The wrong guy

Good news, Honourable Dogs. This is the last post dealing with Monday’s conflagration.

As blog addicts will know, times are strange here. Look at the two writ-period polls we held. They averaged about 4,500 responses over 24 hours. One was conducted when the campaign began, the other a few day ago. Results were consistent. Amazingly so.

What did you say?

Liberal support among readers came in at 52%, miles ahead of the Conservatives (33%). The favourables/unfavourables for Carney and Poilievre were even more interesting. The Lib leader is now viewed as more favourable by 51%, and less by 29%. For the Con leader, a mirror opposite. Opinion of him fell over the campaign for more than half of you. Those who viewed him better came in at less than 30%.

In short, the Liberals were almost 20 crushing points ahead of the other guys in a poll that was not only national in scope but with one of the largest samples of any survey during the campaign. This level of engagement seems reinforced by an unprecedented turnout for advance polls. Over 7 million people turned out even before the Poilievre forces had released an election platform. My guess is many were motivated by patriotism, voting in repudiation of the orange guy. Take your 51st state and…

But wait. What about the comments section?

While the voting here produced one clear set of results, the moaning, wailing, invective, insults, mocking, indignation and protesting from PP supporters has dominated the blog’s sad steerage section. They don’t believe the polls. They don’t believe you could have been thick enough to vote as you did. They’re gnarlier than usual and happy to blame me – an old, white, wealthy, out-of-touch, boomer overlord fossil – for what you did.

So in this final politically-inspired post, let me tell you why, three years ago, I told you the Conservatives had picked the wrong guy. On Monday that may become evident to all.

This is offered by a citizen who was elected twice to Parliament, once as a Mulroney PC and once as a Harper Conservative. The first time was productive and personally fulfilling. I chaired committees, impacted bills, was a leadership candidate and ended up in Cabinet. The second time was an unmitigated disaster. Harper ruled with an iron fist, disallowed MP independence, hated my blogging and digital democracy, tried to ban me form talking to oppo guys, and threw me out after I fought 0% downpayments and 40-year mortgages, arguing it would create a housing bubble. Which it did.

But back to Pierre. He was Harper’s parliamentary secretary and party attack dog. When I fell out of favour with the boss, he took a big bite out of my shapely buns. But I expected that. It’s him. What he does.

What I did not expect from Mr. Poilievre subsequently is why I find him unfit to lead my country.

In the midst of a global pandemic and national health emergency he sided with the truckers who shut down the capital, covered it with F-Trudeau flags, scared the locals, defied police, broke the law and rallied anti-vaccine sentiment precisely when society needed compliance and faith in the face of a crisis. That was opportunistic, unleaderlike, and done fully in the interests of Pierre, not Canada. He springboarded that into a caucus revolt against the leader, and assumed control. He used the truckers, and in so doing sullied us.

In the period following Covid, when the entire western world was dealing with the fallout from broken supply chains and boomerang demand – causing inflation – Poilievre lied about the causes and sought to destroy public faith in institutions. Trudeau was no more responsible for rising prices in Canada than those in the UK or America. It was not caused by borrowing or by debt. Poilievre lied to gain attention and headlines, and misled Canadians.

As the Bank of Canada raised rates (correctly and effectively) to cool things off, Poilievre mocked and trolled the governor, vowing to fire him when elected. Like Trump’s been doing to the guy running the Fed. Having a political leader seek to take over monetary policy is a classic Third World move. It’s meant to gain personal power and secure headlines through misinformation, not to serve society or the nation. Suggesting Canadians embrace Bitcoin was icing on the cake of incompetence.

And now Mr, Poilievre plays footsie with the Wexit, secessionist and goofball elements that seek to place one region’s interest above that of the country’s, just when we face an existential threat. He should have been slapping down Alberta Premier Danielle Smith as she courted Trump at Mar-a-Lago and blabbered to Breitbart.

He should have distanced himself from the failed Preston Manning who threatened the breakup of Canada if people didn’t vote as he wanted. This is the guy responsible for the death of centrist conservativism, years of Liberal spending and the birth of what is now the maple version of MAGA. If there is a Progressive Conservative left these days, it is probably Mark Carney.

Yes, I know Pierre. Well. He is a gifted speaker, a sharp, smart guy with acuity and unrivalled political skills. He is cunning and calculating. That’s why he’s made an entire career out of the House of Commons. He is also deeply ambitious and aggressive, which has led him to shred opponents, destroy reputations, defile instituions and set principles aside when required to get ahead. Three years ago he looked south, like what he saw, and has mined that vein of populism to its core.

His base is enthralled. Many would elect a Golden Retriever instead of another Liberal. I get it.

But in this country, character matters.

About the picture: “Hi Garth, thank you for your blog, changed my life!” writes Kim.  “This is Lola, she is a bred dog whom my friend rescued.  She loves her stuffies and is gentle with them, carries them like she would her babies.  She will gaze into your eyes into eternity, and you can really feel the love!”

To be in touch or send a picture of your beast, email to ‘[email protected]’.

Source: https://www.greaterfool.ca/2025/04/24/the-wrong-guy/