First, nice layout of the breakdown of factions and paths.
I'm curious if Poilievre can be more successful than O'Toole on the standard pivot, hard partisan running for leadership, more prime ministerial running for government. Mulroney and Harper could strike that balance, can Poilievre, he plays the wedge baiting game pretty hard?
Politicians have shelf lives. Mulroney, Harper, elder Trudeau, etc., leave office, I believe, with fairly high disapproval ratings (as in 'most hated politician in Canada' category.) Some folks hit their disqualifying disapproval rating after a couple of terms as PM, some before they get there. Which is Poilievre likely to be? Any early data that might provide insight into such outcomes?
His jumping all over the convoy, garnering selfies of self-promotion, plays predictably to the partisans for and against. But what about the shifting middle that elects governments? Just a thought.
I'm old enough to remember a time when the Conservatives were over the freaking moon that the Liberals had picked Justin Trudeau to lead them. They were convinced that he was an empty suit who would only be able to appeal to hardcore Liberal voters, and would bellyflop just like Ignatieff and Dion before him. And for years following his appointment, many Conservatives, including a great many Conservative elected officials and staffers, continued to believe this: remember the "nice hair" ads, the "drama teacher" scoffing, the lowball attacks on his masculinity, etc.
A shocking number of Conservatives continue to insist that, despite the fact that Trudeau has now won three elections (insofar as one can be said to "win" a minority government), he is still an empty shirt drama teacher with nice hair who the Canadian public will soon realize to be devoid of talent or substance, just you wait, any day now, it's coming, we'll all see soon enough...
What I'm driving at is that, while there's a broad perception among Liberal, NDP and Green supporters that Poilievre is a pissant little shitweasel who's going to fail to break through because he's such an unlikeable turd, we should be considering that Poilievre is also one of Canada's most effective political organizers and communicators. It's true that he's basically never had a job outside of politics, but it's equally true that spending your whole career in politics probably gives you a pretty solid skillset for politics.
We should also be considering that, while he's one of the best-known MPs in the country, most Canadians have never heard his name. And that, when they do meet him as Leader of the Opposition, most Canadians won't be viewing him through the lenses familiar to partisans on Twitter.
The big knock on Poilievre is that he's too much of an attack dog to cross over to Prime Ministerial behaviour, but I think this belies a fundamental misreading of political history. We've got a Liberal government with its fingers in numerous petty scandals, led by a PM with mediocre personal ratings, in a country which has wanted change since 2019 but which has so far failed to identify an alternative they prefer to the devil they know. This is exactly the environment where an effective prosecutor could really do some damage to the incumbent, and despite what people may remember from high school civics class, tearing your opponent down is a totally viable pathway to power in this country.
Not to ignore, of course, an even more viable route: happening to be the Leader of the Opposition at the exact moment the electorate just decides they're done with the incumbent. No easier way to win power.
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?
Agree. And Poilievre is capable. He played yap dog to Harper's more prime ministerial performance. My point would be, he may have to pick a lane, ex., find a yap dog of his own. If he tries both, the partisans may cheer wildly, but Canuck voters may not.
As for the incumbent, not sure JT is in for another one. Might be the opportunity for Libs to host a launch party of their own. Wait out the Cons, of course, to see what's on offer. The Cons seem the more likely to rip themselves apart (than the Libs) unless they orchestrate a coronation. A Freeland-Carney front bench (I notice Carney has a piece on the protest in the Globe today - outside his normal financial focus) might give the Cons less (baggage) to shoot at without going full yap dog, which again may turn folks off.
There is a good chance the pandemic, as partisan political wedge bait, is in the rearview mirror by the next federal election. I'm inclined to see the protestors as PPC-types not winning a big audience, but potentially creating political traps for folks who want to go fishing there.
Just a follow-up consideration. Anyone who shouts "vaccine vendetta" in the middle of a pandemic (and a hostage-occupation to boot) needs to be kept on a very short leash.
If you believe the pandemic is a hoax or that vaccines are a hoax then by all means present the evidence in a responsible manner to create the consensus for public action to move in the best direction for all.
Exploit the pandemic for your own narcissistic political ambitions? As I said, a very short leash indeed. I have little doubt that's just what Canucks will do if they sense a convoy of huckster opportunists are attempting to exploit their vulnerabilities.
