Tag Archives: Conservative Leadership

Roundup: Enjoy your Victoria Day

Posted on by

It’s now approximately day eighty-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia says that they now have full control of the steel plant in Mariupol, and by extension the whole city. That means Russians are starting to pull back forces from the area to redeploy elsewhere in the Donbas region, and it looks like fighting is intensifying in the Luhansk region.

Closer to home, it is Victoria Day this weekend, which is the official birthday of the Queen of Canada. So be sure to raise a toast to the current Queen, and Canada’s first Queen (and maybe while you’re at it, the Queen of the North).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Theorizing about Kenney’s slow-motion demise

Posted on by

It is now on or about day eighty-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia claims that some 1700 Ukrainian troops have surrendered from the steel plant in Mariupol, which Kyiv won’t confirm. Kyiv is also hoping to negotiate prisoner exchanges, but Russia sounds like they want to prosecute this troops as part of their “de-nazification,” which is complicated by the fact that this particular battalion does contain some of the far-right troops fighters that have blackened the reputation of Ukrainian forces. It also remains to be seen if Russia will respect their obligations around prisoners of war, and given how much they have broken international law so far in this invasion, that is a very fraught question indeed. Speaking of trials, the Russian soldier who pleaded guilty to killing a civilian is asking the widow for forgiveness. (She said she wants a life sentence, unless he’s part of a prisoner swap for the Ukrainians captured from Mariupol).

Closer to home, it has been decided that Jason Kenney will stay on as premier and party leader on a caretaker-ish basis, until the party choses a new leader (which, apparently, he has not ruled out running in again, either out of arrogance or self-delusion). Either way, he’s not going away anytime soon, and despite his insistence that this is about “uniting” the party, I am left with the recollection of what a bitter Thomas Mulcair did to the NDP once he was pushed out, but stayed on as a caretaker leader while their leadership process took an interminable length of time.

This has nevertheless had some conservatives, federally and provincially, doing a bit of soul-searching as to what it means that Kenney got things wrong. While my own thoughts about this will be in my weekend column, Ontario conservatives are insisting that it’s because Kenney embraced his right flank while Doug Ford kicked his out and is still surviving. (Ford also didn’t need his to the same extent Kenney does). Some federal Conservatives are warning against panicking, while others are warning against polarised politics, and still others see a movement afoot in the party that caters to siege mentality, fuelled by American right-wing media, that causes them to see everything in oppositional terms.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit Kenney

Posted on by

It is now around day eighty-five of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and more than 260 fighters have left the Mariupol steel plant, into Russian custody, where their release will be negotiated. But there will be demands for them to stand trial, just as Russian soldiers are currently—one of them pleading guilty to killing civilians yesterday.

Closer to home, Alberta premier Jason Kenney announced that he will step down after receiving only 51.4% support in the UCP’s leadership review. It’s quite something, and he’s also the sixth premier in the last decade because it has become such a poisoned chalice, so good luck to his potential successors. I’ll write more about this in the next day or two, but it’s certainly a sign of how things are going in the province.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1527088935725412354

As for the royal tour, day two was spent in Ottawa, starting with a ceremony to lay a wreath at the National War Memorial, a service at a Ukrainian church, a visit to the Byward Market, the RCMP Musical Ride, a round table discussion on climate finance, and finally a reception at Rideau Hall. There were good crowds for all of them, and it’s a very different reception than the attention of certain other tours this year. At the reception, AFN national chief RoseAnne Archibald raised the notion of an apology from the Queen (which is a bad idea), for what it’s worth. Meanwhile, here is an in-depth look at the first day of the royal tour and its broader context after William and Catherine’s Caribbean royal tour.

https://twitter.com/ClarenceHouse/status/1527013393542131712

https://twitter.com/ClarenceHouse/status/1527053388428484608

Continue reading →

Roundup: Royal tour, day one

Posted on by

It is now approximately day eighty-four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and we have some confirmation now that the fighting in Mariupol is at an end. Both sides are claiming victory—Russia claiming it is a mass surrender, Ukraine stating that the garrison achieved their objectives, and in particular, they tied up Russian forces that couldn’t be deployed elsewhere, as those forces have been pushed back, as far as the border in some cases. There is now a negotiated withdrawal taking place, and prisoner swaps may be in the works, so we’ll see how this plays out.

