December 9, 2019 - Loonie Politics

We regret to inform you that, due to consolidation of right-wing media in this country, we are unable to talk about any subject other than the milk-drinking-doofus-ness of CPC leader Andrew Scheer.

From here on out, it's 25/8/367 Scheer Man Bad, all day, every day, and twice on Sundays. If Margaret Atwood transforms into a Lovecraftian deity tomorrow and a cult dedicated to her springs up and starts performing eldritch human sacrifices while screaming, "Ia! Ia! Phn'glui mglw'nafh Atwood Toronto wgah-nagl fhtagn!" it's gotta go on Page 2.

Tonight On The National: Andrew Scheer Puts Kids To Bed At 9:42 PM. Rosemary Barton Has The Story.

Because not enough Canadians have tweeted out pictures of themselves making silly faces while pretending to read newspapers, our dedicated and intrepid press corps have been unable to write about Scheer's chuckleheadedness and any other news item at the same time, and will continue to do so until more bailout cash becomes available. Liberal cabinet ministers are being given made-up titles, for example, and the country is moving toward a good old fashioned Canadian unity crisis under Trudeau's watch, but we can't do anything about any of that because the Liberal Party of Canada is God.

And here to assist the Liberal Party of Canada in being God is Conservative Victory, a cross country social media movement that thinks it can unseat Scheer without offering an alternative and without conducting a riding-by-riding campaign, mostly because they know that if they walk into a delegate selection meeting and try to convince party members that [LEADER TO BE DECIDED LATER] has a better shot at a Conservative Victory than an actual human being, they'll be politely smiled at until they stop talking and leave.

Here's a completely insane idea: The CPC is a party that makes voters want to puke their guts out, and nobody is stepping forward to relieve Scheer of a job he's barely clinging to, because the thought of leading this puke-your-guts-out party makes people scream in terror. How about we have a cross country social media movement to address that? Well, because if we did we would soon find that people would rather vote for the Liberals unless that party has destroyed itself to the point where it physically cannot be voted for.

We would also quickly find out the vulgar truth, that all anyone really cares about is sticking it to the Liberals and replacing them, and that it makes no difference to anybody whether Scheer or whoever it is marches in the Pride Parade or not beyond an electoral advantage. Scheer didn't win, so it doesn't matter if whoever we replace him with is worse, because we're not here to waste time building coalitions or play the long game or change the culture. Our politics is one big disorganized game of King Of The Hill, where empty shells of human beings pursue power for its own sake. And everybody, from the voters to the donors to the activists to the backroom hacks to the journalists, are pretty much fine and dandy with all of it. But our journalists aren't going to report on that, because that's a bad look.

Breaking news! The Liberal Party's corrosive influence on Canada has created a situation where nobody can conceive a world without them, or their way of doing politics. If the Liberals will sacrifice everything to take and hold onto power, they must be slavishly copied in that regard, while at the same time insisting that there is a "clear choice" between the two parties. This is why, despite having caved on every single issue, the right will continue to pay lip service, and it's why voters will punish the CPC for actually trying to follow through on a conservative course. Just ask the kindler, gentler Doug Ford. Nope, sorry, that's pulling the curtain back a little too far. Let's all laugh at how Leona Alleslev compared a Pride Parade to a St. Patrick's Day Parade instead!

Truth be told, since all anyone wants is an empty vessel that will fly the CPC to the promised land of power, there's no reason to get rid of Scheer. Is anyone going to do better than him at being an utter nonentity that will say whatever's poured into his brain by backroom people? No, don't say Patrick Brown!

Photo Credit: CBC News

Written by Josh Lieblein

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.

Click here for more

"If you start voting as soon as you can, you will probably vote for life. If you put it off and put it off and put it off, you might never get into a voting boothâ€¦"

â€”British Columbia Premier John Horgan, speaking to the CBC in March 2018

"â€¦I think if you'reâ€¦ a living, breathing mammal with the capacity to use language, you know enough to vote."

â€”University of British Columbia political science professor Max Cameron, speaking to the Tyee in November 2019

If young people's indifference to voting and democratic engagement is an old trope, so too must be the lack of leadership by politicians to galvanize them.

