Grounded -The PM’s plane is transformed into a metaphor

PAUL WELLS

Posted with permission from Paul Wells Substack

I stopped by the Conservative Convention on Thursday night, just briefly. The mood (which I ascertained by asking several Conservative acquaintances “What’s the mood?”) was cautiously optimistic. The Conservatives I met — a random sample, skewed older because I haven’t met a new generation of Conservative activists — sounded pleased with Pierre Poilievre’s summer. But they also figure they’re getting a second look because voters have given the Liberals a hundred looks and they always see the same thing.

Later, word came from India that Justin Trudeau’s airplane had malfunctioned, stranding him, one hopes only briefly. It’s always a drag when a politician’s vehicle turns into a metaphor so obvious it begs to go right into the headline. As for the cause of the breakdown, I’m no mechanic, but I’m gonna bet $20 on “The gods decided to smite Trudeau for hubris.” Here’s what the PM tweeted or xeeted before things started falling off his ride home:

One can imagine the other world leaders’ glee whenever this guy shows up. “Oh, it’s Justin Trudeau, here to push for greater ambition!” Shall we peer into their briefing binders? Let’s look at Canada’s performance on every single issue Trudeau mentions, in order.

Paul Wells is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Click here for Paul Wells substack

On climate change, Canada ranks 58th of 63 jurisdictions in the global Climate Change Performance Index. The country page for Canada uses the words “very low” three times in the first two sentences.

On gender equality, the World Economic Forum (!) ranks Canada 30th behind a bunch of other G-20 members.

On global health, this article in Britain’s BMJ journal calls Canada “a high income country that frames itself as a global health leader yet became one of the most prominent hoarders of the limited global covid-19 vaccine supply.”

On inclusive growth, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has a composite indicator called the Inclusive Growth Index. Canada’s value is 64.1, just behind the United States (!) and Australia, further behind most of Europe, stomped by Norway at 76.9%.

On support for Ukraine, the German Kiel Institute think tank ranks Canadafifth in the world, and third as a share of GDP, for financial support; and 8th in the world, or 21st as a share of GDP, for military support.

Almost all of these results are easy enough to understand. A small number are quite honourable. But none reads to me as any kind of license to wander around, administering lessons to other countries. I just finished reading John Williams’ luminous 1965 novel about university life, Stoner. A minor character in the book mocks the lectures and his fellow students, and eventually stands unmasked as a poser who hasn’t done even the basic reading in his discipline. I found the character strangely familiar. You’d think that after nearly a decade in power, after the fiascos of the UN Security Council bid, the first India trip, the collegiate attempt to impress a schoolgirl with fake trees, the prime minister would have figured out that fewer and fewer people, at home or abroad, are persuaded by his talk.

But this is part of the Liberals’ problem, isn’t it. They still think their moves work. They keep announcing stuff — Digital adoption program! Growth fund! Investment tax credits! Indo-Pacific strategy! Special rapporteur! — and telling themselves Canadians would miss this stuff if it went away. Whereas it’s closer to the truth to say we can’t miss it because its effect was imperceptible when it showed up.

In a moment I’ve mentioned before because it fascinates me, the Liberals called their play a year ago, as soon as they knew they’d be facing Pierre Poilievre. “We are going to see two competing visions,” Randy Boissonault said in reply to Poilievre’s first Question Period question as the Conservative leader. The events of the parliamentary year would spontaneously construct a massive contrast ad. It was the oldest play in the book, first articulated by Pierre Trudeau’s staff 50 years ago: Don’t compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative. It doesn’t work as well if people decide they prefer the alternative. It really doesn’t work if the team running the play think it means, “We’re the almighty.”

There may yet be years — two, anyway — before we get to vote in a general election. Obviously much can change. I’ve made it clear, just about every time I’ve written about specific Poilievre policies, that I’ve seen no reason to be optimistic that a change of government would guarantee any improvement in public administration. But what we’ve seen elsewhere — most spectacularly in provincial elections in Quebec and Ontario in 2018 — is that sometimes voters stop caring about that question. They have a simpler question: After a decade in power, does the government in place even notice large, obvious things?

I see the Liberal caucus will be in London, ON this week. Here’s a chance for them to practice noticing large, obvious things. MPs would do well to walk around the city’s downtown core after dark, east of Richmond St., between Dundas and York. If they travel in small groups they’ll probably be safe.