Elsewhere, it sounds like today is the day that Sweden and Finland both make their applications to NATO, and while Turkey is still being sour about it, but we’ll see what particular concessions they try to extract before their membership is accepted.

Closer to home, it was the first day of Charles and Camilla’s royal tour, starting in Newfoundland and Labrador. They visited the provincial legislature, the lieutenant governor’s residence, and the village of Quidi Vidi, as well as met with residential school survivors. Prince Charles did talk about the need for reconciliation in his speech, and that is going to be one of the themes of the tour.

https://twitter.com/ClarenceHouse/status/1526656706914271233

https://twitter.com/ClarenceHouse/status/1526657592495423490

Continue reading →

Roundup: The usual rote nonsense ahead of a royal tour

Posted on by

It is now approximately day eighty-two of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and British intelligence is suggesting that Russia has lost up to a third of its forces in the Donbas region, and is significantly behind its schedule for the invasion of the region. There was also chatter over social media over the weekend that Ukrainian forces have pushed Russians far enough away from Kharkiv that the city is largely out of danger, so we’ll see if that holds. As well, Ukraine won Eurovision over the weekend, so that is also a bit of a nice morale boost for the country.

Meanwhile, Finland and Sweden are moving ever closer to officially applying for NATO membership, and Finland’s president has gone so far as to tell Vladimir Putin directly that they are apply, but that they would continue to engage on issues in a bilateral manner. There remains the complication of Turkey, who has become more clear in the demands they have before they would be willing to admit these new members, particularly around groups that these governments have supported which the Turkish government opposes.

Closer to home, it’s royal tour week, as Charles and Camilla arrive tomorrow, and once again, we get the usual rote nonsense from news outlets courting republicans to give the tired lines about “scepticism” of the monarchy, without noting that it’s going to be nigh impossible to remove them because a) it requires unanimous consent on the constitution from provinces, and b) there is zero consensus on what would replace them, and even if they did, that would be the conclusion of the colonial project around Indigenous peoples in this country, given that their treaties are with the Crown. And yes, that very much means something. There are of course a few special cases who think we should replace the current royal family with someone Canadian, but I am a bit dubious on that for the same reason as there being no consensus on who that might be, because for better or worse, the status quo has a thousand years of history behind them, which is pretty important in the grand scheme of things. Love or loathe the family themselves, the system works better than any of the alternatives, and we shouldn’t dismiss that out of hand.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, the Supreme Court did not allow an extreme intoxication defence

Posted on by

We are now on or about day eighty of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russian forces took heavy losses to the tune of as many as 73 tanks in a two-day battle that saw them destroyed in a failed river crossing. So that’s something. Meanwhile, a twenty-one-year-old Russian soldier is now on trial for war crimes for killing civilians. It also looks like some six million Ukrainians are now displaced out of the country by this point, most of them in neighbouring countries, and that situation is starting to take its toll.

As for the potential expansion of NATO with Finland and Sweden about to make their applications, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan says he is not favourable to those countries joining—and applications must be approved unanimously by member countries. This may be a ploy to extract concessions by Sweden in particular, as it relates to Turkey’s domestic political interests.

Closer to home, you will have no doubt seen a bunch of headlines saying that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that “extreme intoxication is a valid defence in murders and sexual assaults.” That is not true, and is extremely misleading. The court in fact stated that extreme intoxication is not a defence that can be relied upon. What they did state was that the section in the Criminal Code that said that a state of automatism brought about by intoxication was not a defence was in fact unconstitutional, because it removed the principle around needing criminal intent. (There was a second, related decision that ruled on a few other related issues). There is a difference between extreme intoxication and a state of automatism, and it should behove news outlets to make a proper differentiation so that they’re not spreading misinformation—which they essentially are with these headlines designed to induce a moral panic. So please disregard them, because it is explicitly not what the court ruled. (I will have a piece delving deeper into its issues out in a day or two).

