2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

[DC Al Fine]

https://twitter.com/GinnyRothTO/status/1525828603686027264?t=F33u73b8cbXzn-iCNTX...

Lol

[King of Kensington]

Such an opportunist.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I was just thinking about this - is there any major politician in Canada who jumps around the political spectrum as much as Brown does? In the 90's, he starts out as a young PC activist who disapproved of Reform's social conservatism. Then from 2006-2015, he serves as a so-con CPC MP. He runs for the PCPO leadership as a soft so-con...and after winning, almost immediately becomes a progressive who has no time for so-cons. Then he gets me-too'd, goes into hiding for a few months, becomes the mayor of Brampton, and now he's an ethnoburban brokerage politician. Who knew he had such quaint views about the Tamil Tigers, or the desperate need for the Canadian government to build more cricket fields?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Lol Scott Aitchison is so weirdly endearing: https://mobile.twitter.com/ScottAAitchison/status/1525826062743007232

I'm very partial to boring, middle-aged, folksy, somewhat self-deprecating politicians. Though after trying that with O'Toole, who blew a lead to Trudeau who could not be more different from the character I described, that personality may not be what it takes to win a federal election. Everyone seems to love a boring uncle who just wants to grill a steak and knock back a couple Bud Lights, but not enough to actually vote for them I guess. The scrappy ones tend to do better in the federal level - see: Chretien, Harper, Trudeau. Though provincially, boring uncles can do well too, like John Horgan.

[Continential]

How did Brown become mayor of Brampton in the first place since he has no connections to the area and he was the MP for Barrie?

[DC Al Fine]

I was just thinking about this - is there any major politician in Canada who jumps around the political spectrum as much as Brown does? In the 90's, he starts out as a young PC activist who disapproved of Reform's social conservatism. Then from 2006-2015, he serves as a so-con CPC MP. He runs for the PCPO leadership as a soft so-con...and after winning, almost immediately becomes a progressive who has no time for so-cons. Then he gets me-too'd, goes into hiding for a few months, becomes the mayor of Brampton, and now he's an ethnoburban brokerage politician. Who knew he had such quaint views about the Tamil Tigers, or the desperate need for the Canadian government to build more cricket fields?

Paul Hellyer is the only one who comes to mind.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

How did Brown become mayor of Brampton in the first place since he has no connections to the area and he was the MP for Barrie?

I think he has some family connection to Brampton, like one side of his family is from there or something, I don't know. But from a quick wikipedia search, it sounds like he never lived in Brampton until he became mayor.

[DC Al Fine]

How did Brown become mayor of Brampton in the first place since he has no connections to the area and he was the MP for Barrie?

He's always had the knack for politicking with ethnic minorities. He burned the bridge with the religous right portion of his base but kept the Toronto ethnoburbia portion.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

How did Brown become mayor of Brampton in the first place since he has no connections to the area and he was the MP for Barrie?

He's always had the knack for politicking with ethnic minorities. He burned the bridge with the religous right portion of his base but kept the Toronto ethnoburbia portion.

And to his credit, the guy's a machine. I'm sure we've all heard about how he barely sleeps and campaigns from early morning to late night. In a non-partisan, low-turnout election, that counts for a lot

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

The organizational culture of slinging mud and eating their own is one of the CPC's greatest internal weaknesses. Now we're in the "calling other candidates white supremacists" phase of the campaign.

The Poilievre "anglo-saxon" scandal is the dumbest thing ever. First of all, saying "I believe in communicating in plain, simple, anglo-saxon words" is really dumb on Poilievre's part, because who uses the term "anglo-saxon" on a daily basis? It sounded like he was trying to sound overly intellectual/pretentious.

Was it a dogwhistle? I've come to really hate that term because it's literally impossible to qualify if something is or isn't a dogwhistle, because by definition, "normal people" aren't supposed to hear it. But no, it's more likely that Poilievre was trying to be overly verbose (which is what his normal posture is). I'm sure he's done speech training, and using "Anglo-saxon" words instead of "Latinic" ones is a way to sound more relatable and down-to-earth. For example, "we will fight the carbon tax" vs "we will combat the carbon levy". But then Patrick Brown (who else, right?) uses that opportunity to call him a white supremacist.