Very interesting segmentation of the party base. If the leadership vote were held tomorrow between just two candidates: PP vs Doug Ford, how might the vote break down among the four factions and who would likely win?
If the race comes down to just two similar candidates, then other factors would decide it, like how they run their campaign, how their character is judged, their regional bases within the party, what they promise, etc.
I'm not really sure how it would break down between those two. They are both from Ontario, though from different parts of Ontario. Poilievre has deeper links with the federal party. Ford was backed by SoCons in the 2018 PC leadership race, but he might have disappointed them since he's been in office. Anti-lockdown/mandate people might look at his record as premier badly. Ford can't speak French. On the other hand, he might be seen as more electable than Poilievre because he is less sharply partisan.
I don't know — it would be an interesting match-up.
I have a friend who has been involed heavily in the CPC (though less so now) and he thinks that Doug Ford could very well win if he chooses to run because he has not been in politics long enough to have high enough disapprovals yet and like you said is less partisan.
But, like you said, Ford did make the Social Conservatives unhappy by breaking his promise to repeal Wynne`s sex-ed curriculum. This was a key reason Ford is PC leader and one of his key promises in the 2018 Ontario election. (Keep in mind the GTA is 50% seats in the Ontario legislature and the GTA is full of immigrants who tend to be quite socially conservative on sexual education issues and it was moblizing issue for many). And of course, his very pro-lockdown, pro-vaccine passport stance is at odds with a significant portion of his former base. Ford ran as a populist but ended up governing as an establishment conservative. Subway expansion is the only distinctively «Ford» part left about him based on his governance record, at least in my opinion.
A further thought on candidates: Given the likelihood of an economic crisis of sorts in the post-pandemic future, it's striking that there isn't a Bay Street candidate in sight to capitalize on that opportunity for the Conservatives to take back the government with a debt reduction platform. The only Bay Street candidate visible at the moment is Mark Carney with an op-ed in the Globe & Mail yesterday which labelled the Ottawa convoy occupation as "sedition" in comparison to Mr. Poilievre who has supported and met with members of the convoy. Perhaps competitors for PM in 2023?
First, nice layout of the breakdown of factions and paths.
I'm curious if Poilievre can be more successful than O'Toole on the standard pivot, hard partisan running for leadership, more prime ministerial running for government. Mulroney and Harper could strike that balance, can Poilievre, he plays the wedge baiting game pretty hard?
Politicians have shelf lives. Mulroney, Harper, elder Trudeau, etc., leave office, I believe, with fairly high disapproval ratings (as in 'most hated politician in Canada' category.) Some folks hit their disqualifying disapproval rating after a couple of terms as PM, some before they get there. Which is Poilievre likely to be? Any early data that might provide insight into such outcomes?
His jumping all over the convoy, garnering selfies of self-promotion, plays predictably to the partisans for and against. But what about the shifting middle that elects governments? Just a thought.
I'm old enough to remember a time when the Conservatives were over the freaking moon that the Liberals had picked Justin Trudeau to lead them. They were convinced that he was an empty suit who would only be able to appeal to hardcore Liberal voters, and would bellyflop just like Ignatieff and Dion before him. And for years following his appointment, many Conservatives, including a great many Conservative elected officials and staffers, continued to believe this: remember the "nice hair" ads, the "drama teacher" scoffing, the lowball attacks on his masculinity, etc.
A shocking number of Conservatives continue to insist that, despite the fact that Trudeau has now won three elections (insofar as one can be said to "win" a minority government), he is still an empty shirt drama teacher with nice hair who the Canadian public will soon realize to be devoid of talent or substance, just you wait, any day now, it's coming, we'll all see soon enough...
What I'm driving at is that, while there's a broad perception among Liberal, NDP and Green supporters that Poilievre is a pissant little shitweasel who's going to fail to break through because he's such an unlikeable turd, we should be considering that Poilievre is also one of Canada's most effective political organizers and communicators. It's true that he's basically never had a job outside of politics, but it's equally true that spending your whole career in politics probably gives you a pretty solid skillset for politics.
We should also be considering that, while he's one of the best-known MPs in the country, most Canadians have never heard his name. And that, when they do meet him as Leader of the Opposition, most Canadians won't be viewing him through the lenses familiar to partisans on Twitter.
