly fishing for a story, and thus not be combative. Set them straight more delicately., and be more like the fellow casually munching on an apple while a reporter asking misleading questions. Take it in his stride.
Further, he should feel a kinship with the reporters, because as Leader of the Opposition, during Question Period it is his scrum. His opportunity to attack and question the government.
In any event, rather a leader who wants to set the record straight than one who when asked a question completely deflects and spews out a completely unrelated response.
I don’t usually post two comments - but since I was reading very quickly, let me go back to this good read from Paul Wells: in a time of social media whiplash and attention disorder, the best part of this article is the chance to think on things like Henry V and think back in time to days when Harper changed the way press conferences were held. Our short attention spans these days impedes thinking long and deep. Thanks Paul for that kind of writing - we need these chances to think harder.
Nobina, I agree that "Our short attention spans these days impedes thinking long and deep."
Now, having said that I agree with you, I must respectfully argue that the short attention spans are our own individual responsibility and we cannot simply blame others, television, the internet, the this, the that, and so forth. In other words, we are our own worst enemy and that means that we must each take charge to ensure that we consider things fully.
Perhaps I am overly optimistic about the ability of the populace to handle that responsibility but ....
Great read Paul. I think that what might have been discussed is if the PM might be playing 'rope a dope" with the "trickster". The libs appear to be on a road to recovery from their sleepy summer and early fall lack of energy so it makes me wonder when the PM will become king of the hill again as he can do if he so chooses.
Totally agree with you Nobina. And as I’m days late in reading Paul’s writing, I read it twice and enjoyed it even more the second time.
I do agree that PP has some power, I don’t believe it’s deep or lasting. He’s loving it though and hamming it up for all it’s worth. People are in a weird place of wanting to believe half a dozen impossible things as if it would make any difference to the world they inhabit. Common sense is one of those more ephemeral offerings. Everyone agrees on what it is until asked to define it then it slips away.
PP is no Jack Nickelson or Jack Ryan, nor is he the smartest guy in the room. But so long as people keep clapping he won’t stop. His basket of never-ending Lib issues to bash is repetitive and boring. The new look is pedestrian and also boring. After being a pencil-necked bespectacled twerp forever we are supposed to embrace PP with shoulders and contacts (which look uncomfortable).
What is scary is PPs' short attention span. He has counted on the fact that he can distract the voters to only look at what he wants them to see. If he refuses to answer any of the myriad questions that have been asked by many, he scrum-like changes the topic and moves on or walks away.
Galloping Gerty was a treat as was Groucho. Thanks
Great article, but man are our electoral options ever bleak.
I admire how Quebecers are willing to vote en masse for new political parties. Canadians may have that option in a year or so.
Jason, I refer you to Nobina Robinson's post about short attention spans. Why do I make that reference? Well, it seems to me that anyone who can quickly form an opinion on a new party with a new leader and new candidates and new policies, etc. might well have a short attention span and not be sufficiently interested in the hard work of considering, evaluating, etc. But then, I am somewhat of a stick in the mud so you might find my thoughts not to your liking.
Ken, I’d posit that even now the one voter or so out of ten that decides elections probably meets your description of hasty, gut-reaction decision-making.
It’s a political marketplace. If folks can’t find what they’re really hoping for, someone should step in to fill that need. This country and many others have had some good leadership historically. Why settle for less?
We Quebecers have the advantage of an unlikely-to-win alternative to default to when we don’t like the other candidates: PQ provincially and Bloc for federal. I just wish those two parties wouldn’t flatter themselves so much when they win more votes than usual.
I was surprised to see the PQ resurgent in a recent poll.
And how!
