I would like to offer a different view. I believe Byrne’s attack on O’Toole was a deliberate decision and probably in the current climate a smart move that will solidify Poilievre’s chances.
Byrne and Poilievre have the same philosophy: there are no political opponents, there are only political enemies. The number one political objective must always be the destruction of the opponent first. Being gracious to another a politician at retirement is not possible in the Poilievre / Byrne philosophy. And what better way to make this point by being an asshole to the former leader that you managed to stab in the back? The message is clear to all CPC MPs and candidates, be angry, mean, unkind or else we are coming for you.
This style is appealing to some voters and off putting to other voters. In today’s political climate there is more to gain by locking in 5-10% of the electorate on the far right, anti vax, convoy spectrum (just look at the PPC support when Poilievre came in). The 5-10% on the left of the CPC are willing to tolerate it for now, as the Liberal party is not offering them an alternative that is appealing enough.
I sincerely hope you’re wrong about a Conservative majority. Poilievre is extremely unlikable and would be a disaster as PM. Hope the election interference report is his downfall
I realize the Libs have not communicated their policy well.
But I invite you to consider the following:
- The most important factor is demographic reality: our birth rate is declining and we therefore need all these people and more!
- Historically, we have never provided adequate resources for newcomers, yet somehow they do well. Many countries have housing shortages but do not take in immigrants like we do. Data does not support that myth.
- Covid caused abour shortages when Canadians refused to work in certain jobs. Business asked the govt for more temp workers. Provinces (esp ON) asked for more foreign students. The Fed govt obliged.
- We took in hundreds of thousands Ukrainian refugees.
- Now most of these temp residents will become immigrants, and they now have Canadian experience.
- The competition for highly skilled worker migrants is very tough. Canada is not near the top choice.
- We get who we get. Peasants built Canada from the beginning, and that story continues!
Yes, Mr. Poilievre and his people use anger as a weapon almost all the time. This is unfortunate and will eventually backfire. But if you listen carefully to the longer interviews he has given, without letting your hearing be distorted by your own anger and outrage, I believe that you can discern the outlines of a coherent philosophy. He is for a smaller government, freer markets and freer speech, distrust of established institutions. This may or may not be one's cup of tea -- I doubt it corresponds to the views of a majority of current Canadians -- and it makes sense to argue the contrary point of view. But I think that it is counterproductive to simply dismiss Mr. Poilievre as evil, much less as lacking a coherent ideology.
How have you so casually dismissed the complete sea change in the last decade caused by big tech's insanely lucrative algorithms offered in the guise of "connecting the world" (turns out, the worst idea since religion) new "social" media platforms that, via algorithms have variously inflamed, inspired, and ultimately separated millions of enthusiastic new adherents into fuming silos like never before, casually "misinforming" the shit out of them while they were at it.
NEW WORDS were required to describe variations on LYING FFS, while proving that a lie definitely DOES travel much farther and faster than the truth, another new thing so consequential that we've created a new term for the age we're living in i.e. "post-truth." Timothy Snyder, author of "On Tyranny" pointed out that this would be synonymous with "pre-fascism," and was clearly right.
But NO ONE employed this new, wildly manipulative tool more relentlessly, OR with such utter unscrupulousness than the political right wing.
Here in Canada, no one's ever seen a political campaign like the one against Trudeau and the Liberals, and it's not just the Liberals who haven't really known how to react; the entire world is actually still paralyzed/reeling while the banality of evil/Trumpism has marched along, basically unimpeded. Which is why so many demoralized people perked up recently at Australia's declaration of actually banning social media to anyone under sixteen....
Ah, so good to know that the Face Painter ugh, didn't paint his face but that the internet simply colored existing photographs. So good to know that the internet forced him to wear those costumes in India. So good to know that he really is a feminist and that the internet fired those qualified women. So good to know that he didn't choose to pardon / excuse / ignore illegality from SNC but that the internet did that.
And so on and so forth.
Tris, I can accept that you are a partisan who (apparently) thinks that the Face Painter walks on water (must be oil based paint, no!) but I suggest that to ignore HIS lies, obfuscations, etc., etc., is not wise.
Couldn't care less whether it's specifically him or not Ken, I'm not tribal at all, just hate mean-spirited, small minded and cheap people because cheap runs DEEP.
I also hate liars and con artists, not something conservatives here USED to be, but sure as hell are now, and even worse? They're proud of it, so smirk, gloat and sneer. They have zero class. Zero. Are the worst among us despite a disproportionate number being evangelicals?! Despicable.
