The post-Poilievre leadership race has begun
Andrew Coyne ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/authors/andrew-coyne/[/url])
Published Yesterday
[/URL]
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, right, walks with MP Jamil Jivani in the House of Commons.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
By now, nearly everyone has had a whack at Conservative MP Jamil Jivani’s bizarre solo diplomatic mission to Washington.
It was never clear what the trip was supposed to accomplish. Mr. Jivani does not represent the government of Canada; he does not even represent his own party. There was nothing he could offer the Americans, and nothing they could offer him.
Certainly it was hard to say anything good came of it, as far as Canada-U.S. relations ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/canada-us/[/url]) are concerned: a couple of days after his return Donald Trump ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/donald-trump/[/url]) declared his intent to block the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, amid a torrent of the usual anti-Canadian vitriol.
Perhaps the point was merely to remind Canadians that Mr. Jivani is an old college chum of the Vice-President, JD Vance. That would probably play a lot better if there were some evidence of their relationship having served the Canadian interest, and not the other way around.
Robyn Urback: Jamil Jivani goes to Washington ... to advance Jamil Jivani’s interests ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-jamil-jivani-washington-us-trade-vance/[/url])
In his comments on the trip, in both the Canadian media and American, Mr. Jivani instead seemed to go out of his way to paint the American side as reasonable and sympathetic, the Canadian side as unreasonable and motivated by anti-Americanism. In one infamous outburst, he dismissed Canadian objections to Mr. Trump’s unprovoked attacks on the country as a “hissy-fit” A particular Trump administration complaint, that Canada was not being as “pragmatic” as Mexico , was echoed nearly word-for-word
Even that might have been bearable, had Mr. Jivani not dressed the whole thing up as a high-minded, country-before-party exercise in bipartisanship, to which only bitter partisans could object. It was nothing of the kind. It wasn’t even partisanship, if you mean something likely to advance the Conservative cause, as a good many Conservative MPs will tell you
So what was it, then? A bit of self-promotion, certainly, but of a particular kind. By so conspicuously aligning himself with Mr. Trump, Mr. Jivani was laying claim, I think, to the leadership of the MAGA wing of the Conservative Party.
That is, I am sorry to say, a sizable chunk of the party base. Polls show somewhere between one-quarter of Conservative supporters approve of Mr. Trump, notwithstanding his threats to impoverish and annex the country.
But Mr. Jivani’s positioning is not only about appealing to the populist right. A section of the Canadian business community – particularly big business, particularly in southern Ontario – views a successful renegotiation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA) as existential, and is apoplectic at the thought of Canadian political leaders saying or doing anything that might conceivably put that in jeopardy.
They are not pro-Trump, so much as they are pro-appeasement – or as they might prefer, pragmatism. They want a deal at any cost, and consider anyone who stops to ask what the cost might be, or whether paying it would buy us anything but the shortest of peaces, guilty of “emotional” thinking. Mr. Jivani’s supine, blame-Canada stance will play well with them.
The post-Poilievre leadership race, in other words, is already under way. Pierre Poilievre may have won the endorsement of the party rank-and-file at the Calgary convention, but the party establishment – MPs, party officials, the pros – know he’s toast. The Conservatives are nine or 10 points behind the Liberals in the polls. Mr. Poilievre is 20 points or more behind Mark Carney. And the reason is Mr. Trump.
Whenever the U.S. President starts bashing Canada, the Liberals go up in the polls, the Conservatives go down, and the divisions within the Conservative ranks, between the pro- and anti-Trump wings, or between those preaching defiance and those preaching appeasement, grow deeper. That is only likely to get worse, because Mr. Trump’s behaviour is only likely to get worse.
Like his predecessors as party leader, Mr. Poilievre has attempted to straddle that divide. He has been more successful at it than they, but only because he has been more willing to cater to the MAGA side. Even in his speech to the convention, he could not bring himself to say Mr. Trump’s name.
That has cost him support among the broader public. But it has also failed to buy more than short-term peace in the party. As things heat up between Canada and the U.S., the pressure on the Conservative Party will grow; as the cracks in the party open wider, straddling will prove increasingly uncomfortable.
A house divided cannot stand. The Conservative Party will have to decide, once and for all, which side it is on. The coming leadership race will tell the tale.