Continue reading →

Roundup: How to remove a central bank governor

Posted on by

It is now approximately day seventy-nine of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and war crimes trials are beginning in the country, hearing from one youth who whose father was murdered in front of him, and who was shot by Russian soldiers but who survived. Shooting at civilians—and children especially—is a war crime, and Russians will be hard-pressed to come up with justifications for them. As well, the UN is declaring a “child rights crisis” in the country, given how many children have been killed in the invasion. Meanwhile, here is a look at the “partisans” fighting on Ukraine’s behalf from behind Russian lines, which may or may not be the cause of all of those fires and explosions.

Elsewhere in Europe, Finland’s president and prime minister are urging the country’s parliament to vote in favour of making their application to join NATO, while Sweden is expected to follow suit days later. If Putin’s fig-leaf excuse for invading Ukraine was to stop NATO’s expansion, well, he’s just done the opposite, so good job there. There will be some sensitivity in managing the time between Finland applying for membership and when they are granted it, as they could be particularly vulnerable to Russian aggression during that period.

Closer to home, Pierre Poilievre’s attack on the Bank of Canada is not going unnoticed, but it helps for the rest of us to know just what he’s trying to suggest. To that end, Kevin Carmichael provides needed context to what exactly Poilievre is threatening to do to the Bank of Canada governor, and why he’s wrong on inflation. As well, this thread is a good take on the mechanism for the how governor is appointed and what it would take to remove him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “debate” spectacle sans substance

Posted on by

It is now around day seventy-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like the Ukrainians have made some gains in the eastern part of the country, pushing Russian forces out of four villages near Kharkiv. Meanwhile, a team of Ukrainian soldiers has been tasked with revisiting recent battlefields around Kyiv to gather the dead, and have recovered the remains of around 200 Russian soldiers thus far. It sounds like they may try to return these bodies to Russia in exchange for prisoners, but we’ll see if those kinds of deals hold.

Closer to home, it was the first official English debate of the Conservative leadership race, and it was…an experience. While it was not the hostile snipe-fest that was the Conference Formerly Known As the Manning Conference debate, it was a strange format where they tried to have limited engagements between candidates, to control the temptation to talk over one another, and then insisted that the audience not clap or boo, which…defeats the whole point of a live audience, and it was a real choice to try and control their reactions. And it had a sad trombone sound. No, seriously. Not every segment was on policy—some of it were personal, asking candidates what they’re reading, or the kinds of music they like, which is fine and humanizes them a little. (But seriously, Roman Baber choosing Amy Winehouse? Has he ever listened to what she has to say in her lyrics?)

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1524548247456559104

Some observation on each candidate, in the drawn order of their opening statements:

  • Scott Aitchison: While he is aiming to be the reasonable, middle-of-the-road candidates, there are plenty of places where he displays the intellectual heft of the truck commercial he launched his campaign with. A lot of what he offered is not really credible, particularly on environmental or resource development files.
  • Roman Baber: I’m not going to mince words. Honestly, this guy is a moron. He says a lot of things that he’s picked up in the online discourse, but none of it makes any sense, most of it is contradictory, and he’s utterly vacuous—but nobody would call him on that.
  • Patrick Brown: While he kept insisting that he’s the only one who can deliver the suburbs like in the GTA, Brown also made some particular missteps, like insisting he would advance a no-fly zone over Ukraine (essentially committing Canada to a shooting war with a nuclear power), or that the point of reconciliation with Indigenous people is so that we can build more pipelines.
  • Pierre Poilievre: Aside from just using “freedom!” in as many answers as possible, he opened by outright attacking the Bank of Canada and saying he would replace the governor if he were to form government, which is a pretty big bomb to drop. He lied and prevaricated about his previous statements and positions, particularly during the Bitcoin portion of the evening. But the longer the evening went on, the more it became clear that he was just going down the right-wing populist checklist and name-checking every item on it, whether it was saying he’s reading Jordan Peterson’s book, or that he wants to fight “government censorship.” He displayed no principles, just virtue-signalling to the crowd he is courting.
  • Leslyn Lewis: Mostly said a lot of hyperbolic things about how “divided” the country is because of COVID, and that she is somehow going to heal the divides between people who believe in science and evidence, and anti-vaxxers who don’t care how many people they infect because they refuse to wear a mask or stay home. How does plan to heal those divides? Who knows?
  • Jean Charest: Charest was more pugnacious and was willing to break debate rules in order to how do you do, fellow kids?, and insist that he’s the only one who can unite east and west…but he too made a bunch of fairly questionable pronouncements. Like private healthcare delivery could have avoided lockdowns (erm, you saw the States, right?) or that he would cut income taxes to fight inflation (which is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline).