I'm progressive instead of regressive like them and I may be making an assumption, but I'd also say you're old enough to know that life moves forward, not backward, and that the truth is all we really have.
These are good points. I am going to smash the vote for the Tories this election, but that is only because I am so enraged with the Trudeau-era-Liberal governance and policy failures (especially around immigration), not because I am a natural Conservative voter.
Maggie, I have for many decades (I am 74 so you can do the math) said that I would like to open our borders to everyone who we could adequately accept. Please note that last: "... that we could adequately accept."
That qualifier, presumably, means that we should ensure that prospective refugees leave their animosities in their homelands; our prospective immigrants should have skills that we need and that there are actual jobs for them and for those who already live here; our housing supply is adequate to absorb the newcomers and those who already live here; our medical system is sufficient to handle the influx and at the same time provide acceptable care for those who already live here; our education system can adequately handle the increased loads and school boards have an adequate number of ESL instructors and classroom. I could go on but the fact is that too, too, too many people have arrived without consideration of the needs of both the newcomers and those folks who are already here.
Those are my concerns about immigration and I would expect that trying to appropriately serve the needs of both newcomers and existing residents would mean that total intake would be in the range of 300,000 per year.
And oh, yeah, I'm not particularly fond of criminals so that is deal breaker for me. [We already have too many criminals who already are doing too many crimes so that is a job classification that needs no additions.]
I can't speak for bm14, but as far as I am concerned (1) Liberals greatly increased the rate of immigration, to the point that Canada's infrastructure (housing, health care) cannot accommodate them and has been overwhelmed (2) emphasis has shifted from economy-class immigrants, who have skills Canada needs and so can contribute, to family reunion and refugees, who typically don't have such skills and are much more likely to be a ;omg-term burden (3) abandonment of the notion that immigrants should integrate and become part of the Canadian society, rather than isolating in their own self-created ghettos.
I would like to offer a different view. I believe Byrne’s attack on O’Toole was a deliberate decision and probably in the current climate a smart move that will solidify Poilievre’s chances.
Byrne and Poilievre have the same philosophy: there are no political opponents, there are only political enemies. The number one political objective must always be the destruction of the opponent first. Being gracious to another a politician at retirement is not possible in the Poilievre / Byrne philosophy. And what better way to make this point by being an asshole to the former leader that you managed to stab in the back? The message is clear to all CPC MPs and candidates, be angry, mean, unkind or else we are coming for you.
This style is appealing to some voters and off putting to other voters. In today’s political climate there is more to gain by locking in 5-10% of the electorate on the far right, anti vax, convoy spectrum (just look at the PPC support when Poilievre came in). The 5-10% on the left of the CPC are willing to tolerate it for now, as the Liberal party is not offering them an alternative that is appealing enough.
Hahaha this is a fun takedown of Byrne and the team around Poilievre.
She is constantly hailed by Conservatives as a brilliant strategist.
Was she the brains behind the Wacko video?
Or Pierre spilling all his bitter anti-commie/woke tea to Jordan Peterson?
That wacko video was terrible! Who the heck greenlit that
I sincerely hope you’re wrong about a Conservative majority. Poilievre is extremely unlikable and would be a disaster as PM. Hope the election interference report is his downfall
I realize the Libs have not communicated their policy well.
But I invite you to consider the following:
- The most important factor is demographic reality: our birth rate is declining and we therefore need all these people and more!
- Historically, we have never provided adequate resources for newcomers, yet somehow they do well. Many countries have housing shortages but do not take in immigrants like we do. Data does not support that myth.
- Covid caused abour shortages when Canadians refused to work in certain jobs. Business asked the govt for more temp workers. Provinces (esp ON) asked for more foreign students. The Fed govt obliged.
- We took in hundreds of thousands Ukrainian refugees.
- Now most of these temp residents will become immigrants, and they now have Canadian experience.
- The competition for highly skilled worker migrants is very tough. Canada is not near the top choice.
- We get who we get. Peasants built Canada from the beginning, and that story continues!
- It's all good!
Poilievre has spent his entire life in politics, and has spent that entire career being combative and nasty.
He apparently cannot resist being a prick.
I hope Jenni continues to highlight Pierre's rude, belligerent, and disrespectful personality.
Maybe carrying around that enormous chip on his shoulder built up those goofy muscles....