Just one day after Wales lowered its national voting age to 16, British Columbia Premier John Horgan held a year-end press conference to boast about his provincial government's achievements. One particular piece of legislation he celebrated will enable 16- and 17-year-olds to register for B.C.'s provincial voters list. However, the new law falls short of actually extending voting rights below the age of 18.

Across the pond, the Welsh Labour government had already passed legislation that reduced the minimum voting age for its National Assembly elections to just 16 years old. A report written by an expert panel noted that voters aged 16 to 18 in both Scotland and Austria had a higher turnout rate than the next oldest cohort of voters, illustrating a once-latent demand. The report recommended increasing time devoted to political education at school, and suggested closing the gap between such instruction and a person's first experience voting was likely to create more life-long voters.

The question for B.C. Premier Horgan and by extension, all of Canada is whether 16-year-olds should be permitted to vote. When asked recently, Premier Horgan didn't have an answer. He pondered aloud whether the public would support such a reform, then murmured that the topic should be delegated to a government committee and possibly face the scrutiny of a provincial referendum. In other words, Premier Horgan exhibited little interest in championing such a reform, punting the proposal over to the provincial legislature and perhaps to the electorate.

Are 16-year-olds sufficiently cognitively endowed to handle the rigours of voting? Wales, Scotland and Austria aren't alone in thinking so: other countries that grant suffrage below the age of 18 (for at least some of their elections) include Germany, Norway, Argentina and Brazil. Slovenia allows 16-year-olds to vote if they're employed, while Hungary does likewise if they're married.

But are 16-year-old Canadians mature enough to participate in elections? The wide array of responsibilities we already grant young people suggests so. If we entrust 16-year-olds to operate motor vehicles (albeit with graduated licencing as of the 1990s), seek employment (including in demanding occupations such as construction, forestry, open-pit mining and milling), pay taxes, and even get married or join the armed forces (with parent/guardian consent) before the age of majority, surely we should assume they have the ability to choose from among a handful of political candidates.

It's worth remembering that the voting age was not permanently carved into Laurentian granite by Canada's founders; indeed, it has been lowered before. What was once 21 is now 18. And for several decades, the voting age differed depending on where you lived. Throughout the 1960s, Saskatchewan's voting age was 18, in British Columbia it was 19, while the federal minimum was 21. Age-based thresholds have a habit of being arbitrary.

We should also note that the voting age doesn't mirror the age of majority across much of Canada. This is because we can't even agree on when a person becomes a legal adult. In British Columbia, three Maritime provinces and all three territories, the age of majority is 19, while the voting age is 18. If the two aren't linked, what exactly is the voting age of 18 anchored to?

And if criminal responsibility begins at 12, would it really be a stretch to entrust 16-year-olds to mark an "X" in a box?

Perhaps more important than the persuasiveness of arguments about lowering the voting age is the actual political support that has been built for such a reform. In late November, the membership of the governing BC NDP voted unanimously at the party's annual convention to reduce both the provincial and municipal voting age to 16. Their governing allies, the BC Greens, included such a proposal in their 2017 election platform, and leader Andrew Weaver has introduced private member's bills on lowering the voting age on several occasions. Even a few BC Liberal MLAs might be convinced, as former attorney general Mike de Jong expressed support for lowering the voting age during his 2011 party leadership bid, although the party currently stands opposed. Meanwhile, the Union of British Columbian Municipalities an association of local councils that makes unified requests to the provincial government passed a resolution in September that called on the provincial government to lower the voting age for municipal elections to 16.

Such a reform shouldn't cost B.C. Premier Horgan any political capital; in fact, it's more likely to increase his party's performance in future elections. Perhaps he fears being accused of manipulating democratic institutions in his party's favour. But public support for the proposal has never been greater, making Premier Horgan's reluctance to show leadership incredibly disappointing.

Rather than lethargically punting this proposed reform off to a provincial government committee and possibly a referendum as Premier Horgan has suggested, British Columbia's government should demonstrate leadership by ardently consulting with the public and assuming support legislating a historic franchise reform. If such a process was sufficient for Scotland and Wales, why wouldn't it also be for British Columbia?

Saskatchewan became the first province to reduce its voting age, from 21 to 18, under Premier Tommy Douglas back in 1944. Then-Prime Minister John Diefenbaker belittled the reform, suggesting few people below the age of 21 were interested in exercising their franchise. But history would smile upon Douglas rather than Diefenbaker, as eventually every province, territory and even the federal government reduced the voting age to 18.