While they witness what a Canadian city looks like in 2023, they might remind themselves that their unofficial 2015 election slogan was “Better Is Always Possible.” And ask themselves how much trouble they’ll be in if voters still believe it.

Lately when I write about the Liberals I upset my Liberal subscribers and when I write about Conservatives I upset my Conservative subscribers. I know it can feel like shtick, but it reflects my conviction that the partisan joust, and the genuine feelings that underpin it, are easier to address than the wicked problems of a chaotic time. And therefore way too tempting to an entire generation of political leadership.

For the Liberals, the challenge has been obvious since 2019: Does Justin Trudeau learn? In 2015 he ran as a disruptor, a guy who had noticed large, obvious things — interest rates were low! Small deficits were more manageable than they had been in years ! — and was willing to be cheeky in ignoring the other parties’ orthodoxies. Stephen Harper and Tom Mulcair were reduced to sputtering outrage that the new kid was making so many cheeky promises on fighter procurement (whoops), electoral reform (never mind), admitting Syrian refugees, legalizing cannabis, and more.

Since about 2017, inevitably, the Trudeau government has undergone a transition that’s common when disruptors become incumbents. He is increasingly forced to defend the state of things, rather than announcing he’s come to change it. He’s changed positions from forward to goal. All his opponents need to do is notice the big, obvious things he seems unable to see. The biggest: It’s become punishingly difficult for too many Canadians to put a roof over their head.

The old Trudeau would have done big, surprising things to show he could see such a thing. The Trudeau who ejected every senator from the Liberal caucus and broke a decade’s taboo against deficit spending would shut down the failed Canada Infrastructure Bank this week and put the savings into a national crisis housing fund. Or, I don’t know, some damned thing.

But of course, the surprising Trudeau of 2015 hadn’t been prime minister yet, had he? This hints at a question a few Liberals are starting to ask themselves. Does he have any juice left in him for more than pieties? He might still have some fight in him, but does he still have the job in him?

He’s already been in the job for longer than Pearson and Diefenbaker were. His indispensable right hand has been chief of staff longer than anyone who ever held the job. They have, for years, already been noticeably eager to administer lessons to others. Would they view a Liberal election defeat as their failure — or ours?

Would a prime minister who views a G-20 summit as a learning opportunity for every country except Canada view an election defeat as anything but further proof that Canada never really deserved him anyway?

This article is from Paul Wells substack.

For the full experience, click to subscribe to Paul Wells.

Click here to support the work of Paul Wells by subscribing to substack

Related Topics:#Grounded #JustinTrudeau #PaulWells feature

Up Next

Megyn Kelly Asks Trump a Few Hard Questions

Don't Miss

Climate Fears and Political Smoke Screens

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Peter McCullough urges Trump to pull dangerous COVID shots from the market, citing injuries, deaths

National / 6 hours ago

Canadian military again bans prayers at Remembrance Day ceremonies

Opinion / 7 hours ago

The majority of voters have moved on from legacy media and legacy narratives

National

Canadian military again bans prayers at Remembrance Day ceremonies

Published on November 8, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Canadian Armed Forces member who shared the emails about Remembrance Day with LifeSiteNews stated that ‘this constant desire to erase God from our culture is highly ideological. Canadians don’t support this. Veterans don’t support this.’

The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has banned prayer at all Remembrance Day celebrations in the latest attempt to strip Canada of her religious heritage.

This November 11, Remembrance Day celebrations may not include prayers, religious symbols, and readings from the Bible, Torah or Koran, according to a CAF directive shared with LifeSiteNews by a CAF member.

“As a reminder to the team that if military members are mandated or expected to attend an event, we can presume that they represent a diversity of beliefs, including none,” the email sent to the CAF personnel read.

“Chaplains should take the time to reflect on the meaning and purpose of the event and speak words of hope, encouragement, and remembrance to the benefit of all,” it continued.

Last year, the CAF issued a directive placing harsh restrictions on public prayer. However, the orders were rescinded following backlash from Canadians. Now, numerous CAF officials have told chaplains that they plan to enforce the ban this year.

“The document 11 Oct 23 is in effect for this Remembrance Day,” the email stated. “Last year there was flexibility which is not present this year.”

