LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

The federal election is slated to be held in just under two months.  And the political punditry class is in a tizzy.

Already, electoral predictions are being made, while polls are meticulously analyzed to help reinforce the soundness of these predictions.

The problem with this thinking, of course, is that polls are not predictive in nature.  They merely provide a snap shot in time of the views of a population sample. 

It's best not to base too many long term predictions upon them.  For that matter, it's best not to be too self-assured making any electoral predictions whatsoever. 

After all, what is so often forgotten, is that events beyond our control and foresight will no doubt arise when we least expect.

The famous quotation by then British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan remains just as relevant today.  When asked what politicians fear most, his response was "Events dear boy, events." 

At this same time four years ago, the polls showed the NDP running with a slight lead, with the Liberals stuck behind the Conservatives in third place. 

That all changed quickly however, once the Liberals found themselves campaigning against a cautious and tepid NDP, who were fearful of taking bold action and putting at risk their early lead. 

Furthermore, the tragic death of Alan Kurdi altered the focus of the campaign into one in which the Syrian refugee crisis played center stage.  The urgency in which the Liberal's pledged to resettle 25,000 vulnerable Syrians resonated amongst the Canadian public, and helped ensure Justin Trudeau won his majority government.

Similar unforeseeable events have done the same over the years.

Take for instance the case of Margaret Thatcher, who historians commemorate this year for her 40th anniversary as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. 

In her first term, Thatcher was forced to contend with sky high unemployment and a host of other economic troubles.  Her prospects as Prime Minister appeared further strained with a split cabinet and a surging opposition.  Not surprisingly, her polling numbers were abysmal.

Fortunately for the Baroness of Kesteven, tensions between Britain and Argentina were running high.  And the outbreak of the Falklands War on April 2, 1982 provided Thatcher the second chance she so desperately needed. 

As war time leader, Thatcher proved at her very best (politically speaking).  By effectively utilizing national sentiment, both prior and after the subsequent military victory, Thatcher revitalized British spirit.  Sure enough, she went on to win the next two general elections.  Her predecessor, James Callaghan, would reflect wistfully, "If only I had a war."

During the same time, Pierre Trudeau would deal with a similar unexpected twist of fate.  By 1979, Trudeau Sr. was headed for the dustbins of history after his electoral defeat at the hands of the now defunct Progressive Conservative Party.

Lucky for him, the minority government of Joe Clark bungled its first budget, triggering an election.  After taking one of his famous 'walks in the snow' Pierre returned from early retirement and made another go of his political aspirations.  After winning the 1980 election, he was able to cement his legacy in a final term by defeating Rene Levesque in that year's referendum before repatriating the Constitution. 

Unfortunately for Clark, the election loss, after mere months in government, was unforgiveable to many of his fellow party members.  He would eventually be ousted as leader by Brian Mulroney. 

As historian Richard Gwyn wrote, "Trudeau was 'lucky Pierre.'  And Clark was too polite to treat fortune like a woman."

Other examples?

In 1930, Liberal Prime Minister Mackenzie King's defeat at the polls coincided with the beginning of the Great Depression.  Victory for Richard Bedford (RB) Bennett and the Conservatives proved pyrrhic, as their government became directly associated in the minds of Canadians with unemployment and financial hardship.

For instance, during the Great Depression, struggling farmers who were unable to afford gasoline succumbed to having their automobiles pulled instead by tethered horses.  Unfortunately for RB, the term for this unique mode of transportation became bitterly known as "Bennett Buggies."

King was saved this cruel twist of fate and returned as Prime Minister in 1935.  He would remain so until 1948, after successfully leading the country during the Second World War and instituting the foundational policies of our welfare state.

To borrow the words of JRR Tolkien, this truly was the "Return of the King."

While King remains ignored today by partisan Liberals, his luck and keen political savvy ensured his place in Canadian history books.  He remains this country's longest serving Prime Minister, with over 21 years in office. 

What does this tell us then, of our pundit's electoral predictions?  Frankly, that they don't mean much at all.