Far from being a fringe idea, the current proposal to lower the voting age further to 16 is gaining momentum, suggesting it's only a matter of time before one of Canada's provinces enacts this reform. The question for B.C. Premier Horgan is whether we wants to be remembered as a progressive premier who toppled the first domino in the latest fight to extend the franchise across Canada, or if he instead intends to disappear into the footnotes of history as a meek leader who feared upsetting the status quo.

Speeches often reveal the true character of a politician. Almost a half-century prior to Horgan's recent press conference, then-BC NDP Premier Dave Barrett stood in front of the party's faithful at a convention in Vancouver, rousing the masses with a bold government agenda that lay ahead.

"The dream will be achieved," said the reformist Barrett in the early 1970s, "and the purpose of our movement will be justified in every step forward we make."

Too bad they don't make premiers like that anymore.

Photo Credit: Malta Today

Click here for more

Four years ago, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau explained why he had appointed a gender- balanced cabinet, he famously said, "Because it's 2015."

It was a pretty clever quip, but I also think it was more than that; in fact, I believe when Trudeau uttered "Because it's 2015", he â€” perhaps unconsciously â€” was actually making a deep ideological statement, which reflects the mindset of centre-left progressives.

OK, I know that might sound a little odd, but stay with me here.

In my view, what "Because it's 2015" really meant, if you unpack its ideological content, was the following:

Canada is now in the modern era, the old times of superstition and patriarchy and cynicism â€” all of which Stephen Harper personified â€” have been washed away forever. From now on, our society is on a new unstoppable course, a course where progressive social, cultural and economic ideals will lead us inevitably to an enlightened utopian future. Resistance to this future is futile.

In other words, "Because it's 2015" is a phrase which perfectly reflects the supreme confidence and self-assuredness of the world's centre-left-progressive movement of which Trudeau is a chief spokesperson.

Like Thanos, in the movie Avengers: Endgame, Trudeau sees himself (or at least his agenda) as inevitable.

History is so self-evidently on his side, his ultimate victory is so pre-ordained, the current of the world is so unalterably progressive, that whenever he is challenged, no intellectual defense is actually necessary; all he needs do is say something along the lines of, "We're implementing the desires of Destiny, so shut the heck up."

Mind you, in 2015 such confidence (arrogance?) might have seemed entirely justified.

After all, recall how in those days we were guaranteed that centre-left progressive, Hillary Clinton, would win the American presidency in a romp; we were assured the British would happily surrender their national sovereignty and identity in order to become a backwater province in a German-dominated economic empire; we were told that once the Communist Chinese became hooked on Hollywood films, they would inevitably replace Mao's "Great Leap Forward" with Trudeau's "Sunny Ways" agenda, and we were sold on the idea that audiences were clamoring for a Ghostbusters remake where all the leads were female.

Of course, a lot has changed since 2015.

Brexit, Trump, the rise of populism, the emergence of a bullying China on the world stage and the realization that Trudeau once had a penchant for dressing up in blackface are all examples of how the centre-left progressive's march to triumph is hitting some unexpected bumps on the road.

So what happened?

Well, what centre-left progressives didn't anticipate is their ideology is too left-wing to please anyone on the right but not left-wing enough to please those on the left.

And in a world that's becoming increasingly polarized that's a challenge.

The other problem for centre-leftists is they're mainly focused on the needs of the urban upper middle class, while ignoring the concerns and fears of everyone else; you might call it a Marie Antoinette Syndrome.

Here in Canada that has led to the rise of Western alienation and to Quebec cultural populism

Yet, none of this seems to have shaken the confidence of centre-left progressives to the point where they actually feel the need to defend their ideology.

Indeed, any attacks against them are usually casually dismissed as "fake news" or as the work of "Russian bots" or as some other conspiracy hatched up by shadowy groups of alt-right fanatics.

Or they can simply keep telling themselves that all will be well once the current generation of older white males has died off, as if they're the root of all the world's evils.

And if worse comes to worse, they can always get their rich friends operating massive corporations to censor any voices they don't like.