“This update also supersedes any direction that was given following the Spiritual Reflection guidance which allowed some flexibility during the period in late 2023,” it continued.

While the chaplains are required to attend the ceremonies, they are heavily restricted in what they can say or even wear as the chaplain scarves “may cause discomfort or traumatic feelings.”

Any “spiritual reflection” offered by military chaplains in a public setting (not including church services or private interactions with members) must be “inclusive in nature, and respectful of the religious and spiritual diversity of Canada,” according to the directive.  

According to the email, chaplains can share their opinions on the directive at upcoming meetings, however, there are no meetings scheduled before Remembrance Day.

The CAF member who shared the emails with LifeSiteNews stated that “this constant desire to erase God from our culture is highly ideological. Canadians don’t support this. Veterans don’t support this. And we all saw what happens south of the border when the government is out of touch with the traditions and values of its own people.”

“We’re talking about such core traditional values that have kept our society cohesive and functional and flourishing for like hundreds and thousands of years,” he continued.

The CAF member warned that the mandate is not “banning a religion” but “replacing one religion with another religion, and it’s a secular religion.”

He stressed the importance of religion, especially in the military where soldiers are asked to put their lives on the line in service of their country.

“Think of what soldiers go through, what they face in combat,” he said. “You can’t send people into battle without religion.”

Opinion

The majority of voters have moved on from legacy media and legacy narratives

Published on November 8, 2024

Todayville

From EnergyNow.ca

By Margareta Dovgal

A Wake-Up Call for Political Strategists Across the Continent

For only the second time in US history, a president has lost, left office, and won re-election. For most Canadians watching the US election, the news of Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House comes with some degree of disappointment – and confusion.

Rather than getting caught up in doomsaying as there’s enough of that going around, I wanted to share some thoughts on what I would hope Canadians working in and around politics and policy come away with.

Speaking to the heart shouldn’t neglect speaking to the wallet

Biden probably should have resigned sooner, and Harris should have gone through a competitive primary race before carrying the flag. Hindsight is 20/20, and I doubt that the Democrats will make those same mistakes twice.

What I do suspect will be harder to shake is the commitment to running campaigns on social issues alone. The Democrats made the gamble that reproductive rights were a persuasive enough ballot box question to distract from Joe Biden’s lacklustre economic performance.

The clear majority of voters showed that they are more concerned with their job security, housing affordability, and tax bills.

The Democrats now have an opportunity to realign with the concerns of working Americans, recognizing that economic anxieties cannot be overlooked. A robust economic approach doesn’t preclude a moderate and fair social approach, but the latter can’t replace the former.

In Canada, this holds true for our discussions around energy and resources. I’m seeing a very similar disconnect play out on resource policy. Patently bad policies with horrible economic impacts are being advanced at all levels by governments more concerned with virtue signalling than ensuring robust economic performance – the federal Emissions Cap and the fantastical ambitions of David Eby’s CleanBC program among them.

Pre-pandemic, vibes-based economic policy seemed to work. In times of plenty, it is easy to persuade voters that taking economic hits is the right thing to do — after all, why worry about the price of something if you can afford it? Anyone still trying that in 2024 has lost the plot.

Affordability remains a paramount issue for many citizens, and the U.S. election highlighted how campaigns that overlook economic concerns and the declining quality of life risk alienating voters.

From groceries to gas prices, the rising cost of living is top of mind for Canadians, and resource policies must reflect this reality. For instance, a balanced approach to energy production can help keep costs reasonable while supporting Canadian jobs and industries.

It’s a reminder that beyond political credibility or mainstream appeal, policies that directly address financial challenges resonate most with the electorate.

For the resource sector, this means recognizing how affordable energy, resilient supply chains, and robust employment opportunities are interconnected with national policy priorities.

Truth and gatekeeping

The gamesmanship over who holds the authority to define “truth” continues in earnest, and engaging in it by discounting mass popular narratives is a risky gambit for any political movement that seeks to maintain widespread relevance.

We’re seeing a generational change, not just in the US but globally, on how people consume and produce media.

I would argue that Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter was the edge that Trump needed in this new era. Millions of Americans, and millions abroad, sought news and commentary from the platform. Political discourse on the 2024 election was shaped by the ideas generated and amplified online, faster than mainstream news could reliably pick up on.