[adma]

Kind of reminds me of Stephen Harper's "Old Stock Canadians" statement.  (Ironically, his using that phrase has led to *my own* self-aware usage of the same, at least when it comes to places that are legacy less-than-ethnoburban--like, those polls in Markham-Stouffville where Jane Philpott did best in '19)

[Independents for Nihilism]

The Poilievre "anglo-saxon" scandal is the dumbest thing ever. First of all, saying "I believe in communicating in plain, simple, anglo-saxon words" is really dumb on Poilievre's part, because who uses the term "anglo-saxon" on a daily basis? It sounded like he was trying to sound overly intellectual/pretentious.

It's particularly odd since I've only ever heard words described as Anglo-Saxon in comparison to, like you said, words of Latin/Greek origin. Using that kind of terminology makes him come accross as pseudo-intellectual which evidently he was trying to avoid that and describe himself as down-to-earth, but I mean, he was on Jordan Peterson's podcast and that man is the king of using academic jargon to say nothing in particular so maybe it came with the territory.

Or maybe it is a dog whistle, I don't know, I'm not a dog. I'm no fan of Poilievre to begin with but I'm also a little reluctant to accept Brown's description of it as well, hot on the heels of that weird thing about Nazis emailing him and Michelle Rempel that I'm not quite sure of the details on. I might need a little more context in order to relax my hackles - for example, was "Old Stock Canadians" a phrase that was in use before Harper? Because these days I tend to see it only from white spremacist-adjacent places. Despite having always floated around the margins of Tory circles I never really heard it elsewhere.

[2952-0-0]

The organizational culture of slinging mud and eating their own is one of the CPC's greatest internal weaknesses. Now we're in the "calling other candidates white supremacists" phase of the campaign.

The Poilievre "anglo-saxon" scandal is the dumbest thing ever. First of all, saying "I believe in communicating in plain, simple, anglo-saxon words" is really dumb on Poilievre's part, because who uses the term "anglo-saxon" on a daily basis? It sounded like he was trying to sound overly intellectual/pretentious.

The longer this leadership race goes on, the more egos will be bruised in the CPC, and the more damage this will cause into the next campaign. On the one hand, a quick leadership campaign would have reduced the amount of bruised egos. On the other hand, a quick campaign would have been derided as a coronation, and would lack legitimacy among the members.

Yes, yes, you-know-who united his party after a bitter primary campaign, but the two-party system left the rest of the party with no other choice. As Maxime Bernier and Preston Manning demonstrated, leaving the party is a real threat. There were some rumours during the occupation of Ottawa that some Liberal and Conservative politicians were seeking to form a new centrist party, but nothing came to that. PP winning the CPC leadership after a scorched earth campaign, combined with the usual mid-term blues of the Liberals, might turn these rumours into reality.

Ironically, Maxime Bernier hinted that his new party would be centrist. Only later did it attract the nutcases like flies to rotten meat.

[adma]

I might need a little more context in order to relax my hackles - for example, was "Old Stock Canadians" a phrase that was in use before Harper? Because these days I tend to see it only from white spremacist-adjacent places. Despite having always floated around the margins of Tory circles I never really heard it elsewhere.

If it hadn't been a dogwhistle before, the way the phrase was pounced upon by the media (including social media) sort of fueled its dogwhistle-ism henceforth.  (Though again, when I use the phrase, I sort of fold the dogwhistle stigma against itself.  After all, one might argue that in Ontario in 2018, Kathleen Wynne had more "Old Stock" appeal than the polyglot of Ford Nation.)

[DC Al Fine]

The organizational culture of slinging mud and eating their own is one of the CPC's greatest internal weaknesses. Now we're in the "calling other candidates white supremacists" phase of the campaign.

The Poilievre "anglo-saxon" scandal is the dumbest thing ever. First of all, saying "I believe in communicating in plain, simple, anglo-saxon words" is really dumb on Poilievre's part, because who uses the term "anglo-saxon" on a daily basis? It sounded like he was trying to sound overly intellectual/pretentious.

Yeah this has a very simple explanation.

Poillievre is a nerd, like everyone who's into politics before age 30. Being a conservative nerd, he is fond of Churchill, and the Anglo-Saxon word choice thing is a known Churchill trope. *shrug*

Was it a dogwhistle? I've come to really hate that term because it's literally impossible to qualify if something is or isn't a dogwhistle, because by definition, "normal people" aren't supposed to hear it.

Snip

But then Patrick Brown (who else, right?) uses that opportunity to call him a white supremacist.