I also suspect many centre-left progressives don't even realize there are different opinions from their own, since they all more or less dwell in the same cozy echo chamber, reading the same newspapers, watching the same news programs, attending the same wine and cheese parties, perpetually confirming their own biases.

Yet, there is opposition out there to the centre-left agenda and it isn't going away.

In a way, perhaps the overwhelming confidence of centre-leftists has worked against them, creating a blind spot, which could eventually lead to their downfall.

So maybe centre-leftists should start taking their opposition seriously and start working on persuading instead of arrogantly dismissing.

But they won't.

They'll simply respond to this by saying, "We have no need to worry, because it's nearly 2020!"

Photo Credit: Toronto Star

Click here for more

With the return of Parliament, we are about to witness the next chapter in the Justin Trudeau story that has gripped Canadian politics, for better and for worse, for the past decade or more.

What we saw in the Throne Speech and the furtive attempts at Western outreach, even from the cabinet shuffle itself, shows a chastened prime minister looking to proceed with caution.

Two recent books paint a clear picture as to why this approach is the one the Prime Minister's Office is pursuing now. Aaron Wherry's Promise and Peril: Justin Trudeau in Power and John Ivison's Trudeau: The Education of a Prime Minister take different approaches to their subject, but both end up documenting something of an Icarus narrative: the golden boy who flew too close to the sun.

Written before the election, both authors lead up to and leave out the outcome of their work documenting the ebbs and flows of the Trudeau first term, but it now appears clear that outcome was that, far from tumbling to the sea like Icarus, Trudeau at least got his wings clipped, losing his majority, losing face quite literally yet still hanging on to a workable government.

Wherry's book â€” written with his somewhat lyrical style honed over years writing a daily summation of Question Period â€” starts with the fallout from the SNC Lavalin debacle, before tracing the rise of Trudeau, to show as the title suggests, the promise and peril of Trudeau's first term.

Ivison, however, takes a more conventional biographical approach, narrating Trudeau's larger life story, before concluding with SNC Lavallin, as if to present it as a final proof point for his broader criticism that Trudeau functions as one of "the anointed", who feels the worthiness of his cause means he can do no wrong.

If Wherry likes a clever turn of phrase, Ivison takes a more workmanlike approach to his prose, but spices it up with sly allusions (a subtle reference to the famous Monty Python's "ex-parrot" stands out, given my use of the same to describe Andrew Scheer's besieged leadership on this very website).

At their most basic level, Wherry takes the view that Trudeau is a gifted politician who is trying, with success and failure, to do "big things, hard things, things that can shape a country", whereas Ivison sees "a formidable politician" who never truly managed to live up to the hype. One might find those distinctions without a difference, but such summaries colour the entirety of both books, as a guiding frame of mind.

Wherry manages to score major interviews with the prime minister, adding a greater sense of what makes the story's subject matter tick; Ivison quotes extensively from Gerald Butts and Tom Pitfield, the consigliere and the digital strategist, drawing out an understanding of his subject from those whose jobs it has been to shape his brand.

Both books are helpful primers in terms of summarising what worked and what failed in Trudeau's first term.

Now, with the new government chastened with a minority â€” albeit a very strong, workable one â€” it will be fascinating to see whether Trudeau's more deliberative, even cautious approach a) stays in place long-term and b) works (his open mic gaffe criticizing President Donald Trump notwithstanding).

One of Canada's longest-serving legislators, Bill Davis, famously said "bland works". In today's politics, it seems that engaging and even polarising might be what works; certainly that is true when it comes to inspiring grassroots fundraising. Yet governing remains the art of not bothering people, of making things better without being too radical or frankly too annoying.

Where Trudeau succeed in his first term, it was because he boldly led what was already an emerging consensus â€” legalizing marijuana, instituting gender parity, even assisted dying â€” and reaped the benefits of being clear-eyed about what he was doing. Where he struggled, it was perhaps in a more meta sense â€” which Ivison consistently references â€” in terms of essentially telling people off for not being "woke" enough.

There is a tendency in Liberal politics to come off as "lecturing" people, of pushing to change society, which equates to trying to change the attitudes and opinions of real people. There is room for a prime minister to show moral leadership, but it seems that, for now, Trudeau has decided he should first focus on being a sound manager of the nation.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

Day: December 9, 2019

Click here for more

Click here for more

Click here for more

Click here for more

loonie politics

premium content