Yes, Mr. Poilievre and his people use anger as a weapon almost all the time. This is unfortunate and will eventually backfire. But if you listen carefully to the longer interviews he has given, without letting your hearing be distorted by your own anger and outrage, I believe that you can discern the outlines of a coherent philosophy. He is for a smaller government, freer markets and freer speech, distrust of established institutions. This may or may not be one's cup of tea -- I doubt it corresponds to the views of a majority of current Canadians -- and it makes sense to argue the contrary point of view. But I think that it is counterproductive to simply dismiss Mr. Poilievre as evil, much less as lacking a coherent ideology.
Not fair.
How have you so casually dismissed the complete sea change in the last decade caused by big tech's insanely lucrative algorithms offered in the guise of "connecting the world" (turns out, the worst idea since religion) new "social" media platforms that, via algorithms have variously inflamed, inspired, and ultimately separated millions of enthusiastic new adherents into fuming silos like never before, casually "misinforming" the shit out of them while they were at it.
NEW WORDS were required to describe variations on LYING FFS, while proving that a lie definitely DOES travel much farther and faster than the truth, another new thing so consequential that we've created a new term for the age we're living in i.e. "post-truth." Timothy Snyder, author of "On Tyranny" pointed out that this would be synonymous with "pre-fascism," and was clearly right.
But NO ONE employed this new, wildly manipulative tool more relentlessly, OR with such utter unscrupulousness than the political right wing.
Here in Canada, no one's ever seen a political campaign like the one against Trudeau and the Liberals, and it's not just the Liberals who haven't really known how to react; the entire world is actually still paralyzed/reeling while the banality of evil/Trumpism has marched along, basically unimpeded. Which is why so many demoralized people perked up recently at Australia's declaration of actually banning social media to anyone under sixteen....
Ah, so good to know that the Face Painter ugh, didn't paint his face but that the internet simply colored existing photographs. So good to know that the internet forced him to wear those costumes in India. So good to know that he really is a feminist and that the internet fired those qualified women. So good to know that he didn't choose to pardon / excuse / ignore illegality from SNC but that the internet did that.
And so on and so forth.
Tris, I can accept that you are a partisan who (apparently) thinks that the Face Painter walks on water (must be oil based paint, no!) but I suggest that to ignore HIS lies, obfuscations, etc., etc., is not wise.
Couldn't care less whether it's specifically him or not Ken, I'm not tribal at all, just hate mean-spirited, small minded and cheap people because cheap runs DEEP.
I also hate liars and con artists, not something conservatives here USED to be, but sure as hell are now, and even worse? They're proud of it, so smirk, gloat and sneer. They have zero class. Zero. Are the worst among us despite a disproportionate number being evangelicals?! Despicable.
I'm progressive instead of regressive like them and I may be making an assumption, but I'd also say you're old enough to know that life moves forward, not backward, and that the truth is all we really have.
These are good points. I am going to smash the vote for the Tories this election, but that is only because I am so enraged with the Trudeau-era-Liberal governance and policy failures (especially around immigration), not because I am a natural Conservative voter.
What are your concerns around the immigration file?
Maggie, I have for many decades (I am 74 so you can do the math) said that I would like to open our borders to everyone who we could adequately accept. Please note that last: "... that we could adequately accept."
That qualifier, presumably, means that we should ensure that prospective refugees leave their animosities in their homelands; our prospective immigrants should have skills that we need and that there are actual jobs for them and for those who already live here; our housing supply is adequate to absorb the newcomers and those who already live here; our medical system is sufficient to handle the influx and at the same time provide acceptable care for those who already live here; our education system can adequately handle the increased loads and school boards have an adequate number of ESL instructors and classroom. I could go on but the fact is that too, too, too many people have arrived without consideration of the needs of both the newcomers and those folks who are already here.
Those are my concerns about immigration and I would expect that trying to appropriately serve the needs of both newcomers and existing residents would mean that total intake would be in the range of 300,000 per year.
And oh, yeah, I'm not particularly fond of criminals so that is deal breaker for me. [We already have too many criminals who already are doing too many crimes so that is a job classification that needs no additions.]
I can't speak for bm14, but as far as I am concerned (1) Liberals greatly increased the rate of immigration, to the point that Canada's infrastructure (housing, health care) cannot accommodate them and has been overwhelmed (2) emphasis has shifted from economy-class immigrants, who have skills Canada needs and so can contribute, to family reunion and refugees, who typically don't have such skills and are much more likely to be a ;omg-term burden (3) abandonment of the notion that immigrants should integrate and become part of the Canadian society, rather than isolating in their own self-created ghettos.