If anyone knows about subtle distinctions it's Patrick "she was nineteen not seventeen" Brown

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

The Poilievre "anglo-saxon" scandal is the dumbest thing ever. First of all, saying "I believe in communicating in plain, simple, anglo-saxon words" is really dumb on Poilievre's part, because who uses the term "anglo-saxon" on a daily basis? It sounded like he was trying to sound overly intellectual/pretentious.

It's particularly odd since I've only ever heard words described as Anglo-Saxon in comparison to, like you said, words of Latin/Greek origin. Using that kind of terminology makes him come accross as pseudo-intellectual which evidently he was trying to avoid that and describe himself as down-to-earth, but I mean, he was on Jordan Peterson's podcast and that man is the king of using academic jargon to say nothing in particular so maybe it came with the territory.

Or maybe it is a dog whistle, I don't know, I'm not a dog. I'm no fan of Poilievre to begin with but I'm also a little reluctant to accept Brown's description of it as well, hot on the heels of that weird thing about Nazis emailing him and Michelle Rempel that I'm not quite sure of the details on. I might need a little more context in order to relax my hackles - for example, was "Old Stock Canadians" a phrase that was in use before Harper? Because these days I tend to see it only from white spremacist-adjacent places. Despite having always floated around the margins of Tory circles I never really heard it elsewhere.

Like DC Al Fine said, apparently it's a Churchill thing. He once wrote that the key to effective political messaging is to use short words of Anglo-Saxon origin, rather than Latin/French origins.

The English language is mostly a mix of Old English/Anglo-Saxon and Old French, but the different roots are clear to see. Words with anglo-saxon roots are usually seen as "simpler" than their synonyms with Norman French roots.

Chicken is a big part of Portuguese food

vs

Poultry is a major element of the Portuguese cuisine

Both mean the same thing, but they come off differently. Note that the second sentence is almost identical to French, while the first one sticks to Germanic rootwords.

But that's enough linguistic nerdiness. I think there are four plausible explanations:

1. Poilievre was talking about this linguistic trick of using Anglo-Saxon root words to sound more relatable
2. He was being pretentious and trying to sound overly intellectual (which would be pretty ironic and stupid because that's the opposite of what he was trying to claim)
3. A man of Irish and French origin who married a Venezuelan is sending a message that he wants to assert Anglo-Saxon supremacy in Canada.

I think I've made it pretty clear which of those three I do not find likely.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I might need a little more context in order to relax my hackles - for example, was "Old Stock Canadians" a phrase that was in use before Harper? Because these days I tend to see it only from white spremacist-adjacent places. Despite having always floated around the margins of Tory circles I never really heard it elsewhere.

If it hadn't been a dogwhistle before, the way the phrase was pounced upon by the media (including social media) sort of fueled its dogwhistle-ism henceforth.  (Though again, when I use the phrase, I sort of fold the dogwhistle stigma against itself.  After all, one might argue that in Ontario in 2018, Kathleen Wynne had more "Old Stock" appeal than the polyglot of Ford Nation.)

This is the old-stock Canadian clip. He used it in conjuction with "new Canadian", but in the context, his claim was that both "new" and "old-stock" Canadians agreed with his refugee policy. In that context, I don't see how it's any more divisive than saying "new Canadians" or "indigenous Canadians" or "Canadians of colour".

In any case, I agree that "old stock Canadian" does have some explanatory value when discussing political demographics and patterns. I wouldn't call it an inherently racist or dogwhistling term, it's more a matter of how it's used.

[King of Kensington]

Poilievre panders to WEF conspiracists:

https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1528743024229949440

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Poilievre panders to WEF conspiracists:

https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1528743024229949440

See now this is completely unnecessary on Poilievre's part. By all accounts, his basic pocketbook campaign was leading to high support among CPC supporters, with some polling suggesting he had a shot at a first-ballot victory. And this was a message he could stick to until 2025 and take to the voting public, because "I will make your life more affordable and less burdensome" is a message that works anywhere. Going down the deep end of WEF conspiracy theories and the like is handcuffing himself and the party in a general election - unless of course he pivots away from it, but O'Toole and more recently Kenney have shown, once you unleash the beast, don't just assume you can tame it.

[DC Al Fine]

Garnett Genuis, who was reportedly behind the coup to oust Erin O'Toole, has endorsed Leslyn Lewis.