Since Musk’s acquisition of Twitter/X, the editorial stance, algorithm, and tone of the platform have all shifted. Yes, it has gone ‘rightwards’, but rather than that serving to shrink the audience, it has instead grown, picking up swing voters and rallying the “persuadeds” more effectively.

Just look at the last debate between Trump and Harris: they weren’t even talking about the same political realities.

Research finds that as a main source of news, social media is still behind TV. Where we see the biggest difference is among younger voters.

46% of Americans 18-29 say social media is their top source of news, according to Pew Research. Beyond widespread appeal or readership, social media drives the political commentary of the chattering classes more than any one other platform. TikTok’s influence is likewise growing, with an even younger demographic relying on it almost entirely to help shape and articulate their views.

A similar dynamic around “truth” was plainly obvious in British Columbia’s provincial election last month. A good chunk of commentators couldn’t fathom that voters could accept a party that had refused to throw out candidates saying offensive or dubious things.

The BC Conservatives went from zero seats to just shy of government.

Enough ink has been spilled on this by other commentators, but let’s recap what many have said about the explanatory factors: BC United collapsed following its disastrous rebrand, the BC NDP was stuck with having to account with the inevitable baggage of incumbency in a struggling global economy, and the rise of Poilievre and the federal Conservatives lent some additional name-brand recognition to the BCCP.

The most important piece, in my estimation, was the Conservatives’ ability to tap into a growing demographic that didn’t feel their concerns were reflected in the mainstream political discourse. Twitter was far from the only forum for this, but I think it had a large part to play in cultivating the sense among many voters that consequential narratives were not even remotely being touched on in mainstream media. It gutted voters’ trust in the media, giving the BC Conservatives whose narratives were more effective on social media a decisive advantage.

Public safety is a great example of this. Anyone with eyes and ears who has spent time in Downtown Vancouver in recent years can attest to the visible decline, with visible drug use in public spaces, frequent run-ins with people with severe untreated mental illness yelling at phantoms, and unabashed property crime.

Yet, if we were to believe a great deal of commentators just up until the eve of the election, everything was just fine.

Willful blindness only works when people can’t comment on what they see. But comment they did, and the delayed response to it nearly cost the BC NDP the election.

In a purely practical sense, the increasing role of community-driven sources of information mean that gatekeepers can no longer control the flow of information. And let’s not mince words here: anyone concerned about misinformation is talking about gatekeeping.

Subjecting ideas out there in the commons to scrutiny is necessary. We just can’t take for granted that the outlets themselves will provide that editorial scrutiny directly, if it’s not baked in the platform by design and people are actively choosing to spend time on platforms that have a radical free speech mandate.

It’s time to accept that the train has left the station: persuasiveness needs to be redefined by the mainstream, rather than taking one loss after another and crying foul because the game has changed.

Canadian narratives for Canadian politics

Our closest neighbour and trading partner is the world’s largest economy, and Canadians can’t help but look south for news and ideas. Our own politics often mirror the messages we see in the US, and there’s no use trying to pretend that won’t keep happening.

If we want to avoid falling into the trap of inheriting the dysfunction and divisions that are increasingly defining the political system next door, we have a duty to develop compelling narratives that resonate with the unique needs of Canadians, across the political spectrum.

It’s the definition of insanity to keep trying the same things expecting a different result. Rather than directing anger at voters and political movements who have moved on from old media, if you’re not happy with the result, try meeting them where they are.

And no, this doesn’t mean ceding ground to conspiracy theorists or the fringe. They are only succeeding because a) they are speaking to issues that people decide they care about (like them or not) that are panned by the center and the left, and b) most crucially, there isn’t enough emotionally resonant, persuasive substance being put out to win hearts and minds.

These are not inevitable outcomes. Voter preferences and media technologies are constantly evolving. We need to evolve with them by subjecting our leaders to real scrutiny and demanding better.

Margareta Dovgal is Managing Director of Resource Works. Based in Vancouver, she holds a Master of Public Administration in Energy, Technology and Climate Policy from University College London. Beyond her regular advocacy on natural resources, environment, and economic policy, Margareta also leads our annual Indigenous Partnerships Success Showcase. She can be found on Twitter and LinkedIn.