The big knock on Poilievre is that he's too much of an attack dog to cross over to Prime Ministerial behaviour, but I think this belies a fundamental misreading of political history. We've got a Liberal government with its fingers in numerous petty scandals, led by a PM with mediocre personal ratings, in a country which has wanted change since 2019 but which has so far failed to identify an alternative they prefer to the devil they know. This is exactly the environment where an effective prosecutor could really do some damage to the incumbent, and despite what people may remember from high school civics class, tearing your opponent down is a totally viable pathway to power in this country.
Not to ignore, of course, an even more viable route: happening to be the Leader of the Opposition at the exact moment the electorate just decides they're done with the incumbent. No easier way to win power.
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?
Agree. And Poilievre is capable. He played yap dog to Harper's more prime ministerial performance. My point would be, he may have to pick a lane, ex., find a yap dog of his own. If he tries both, the partisans may cheer wildly, but Canuck voters may not.
As for the incumbent, not sure JT is in for another one. Might be the opportunity for Libs to host a launch party of their own. Wait out the Cons, of course, to see what's on offer. The Cons seem the more likely to rip themselves apart (than the Libs) unless they orchestrate a coronation. A Freeland-Carney front bench (I notice Carney has a piece on the protest in the Globe today - outside his normal financial focus) might give the Cons less (baggage) to shoot at without going full yap dog, which again may turn folks off.
There is a good chance the pandemic, as partisan political wedge bait, is in the rearview mirror by the next federal election. I'm inclined to see the protestors as PPC-types not winning a big audience, but potentially creating political traps for folks who want to go fishing there.
Just a follow-up consideration. Anyone who shouts "vaccine vendetta" in the middle of a pandemic (and a hostage-occupation to boot) needs to be kept on a very short leash.
If you believe the pandemic is a hoax or that vaccines are a hoax then by all means present the evidence in a responsible manner to create the consensus for public action to move in the best direction for all.
Exploit the pandemic for your own narcissistic political ambitions? As I said, a very short leash indeed. I have little doubt that's just what Canucks will do if they sense a convoy of huckster opportunists are attempting to exploit their vulnerabilities.
Very interesting segmentation of the party base. If the leadership vote were held tomorrow between just two candidates: PP vs Doug Ford, how might the vote break down among the four factions and who would likely win?
If the race comes down to just two similar candidates, then other factors would decide it, like how they run their campaign, how their character is judged, their regional bases within the party, what they promise, etc.
I'm not really sure how it would break down between those two. They are both from Ontario, though from different parts of Ontario. Poilievre has deeper links with the federal party. Ford was backed by SoCons in the 2018 PC leadership race, but he might have disappointed them since he's been in office. Anti-lockdown/mandate people might look at his record as premier badly. Ford can't speak French. On the other hand, he might be seen as more electable than Poilievre because he is less sharply partisan.
I don't know — it would be an interesting match-up.
I agree it would be interesting.
I have a friend who has been involed heavily in the CPC (though less so now) and he thinks that Doug Ford could very well win if he chooses to run because he has not been in politics long enough to have high enough disapprovals yet and like you said is less partisan.
But, like you said, Ford did make the Social Conservatives unhappy by breaking his promise to repeal Wynne`s sex-ed curriculum. This was a key reason Ford is PC leader and one of his key promises in the 2018 Ontario election. (Keep in mind the GTA is 50% seats in the Ontario legislature and the GTA is full of immigrants who tend to be quite socially conservative on sexual education issues and it was moblizing issue for many). And of course, his very pro-lockdown, pro-vaccine passport stance is at odds with a significant portion of his former base. Ford ran as a populist but ended up governing as an establishment conservative. Subway expansion is the only distinctively «Ford» part left about him based on his governance record, at least in my opinion.
A further thought on candidates: Given the likelihood of an economic crisis of sorts in the post-pandemic future, it's striking that there isn't a Bay Street candidate in sight to capitalize on that opportunity for the Conservatives to take back the government with a debt reduction platform. The only Bay Street candidate visible at the moment is Mark Carney with an op-ed in the Globe & Mail yesterday which labelled the Ottawa convoy occupation as "sedition" in comparison to Mr. Poilievre who has supported and met with members of the convoy. Perhaps competitors for PM in 2023?
Very good.