I recently read a biography of John Diefenbaker, and I couldn't help but notice some similarities to Poilievre. Though Diefenbaker did work as a lawyer, he had spent decades in politics (running multiple times for office), became popular within the party, and was seen as a very partisan, theatri…
I recently read a biography of John Diefenbaker, and I couldn't help but notice some similarities to Poilievre. Though Diefenbaker did work as a lawyer, he had spent decades in politics (running multiple times for office), became popular within the party, and was seen as a very partisan, theatrical performer in the House, as well as a good opposition MP that annoyed the Liberal government. He managed to come to lead the PCs at an opportune time, had a simple message against a tired government, and was swept into power.
Of course, his years as PM were pretty tumultuous (being a good opposition politician doesn't always translate to being a good government leader) but I think there are some parallels here.
What about a John Crosby comparison? Again someone with a sharp tongue, finance background. But, of course, his French connection was pretty weak. He tried but failed to make the jump to PM. For all his caustic partisan wit, Crosby had fairly broad appeal. A lot of folks enjoyed his humour not just Cons.
The point of my original remarks above, if Poilievre decides to be both yap dog and PM, does that shorten his potential shelf life as PM? Especially, if he was a minority PM facing all those progressives. Could he resist his urges.
The key, as I understand the history, to Mulroney and Harper, they built coalitions. But not necessarily long-term stable ones. Is Poilievre the guy to hold together some such coalition, ex., based on Eric's analysis above? And is a majority likely necessary to hold it together?
I think this is a very clear-eyed analysis.
I recently read a biography of John Diefenbaker, and I couldn't help but notice some similarities to Poilievre. Though Diefenbaker did work as a lawyer, he had spent decades in politics (running multiple times for office), became popular within the party, and was seen as a very partisan, theatrical performer in the House, as well as a good opposition MP that annoyed the Liberal government. He managed to come to lead the PCs at an opportune time, had a simple message against a tired government, and was swept into power.
Of course, his years as PM were pretty tumultuous (being a good opposition politician doesn't always translate to being a good government leader) but I think there are some parallels here.
What about a John Crosby comparison? Again someone with a sharp tongue, finance background. But, of course, his French connection was pretty weak. He tried but failed to make the jump to PM. For all his caustic partisan wit, Crosby had fairly broad appeal. A lot of folks enjoyed his humour not just Cons.
The point of my original remarks above, if Poilievre decides to be both yap dog and PM, does that shorten his potential shelf life as PM? Especially, if he was a minority PM facing all those progressives. Could he resist his urges.
The key, as I understand the history, to Mulroney and Harper, they built coalitions. But not necessarily long-term stable ones. Is Poilievre the guy to hold together some such coalition, ex., based on Eric's analysis above? And is a majority likely necessary to hold it together?