This column was a bit too discursive for my limited attention span, but that doesn't mean others might not enjoy it. Overall, however, I think it danced around Poilievre's amoral and transactional approach to politics. He is clever, he is hard-working, but he is entirely focused on winning power and profile for himself and settling some ancient unspecified grudge. Scrums can be stupid, pack dog attacks _ especially if the victim shows any signs of weakness _ but sometimes a question is just a question. The CP reporter asked a perfectly valid question; indeed, she gave Poilievre an opportunity to apologize for jumping the gun and a moment to express relief that the bridge incident wasn't terrorism-related. But that would be a different politician. Poilievre is fragile as new ice on a pond in November. If he can't tolerate a relatively calm question from a reporter, you wonder about how his caucus must feel about even uttering doubts about party policy/positioning in private. When people show you who they are, etc etc...
As most Canadians today want him to do..
‘Trying to be the smartest guy in the room by betting on limited information’ - does not equal exemplary leadership material. Poiliviere may be a wizard in his own mind, but he is losing points quickly. Apparently he has yet to appear in the HoC after his foray into repeating Fox News reportage. *Those* American reporters he trusts. Amateur hour. Eye roll far back into head.
Hands up those who heard "FOX NEWS' Poilievre said "media" reports .
I don’t think he was referring to the CBC. LOL.
That the economy is slowing is by design of high interest rates which do two things
1.. slows the economy
2.. lowers inflation..
.. as interest rates fall in 2024 inflation will fall as well
The quadrupling of the carbon tax is happening by 2030..
The impact of carbon tax on inflation is about .15 of 1% ( as per the BoC )
The impact of profiteering ( excess profits) is the major driver of inflation is as much as 3% ( as per the US Federal Reserve Board)
✋
I've said this in 3 different ways but about that CP reporter-Give me a break! She is an adult grown woman able to fight her own battles-supposedly. So many safety nets thrown her way (Coyne and the three Muskateers) for example. If the fossils of the industry molly coddled me that way I would say BACK OFF- I GOT THIS. I encouraged her to pick up the phone, email, text- anything and ask for a tete a tete one on one with Pierre, but for all that's good and holy stand up for your rights as a FEMALE reporter. Before long Chantal will accuse Pierre of skinning cats on Parliament Hill. Furthermore, no excuses of course, but Poilievre has been across the country in every berg and township for the last ten months or so protesting $6000.00/night hotel guy in charge of our failing economy all the while belting out QUEEN when he should lead by example.He's transparent alright. So give Poilievre some slack- he's trying to save us from $MILLION slush funds to Liberal friends and economic disaster.
If you think PP would have a one on one phone call or any kind of chat with her.. I have some swamp in Sask I would like you to buy.. PP has no interest in talking unless he can belittle the questioner and make himself the victim and walk away self satisfied
You're lucky. Saskatchewan has one of the finest Premiers ever to sit in the chair.
Bitter much?
No. Just greatly appreciate straight answers. The kind we never get from Spaghetti Western Liberals.
Perhaps you hear a different drummer?
Perhaps. But I'll take the one who does NOT think the budget will balance itself.
VIVE LA DIFFERENCE!
That you take a quote and truncate it speaks volumes of your misinterpreting abilities..
.. what the PM said .. “the budget will balance itself as the economy grows.. “
.. do better next time and maybe gain credibility?
Oh well then. Except the economy is faltering and the Liberals quadruple the carbon tax to ensure the down spiral.
No doubt about it
Bang on! Love the fool references. Mr. PP, the attack dog, is being hoisted on his own petard. I am really, really tired of his fomenting rage (ie) rage farming. He is so out of his depth. I am also really, really tired of the CPC not having anything to offer by way of platform. They seem intent on just criticising and securing media attention.
"fomenting rage" WHAT?????
Yes. Fomenting rage. Getting his base to react and get riled up.
PP is a legend in his own mind.
His followers clap at every word
...but he's still a weasel and just looks good sometimes opposing a hubris-filled PM at the head of a worn out government.
...All the Libs have to do is bring forth a woman for PM or a Carney and PP ceases to be relevant.