It was an event that begged for booze (which I did not imbibe in, because I had this post to write). But I will leave you with Paul Wells’ suitably acerbic take on the event, which sums the lunacy of it up nicely.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Leaders’ Debate Commission has some suggestions

Posted on by

We are now on or about day seventy-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russian forces are now pummelling the strategic port city of Odessa, especially to disrupt supply lines. This is particularly key for grain shipments, which are already being blocked by the blockade of the Black Sea, and which are going to keep driving up world food prices, and hit areas of food insecurity even harder. It also looks like Russia is increasingly using Soviet-era munitions, which suggests that they are rapidly using up their supply of precision weapons. As for the Ukrainian fighters still in Mariupol, they are appealing to the UN to evacuate their wounded as they did with the civilians beneath in the steel plant there.

Closer to home, the Leaders’ Debate Commission released their report on the 2021 federal election debates, and lo, they concluded that the formats were clumsy and had too many moderators. Gosh, you think? Setting aside the fact that they had pollster Shachi Kurl to moderate the English debate, which was a questionable choice at best, the fact that they had a line-up of journalist co-moderators boils down to the fact that the broadcasters and media outlets who participate insist on having their talent featured as part of their participation, and one has little doubt that they don’t want to participate if they don’t get their way on this, and Kurl was likely the compromise if nobody could get their own talent to be the sole moderator for the event, and lo, in her desire to be tough, she gave François Legault what he had been begging for the entire election, so good job there. (After all, it’s bad enough that the broadcasters have to give up a couple of hours of American programming prime time that they rake in the ad dollars from).

The report also noted the unhappiness with the debate format, but their recommendation of firmer control and “working with stakeholders” is a bit weak. Yes, we need a simplified format, but will the leaders actually play ball with that? The insinuation is that the leaders like the convoluted format because it is easier to draw clips from, and avoids prolonged engagements with other leaders that can draw them into *gasp!* a substantive conversation. And that’s really the rub with this whole thing—it really requires the participation of reluctant broadcasters and reluctant party leaders, and too many compromises get made along the way. I’m not sure what the solution to that winds up being in the end, because the alternatives we saw in 2015, with the myriad of debates and formats, had far less engagement and that’s not good for democracy either.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Soon there will be two Victory Days

Posted on by

It is now approximately day seventy-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and there was an expectation of some kind of declaration by Russia of general war or similar given that it was Victory Day in that country, but it did not come. Instead, Vladimir Putin framed the invasion as a necessary move to ward off potential aggression by the west and NATO (which, erm, is a defensive alliance). In Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy used the occasion to reframe Victory Day for Ukrainians, as having defeated Nazism in their country once and they are moving to do so again, and that soon they will have two Victory Days.

Closer to home, we had yet another incident of an MP being on Zoom while in the bathroom, and I just can’t, you guys. This situation was pretty intolerable to begin with, and was only supposed to be for a short duration, but MPs keep extending it, never mind the fact that there can be no moral justification to do so when it endangers the health and safety of the interpretation staff (seriously, they are subjecting themselves to strain that could result in permanent hearing loss), because MPs can’t be arsed to create safe conditions to meet in person, and the government is too busy patting themselves on the back for being good role models for working from home rather than being an example of an institution that created the safe conditions to return to work. And two years later, we still have MPs who can’t be bothered to use their microphones properly, who can’t mute and unmute themselves properly, and who keep bringing their gods damned computers with them to the bathroom.

Enough is enough. It’s time to end hybrid sittings once and for all. There is no justification for it, particularly if you insist that MPs be masked in the Chamber at all times except for when they’re speaking (looking at you, Conservative caucus), and that they can organise themselves to minimise travel or public exposure. Their choice to be selfish and lazy is just that—a choice. And it’s one we should be holding them to account for.

Continue reading →