The emergence of unexpected events, as well as sheer luck, will prove far more influential than we like to acknowledge.  It's long since time we gave our self-assured predictions a rest.

Photo Credit: Maclean's

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


I'm working on a theory which suggests the Western world is slowly evolving from a classless liberal democratic society to a medieval-style aristocracy, one where a rich and powerful few rule the roost.

And although it sounds like a crazy theory, the recent SNC-Lavalin scandal is helping to prove my case.

Now before I go on, let me be clear, Canada is still a vibrant democracy, where all citizens are equally protected by those institutions and conventions  which underpin our democracy, i.e. an independent judiciary, regular elections, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, etc.

However, as of late, there are alarming signs indicating that the ruling classes in this country sometimes called the "Laurentian Elites" are creating a system whereby the state looks after their interests more than it looks after the interests of anyone who's not a member of the Laurentian elite.

This is where the SNC-Lavalin scandal comes into the picture.

Of course, by now we all know the sordid details of this tale, of how the corporation SNC-Lavalin was charged with corruption and of how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his minions tried to influence then Minister of Justice and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to intervene in the criminal case and of how the Ethics Commissioner recently ruled Trudeau's actions were improper.

It's all juicy stuff, right?

But what makes this particular scandal so interesting is that Trudeau tied himself up into a moral and ethical pretzel not for the usual reasons politicians engage in shady behaviour, i.e. to enrich themselves or to help their parties electorally; he apparently did it solely to help his rich friends get out of a legal jam.

As Aaron Wudrick, who heads up the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, noted on Twitter, "It is troubling just how much clout one company has over this government.  The govt tried to move heaven & earth, without regard to proper process, to give them what they wanted.  Only JWR stood in their way."

And yeah, I don't buy the argument that Trudeau aided his friends at SNC-Lavalin to "save jobs."

After all, we all know Trudeau wouldn't descend from his Olympian heights to help some "mom or pop" business operation embroiled in a legal battle, that privilege is apparently reserved only for his rich friends.

Indeed, ever since he ascended to power , Trudeau has displayed much generosity to certain corporate players: he's ladled out huge subsidies to Bombardier, he's promised to provide massive cash payouts  to media giants, and his environmental policy included giving a big whack of dough to Loblaws so it could buy new freezers.

My point is, despite all his fancy rhetoric about loving the middle class, Trudeau's main political goal is seemingly to help out members of his own upper class.

Keep in mind that, thanks to his unmatched political pedigree and to his privileged upbringing, Trudeau is the closest thing we have in this country to an actual blue-blooded aristocrat, except instead of spending his time in a castle, he visits exclusive resorts in the Bahamas.

Anyway, isn't it only natural that Trudeau would have an affinity for other aristocratic-style elites?

Isn't also likely that Trudeau and other members of the ruling classes would, due to their wealth, and to their expensive educations and to their cosmopolitan cultural attitudes, see themselves as different, as better, than the average uneducated, unsophisticated rabble who make up the populace, perhaps they even see themselves as above the law?

Laws are for little people, right?

Perhaps this is why SNC-Lavalin executives went to Trudeau for help, perhaps this is why Trudeau helped them, perhaps this is why neither party still believes they did anything wrong.

At any rate, the danger of this sort of aristocratic attitude seems clear.

The more our elites come to see themselves as our moral, economic and intellectual betters, the more they will be tempted to sweep away the democratic ideal of equality, the more they will be tempted to act like aristocrats of old.

Meanwhile, if regular people start perceiving our system as one where there's one law for the rich and powerful and another law for everyone else, the more disillusioned they'll become with democracy, the more they'll be open to the idea of upending the entire system.

Isn't that how the French Revolution started?

Yes, that sounds a bit alarming but if you study history, you'll quickly discover that democracy is the rarity, rather than the rule.

Of course, we'll need more SNC-Lavalin-style scandals to erupt before democracy is threatened in this country.

Yet the trend is worrying.

Indeed, if Prime Minister Trudeau wins the next election, don't be surprised if the CBC starts calling him, "Sir Justin the Cute."

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.