That tends to be common among politicians. Look no further than the PM. Which woman for the Liberals. I do not see much bench strength there and all part of a long in the tooth govt. Carney a lot like Ignatieff. As always Paul has some interesting thoughts put together clearly and with humor.
Ouch. A very perceptive look at Pierre Poilievre's appeal: he's someone who's willing to break the rules and point out hypocrisy and stupidity, like a court jester or the Joker. But also his weaknesses as a future Prime Minister: his overconfidence and his underestimation of risk (Jen Gerson's post on Kenney comes to mind), his being pulled in different directions by the conflicting demands of the real world and the expectations of "his most excitable supporters."
That's why it'll be interesting to see what happens if Poilievre actually becomes Prime Minister and he becomes the one responsible for addressing people's concerns about prices, pollution, fires, etc. Being the court jester can be fun...but what I'd like to see is how the jester handles being given the crown, declared the new king and told that now he has to figure out how to solve the realm's problems.
If PP is chosen to be PM all we will get is more of the same. For at least 2 years it will be blame and shame the Libs over and over. After that, it will be somewhat less but still thick but stifling enough. Moving closer to an election it will be blame and shame full-bore all of the time. People’s concerns, not so much.
I cannot even imagine programs or suggestions for anything people may need.
They were not hand picked at all.
Excellent and painfully accurate. Except for the Crazy Ivan reference. Jack Ryan said Ramius would turn starboard not port. But I quibble.
Don, I knew I'd pay for not checking that. What the heck, I figured; I've got a 50-50 chance...
Martin's record is paying for libel because he didn't check facts.
Why on Earth would you act so reprehensibly to a stranger on my comment board. Give your empty rattling head a shake.
Just did and realized I stated a fact. I get it you will defend a fellow journalist under almost any circumstance. So let's call it even.
Don:-
Continue: be brief; always accurate;- Thats how you get paid subscribers..
Peter
It was a good read, which helped me to understand things better (learn something), and look at my own thoughts differently. Thanks
I don’t look forward to Poilievre’s policies (whatever they turn out to be, because right now who the hell knows what he’s for other than killing the carbon tax) but I do actually look forward to his *being* Prime Minister so that he has to finally face some reality. The smug UofC campus conservative schtick will wear thin very quickly.
I’m not going to invest much trust in the economic prowess of a politician who genuinely thought that investing in crypto would be an excellent way to hedge against inflation.
500bb of that debt is covid related. Take that off the tab and you will a get a much different result
Are you suggesting there was no careless spending duringthat time?
Current spending levels are still higher than pre-pandemic. There is no declared urgency from the Liberals to address this, in fact they are pushing out a return to balance even farther.
If you had a better idea than QE to keep people and the economy afloat beginning in 2020..why didn’t you put your idea forward.. ?
Obviously the reporter when asking "Do you think it was responsible of you to call the explosion...terrorism..." used wording to misconstrue Pierre Poilievre's words in the House of Commons. Not adhering to the unwritten book of scrum decorum, he immediately went into debate mode, attacked her news outlet for misinformation, and pointed out how in her question she essentially misconstrued his words. Amongst friends that would be considered healthy debate, but as you subtly suggest does not fit well with reporters in the scrum tradition.
Perhaps Pierre needs to accept that reporters need their bread and butter, and are constantly fishing for a story, and thus not be combative. Set them straight more delicately., and be more like the fellow casually munching on an apple while a reporter asking misleading questions. Take it in his stride.
Further, he should feel a kinship with the reporters, because as Leader of the Opposition, during Question Period it is his scrum. His opportunity to attack and question the government.
In any event, rather a leader who wants to set the record straight than one who when asked a question completely deflects and spews out a completely unrelated response.
Terrific comments. I can only hope voters will see through this buffoon’s b.s. before the next election. What a fatuous lightweight.
An excellent piece! Superb complement to this week's review by Hébert and Anderson on The Bridge.
Great review of literary and political fools. Can't get enough of it.
Thanks for treating ‘none’ as singular:)