Good article. I believe Pierre P is dividing our party…..he is embarrassment…..but worst of all we never hear strategy going forward. He is so busy critiquing Trudeau and going over past issues …..his overall tone is despicable.
What bugs me about articles such as this is that no matter what the outcome of the by-elections (win, lose, short-term, long-term, etc.) the author (Fred) is going to be proven right. No matter what the outcome, Fred is going to be able to point to some aspect of this article as evidence that he's right about political strategy, and that everyone should listen to him on such matters.
But this is a false analysis. Paraphrasing Karl Popper, if the theory cannot be proven wrong, then it's not a very useful theory at all and should be rejected. A better and more interesting analysis, in my opinion, would be if Fred had offered concrete strategies for his "captain" (as presumably he's well on-board as a loyal a crew member on this voyage?) to gain a bounce in popularity as the Poilievre style of messaging becomes fatigued over time. What is it? Should Poilievre find a few areas of common ground with the other leaders in order to demonstrate crowd-pleasing contrition and unity? Stuff like that sometimes resonates with Anglo voters across the political spectrums. Or should Poilievre double-down and move beyond merely pointing out the flaws of the government and take some of these attacks against the Trudeau Liberals to the next level – that is, such that change is actually forced? I'd be interested to hear what Fred thinks on actual strategies that should be employed, instead of un-falsifiable platitudes. If you don't like Poilievre's current strategies, what is the playbook to be used instead?
What I think is going on here, however, is something pretty foreboding for the conservative movement in Canada. Throughout the Harper era, the Reform conservatives had (wrongly) concluded that they had successfully eradicated the "old guard" tories from the east, and this has built up dangerous levels of jealousy and reactionary infighting within the movement. In the result, we see questionable leadership choices being made (or, ahem, forced) from time-to-time, and when a competent leader does appear, if they are Preston-approved they end up being undermined by a large part of their own crew while in the captain's chair. Fred's article sort of resonates with this, I think, and this sort of infighting is not looking good for Canadian conservatism overall. The sort of UK-style conservative intrigue that so many strategists seem to salivate over is a model that won't function well here in Canada – the status of conservatism is simply much more precarious here than there. The UK we are not (and why'd we'd want to model a conservative movement here on the one over there is beyond me, in any event). Rather, Canadian conservatism needs a crew pulling in the same direction. So let's have it – strategies that can actually be measured for their efficacy over time and accordingly proven right or wrong. Show us, Fred, that you have the strategies to make a difference here – please don't just set up a future "I told ya so!"
The middle ground philosophy is what sunk O'Toole not mention backtracking into Liberal territory and kissing up to the CBC. The Liberals are not remotely interested in the middle ground. For starters the middle ground voters don't bother to vote unless its really hurting them in the wallet and Trudeau knows it. So for the Liberal/NDP base together is enough to get a coalition leftist "majority" government that can do what ever the heck they please because of the way power is achieved in the Canadian parliamentary system. That is the Gordian knot for conservatives and independents. Add to that the famous redistribution exercises by the aforementioned mugs, buying votes with carbon tax refunds, cheesy minimalist dental/pharma programs and the case for ending the Trudeau/Singh dynasty is impossible. Only when the policies of the these two actually make life in Canada for regular folks "in the middle" totally exasperating - and it is coming - will things change. Until then zzzzzzz.
Good article. I believe Pierre P is dividing our party…..he is embarrassment…..but worst of all we never hear strategy going forward. He is so busy critiquing Trudeau and going over past issues …..his overall tone is despicable.
What bugs me about articles such as this is that no matter what the outcome of the by-elections (win, lose, short-term, long-term, etc.) the author (Fred) is going to be proven right. No matter what the outcome, Fred is going to be able to point to some aspect of this article as evidence that he's right about political strategy, and that everyone should listen to him on such matters.
But this is a false analysis. Paraphrasing Karl Popper, if the theory cannot be proven wrong, then it's not a very useful theory at all and should be rejected. A better and more interesting analysis, in my opinion, would be if Fred had offered concrete strategies for his "captain" (as presumably he's well on-board as a loyal a crew member on this voyage?) to gain a bounce in popularity as the Poilievre style of messaging becomes fatigued over time. What is it? Should Poilievre find a few areas of common ground with the other leaders in order to demonstrate crowd-pleasing contrition and unity? Stuff like that sometimes resonates with Anglo voters across the political spectrums. Or should Poilievre double-down and move beyond merely pointing out the flaws of the government and take some of these attacks against the Trudeau Liberals to the next level – that is, such that change is actually forced? I'd be interested to hear what Fred thinks on actual strategies that should be employed, instead of un-falsifiable platitudes. If you don't like Poilievre's current strategies, what is the playbook to be used instead?
What I think is going on here, however, is something pretty foreboding for the conservative movement in Canada. Throughout the Harper era, the Reform conservatives had (wrongly) concluded that they had successfully eradicated the "old guard" tories from the east, and this has built up dangerous levels of jealousy and reactionary infighting within the movement. In the result, we see questionable leadership choices being made (or, ahem, forced) from time-to-time, and when a competent leader does appear, if they are Preston-approved they end up being undermined by a large part of their own crew while in the captain's chair. Fred's article sort of resonates with this, I think, and this sort of infighting is not looking good for Canadian conservatism overall. The sort of UK-style conservative intrigue that so many strategists seem to salivate over is a model that won't function well here in Canada – the status of conservatism is simply much more precarious here than there. The UK we are not (and why'd we'd want to model a conservative movement here on the one over there is beyond me, in any event). Rather, Canadian conservatism needs a crew pulling in the same direction. So let's have it – strategies that can actually be measured for their efficacy over time and accordingly proven right or wrong. Show us, Fred, that you have the strategies to make a difference here – please don't just set up a future "I told ya so!"
The middle ground philosophy is what sunk O'Toole not mention backtracking into Liberal territory and kissing up to the CBC. The Liberals are not remotely interested in the middle ground. For starters the middle ground voters don't bother to vote unless its really hurting them in the wallet and Trudeau knows it. So for the Liberal/NDP base together is enough to get a coalition leftist "majority" government that can do what ever the heck they please because of the way power is achieved in the Canadian parliamentary system. That is the Gordian knot for conservatives and independents. Add to that the famous redistribution exercises by the aforementioned mugs, buying votes with carbon tax refunds, cheesy minimalist dental/pharma programs and the case for ending the Trudeau/Singh dynasty is impossible. Only when the policies of the these two actually make life in Canada for regular folks "in the middle" totally exasperating - and it is coming - will things change. Until then zzzzzzz.
Just curious why you didn't mention the Mainstreet byelection polls. They would seem to reinforce your point about potential stormy weather ahead.