"Tories in wonderland"

Time may be Pierre Poilievre's friend, after all

I borrowed today’s headline from a March 1986 column written by The Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson. The subject of the piece was then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s first party convention following his historic landslide election victory, and it had been a more raucous affair than organizers would have hoped for. The Montreal event was teeming with 3,000 attendees, as you’d expect for the governing party, but the government had experienced a series of stumbles leading up to the event; and tensions occasionally flared as a result. So much so that Terry Mosher immortalized the moment in this editorial cartoon.

In the wake this of weekend’s Conservative get-together in Quebec City, I’ve been reflecting on what I saw and heard this time, relative to all of the federal and provincial party conventions that I’ve attended, dating back to 1976.

In a word, this convention was “purposeful.”

By their nature, political conventions of every stripe are a potentially dangerous brew of heartfelt Members, long hours, reams of passionate policy proposals, national media attention and late-night hospitality suites. Whether you’re in government or Opposition, there’s a risk that some random member, or a wacky policy idea, will capture an undue amount of attention — or, worse, momentum — taking away from whatever the party was hoping to accomplish at the event. Ever thus.

Mr. Poilievre’s first convention as our Leader had none of that. There wasn’t a knife in sight, unlike maybe half of the conventions of yesteryear.

While some in the media might have tried to drum up Twitter controversy around CPC accreditation rules, I doubt that more than 25 people in Canada care about which blogger or activist-masquerading-as-journalist didn’t qualify to “cover” the event. The moment that the Liberal government prevented Rebel News from reporting on its events, while the Parliamentary Press Gallery stayed mum, the MSM lost the moral authority to opine on who Conservative Party officials believe are legitimate journos.

As for political bloggers who found their media credential requests turned down, I can sympathize with Tasha Kheiriddin to an extent. It’s tough to get a good ticket for tonight’s Pearl Jam show in Indiana, for example; and, as a blogger myself, I’d certainly love it if the band’s public affairs team would grant me special access to cover the sold-out concert as a “rock and roll photojournalist.” I’ve even got some very fresh, if not quite Rolling Stone Magazine-worthy, work under my belt (see prior post “What's with you and Pearl Jam?” Sept 3-23) to bolster my case.

Unlike Ms. Kheiriddin, I can also point to my professional media bylines in Time Magazine, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, Maclean’s Magazine, The Washington Post, and so on. But I certainly wouldn’t expect Pearl Jam’s tour manager to grant me access to tonight’s show; there are hundreds of far more knowledgeable PJ bloggers, from around the world, who’ll immediately turn on the band if they, too, didn’t get similar treatment.

The highlight of the weekend were the two speeches by Ana and Pierre. I had never seen them in a large environment, and they are at least as good a political tag-team as I’ve witnessed in Canadian politics.

Like most of you, my first introduction to Ana Poilievre was when she introduced her husband as the party’s new Leader a year ago today. As much as I was blown away by her comfort in front of an audience, her personal backstory is unlike that of any political spouse in our Party’s history. As she spoke that night, I texted a senior Conservative female: “Wow! Who is this woman? How have I missed this?” While she wasn’t a secret to many around Ottawa, it certainly was to me.

Our party has always had a deficit with female voters, despite being in government when women were first granted the right to vote in 1918. We were the first political party to appoint a woman to cabinet, to elect a female PM, and so forth. I’ve always thought that it took four elections for some swing-voting women to believe that Stephen Harper had no secret agenda on the abortion front — only then did we win a majority. Not to diminish the impact of her message on male voters, I’m convinced that Ana is going to connect with a wide array of women in the lead-up to the next election. And beyond.

Mr. Poilievre’s speech was somehow both wide-ranging and focused. As a party member — but also a student of politics — I heard what I wanted (needed?) to hear, including:

• do what we can to help Canadians with the increasing cost of living'

• personal choice and responsibility

• tackle the size, scope, and effectiveness of government

• rebuild our military and respect our Armed Forces and Veterans

• “technology, not [carbon] taxes”

• help Canadians with access to housing

• be smart when it comes to Federal infrastructure grants

• be proud of our history

• balance the budget

The very positive series of national polls over the past few weeks would have been a strong tailwind for any party convention, but I didn’t sense anything in the crowd that might be called “over-confidence.” The next election is believed to be in 2025, which is several political lifetimes from now. The kinds of people who get elected as Delegates to conventions are well aware they can’t take anything for granted in politics — even when it feels like “Wonderland.”

While the only poll that matters is the one on election day, as the saying goes, Mr. Poilievre’s excellent standing with young people can’t be ignored. Three or five years ago, the accepted view was that young folks wouldn’t vote for someone who didn’t favour a carbon tax, or some similar form of “Climate Plan.” I can’t help but notice that all while the Leader was been campaigning against the Liberal Party’s carbon tax, his numbers with young Canadians have only improved. The fact that many of that generation see no prospect of ever being able to buy a new home seems to have trumped whatever Canada has promised to do about it’s 1.5% contribution to the world’s carbon footprint. Ignoring the fact that the Liberals have missed many of their own climate targets over the past eight years.

As I advocated earlier this year, Canada can help the world address this important global topic. We just can’t pretend that increasing the cost of food or home heating oil at here in Canada is going to make a material difference when countries like China and Panama are building new coal plants. (see prior post “Clean technology advancements, not circular taxes, is Canada's best hope to reduce global greenhouse gasses and grow our economy” May 11-23). The pragmatic (common sense?) way to go is to harness Canadian scientists and investment capital, just as our nation did with the “Telephone, Lightbulb, Sonar, Insulin, Electron Microscope, Imax, Canadarm, Blackberry.…” as per my blog last May.

Success on that front will create new, high-paying jobs for the very young Canadians who are concerned for their future. When Mr. Poilievre talks about “technology, not taxes,” young voters will know what he means.

It’s a long road to hoe, but we are on the right path.

MRM

(this post, like all blogs, is an Opinion PIece)