[IAMCANADIAN]

Poilievre panders to WEF conspiracists:

https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1528743024229949440

See now this is completely unnecessary on Poilievre's part. By all accounts, his basic pocketbook campaign was leading to high support among CPC supporters, with some polling suggesting he had a shot at a first-ballot victory. And this was a message he could stick to until 2025 and take to the voting public, because "I will make your life more affordable and less burdensome" is a message that works anywhere. Going down the deep end of WEF conspiracy theories and the like is handcuffing himself and the party in a general election - unless of course he pivots away from it, but O'Toole and more recently Kenney have shown, once you unleash the beast, don't just assume you can tame it.

I don't understand how any conservative voter could be against this policy. Even giving the WEF the benefit of the doubt they are not the type of organization that advocates policies that are compatible with either fiscal or social conservatism. Why should MP's who claim to be conservative attend their events?

[Independents for Nihilism]

Poilievre panders to WEF conspiracists:

https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1528743024229949440

See now this is completely unnecessary on Poilievre's part. By all accounts, his basic pocketbook campaign was leading to high support among CPC supporters, with some polling suggesting he had a shot at a first-ballot victory. And this was a message he could stick to until 2025 and take to the voting public, because "I will make your life more affordable and less burdensome" is a message that works anywhere. Going down the deep end of WEF conspiracy theories and the like is handcuffing himself and the party in a general election - unless of course he pivots away from it, but O'Toole and more recently Kenney have shown, once you unleash the beast, don't just assume you can tame it.

I don't understand how any conservative voter could be against this policy. Even giving the WEF the benefit of the doubt they are not the type of organization that advocates policies that are compatible with either fiscal or social conservatism. Why should MP's who claim to be conservative attend their events?

Don't get me wrong, the WEF membership seem like eurotrash and champagne socialists at best, but outright banning ministers from shmoozing with them feels like pandering to the conspiracies from a guy who's all about personal freedom, unless you want to ban them from being wined-and-dined by any interest group as well. It's not a lot to ask to assume your caucus has enough sense to figure these things out on their own. See: https://theline.substack.com/p/michelle-rempel-garner-i-went-to?s=r

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

How well is Browns ethenic machine stratagey working ?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Poilievre panders to WEF conspiracists:

https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1528743024229949440

See now this is completely unnecessary on Poilievre's part. By all accounts, his basic pocketbook campaign was leading to high support among CPC supporters, with some polling suggesting he had a shot at a first-ballot victory. And this was a message he could stick to until 2025 and take to the voting public, because "I will make your life more affordable and less burdensome" is a message that works anywhere. Going down the deep end of WEF conspiracy theories and the like is handcuffing himself and the party in a general election - unless of course he pivots away from it, but O'Toole and more recently Kenney have shown, once you unleash the beast, don't just assume you can tame it.

I don't understand how any conservative voter could be against this policy. Even giving the WEF the benefit of the doubt they are not the type of organization that advocates policies that are compatible with either fiscal or social conservatism. Why should MP's who claim to be conservative attend their events?

Oops, forgot to respond to this.

My issue isn't that I like the WEF (I don't). Like Bilingual Bipartisan said, WEF just seems like a collection of Eurotrash champagne socialists who like to wine and dine in Davos and talk about policies that don't affect people like them. I would have no qualms about the Canadian government not participating in the WEF. My argument is more strategic.

Firstly, banning your caucus from in any way being involved with the WEF? That seems like huge overkill. If the idea is you don't want the WEF influencing your government, I mean, it's not that hard to just reject their proposals, most of which Poilievre would probably reject regardless. Of course, there are people who think the WEF is a cabal of billionaires secretly controlling the world. Not everyone who dislikes the WEF, to be sure, but coming out with a message like this, it's pretty clear who he's trying to court. It also plays into the Charest/Brown strategy of calling Poilievre a crazed nutjob.

There is also a strategic risk with courting conspiracists. People who are wired to distrust any and all authority, often with some very out-there views, they're more than happy to stab you in the back when you do something, anything that doesn't please them. I know Poilievre is against mandates and lockdowns now, but I bet if he was the PM in March 2020, he would have bit the bullet and done what anyone else would have, and anti-mandate/vax people would have been enraged regardless of who was in power. But when your base turns on you, that's a much harder political challenge than when pre-existing opponents get mad at you. Just look what happened to Jason Kenney.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

How well is Browns ethenic machine stratagey working ?

Hard to say until Q2 numbers come out. Q1 numbers suggested that it was not working at all, but now there's more of a push to get memberships out, so we'll have to see.