?
Andrew Coyne ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/authors/andrew-coyne/[/url])
Published Yesterday
[/URL]Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, right, walks with MP Jamil Jivani in the House of Commons.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
By now, nearly everyone has had a whack at Conservative MP Jamil Jivani’s bizarre solo diplomatic mission to Washington.
It was never clear what the trip was supposed to accomplish. Mr. Jivani does not represent the government of Canada; he does not even represent his own party. There was nothing he could offer the Americans, and nothing they could offer him.
Certainly it was hard to say anything good came of it, as far as Canada-U.S. relations ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/canada-us/[/url]) are concerned: a couple of days after his return Donald Trump ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/donald-trump/[/url]) declared his intent to block the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, amid a torrent of the usual anti-Canadian vitriol.
Perhaps the point was merely to remind Canadians that Mr. Jivani is an old college chum of the Vice-President, JD Vance. That would probably play a lot better if there were some evidence of their relationship having served the Canadian interest, and not the other way around.
Robyn Urback: Jamil Jivani goes to Washington ... to advance Jamil Jivani’s interests ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-jamil-jivani-washington-us-trade-vance/[/url])
In his comments on the trip, in both the Canadian media and American, Mr. Jivani instead seemed to go out of his way to paint the American side as reasonable and sympathetic, the Canadian side as unreasonable and motivated by anti-Americanism. In one infamous outburst, he dismissed Canadian objections to Mr. Trump’s unprovoked attacks on the country as a “hissy-fit” A particular Trump administration complaint, that Canada was not being as “pragmatic” as Mexico , was echoed nearly word-for-word
Even that might have been bearable, had Mr. Jivani not dressed the whole thing up as a high-minded, country-before-party exercise in bipartisanship, to which only bitter partisans could object. It was nothing of the kind. It wasn’t even partisanship, if you mean something likely to advance the Conservative cause, as a good many Conservative MPs will tell you
So what was it, then? A bit of self-promotion, certainly, but of a particular kind. By so conspicuously aligning himself with Mr. Trump, Mr. Jivani was laying claim, I think, to the leadership of the MAGA wing of the Conservative Party.
That is, I am sorry to say, a sizable chunk of the party base. Polls show somewhere between one-quarter of Conservative supporters approve of Mr. Trump, notwithstanding his threats to impoverish and annex the country.
But Mr. Jivani’s positioning is not only about appealing to the populist right. A section of the Canadian business community – particularly big business, particularly in southern Ontario – views a successful renegotiation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA) as existential, and is apoplectic at the thought of Canadian political leaders saying or doing anything that might conceivably put that in jeopardy.
They are not pro-Trump, so much as they are pro-appeasement – or as they might prefer, pragmatism. They want a deal at any cost, and consider anyone who stops to ask what the cost might be, or whether paying it would buy us anything but the shortest of peaces, guilty of “emotional” thinking. Mr. Jivani’s supine, blame-Canada stance will play well with them.
The post-Poilievre leadership race, in other words, is already under way. Pierre Poilievre may have won the endorsement of the party rank-and-file at the Calgary convention, but the party establishment – MPs, party officials, the pros – know he’s toast. The Conservatives are nine or 10 points behind the Liberals in the polls. Mr. Poilievre is 20 points or more behind Mark Carney. And the reason is Mr. Trump.
Whenever the U.S. President starts bashing Canada, the Liberals go up in the polls, the Conservatives go down, and the divisions within the Conservative ranks, between the pro- and anti-Trump wings, or between those preaching defiance and those preaching appeasement, grow deeper. That is only likely to get worse, because Mr. Trump’s behaviour is only likely to get worse.
Like his predecessors as party leader, Mr. Poilievre has attempted to straddle that divide. He has been more successful at it than they, but only because he has been more willing to cater to the MAGA side. Even in his speech to the convention, he could not bring himself to say Mr. Trump’s name.
That has cost him support among the broader public. But it has also failed to buy more than short-term peace in the party. As things heat up between Canada and the U.S., the pressure on the Conservative Party will grow; as the cracks in the party open wider, straddling will prove increasingly uncomfortable.
A house divided cannot stand. The Conservative Party will have to decide, once and for all, which side it is on. The coming leadership race will tell the tale.
?
Comment