Loading ...LISTEN UP CANADIAN CONSERVATIVES
I subsrcibe to Spencer Fernando . He is a relatively new Canadian Conservative Political Analyst and strong supporter of Pierre Poilievre Lately i have been very disappointed in his commentary supporting the ukraine war and P P’s stance aganst European MP Christine Anderson. I contacted him on behalf of Canadian Goldtenters and the REAL Conservatives in our Country and blasted him and PP. I suspect many others have done so as well
Much of Fernando’s work is great and much of it is free. This post is Paywalled BUT VERY Important . It is a response to Conservatives who are upset with Poilievre …The Sub Title says it all.
Whine or Win? The choice facing Pierre Poilievre’s critics on the right
This is an interesting look into the Dilemas facing Poilievre as he has to navigate the very divided and quirky Populaxe here in Canada. He has risin to power in the Conservative Party BECAUSE of massive support of REAL Conservatives BUT I admit after his stance on Ukraine and his stance against Christine Anderson i vowed to Take my support to Maxime Bernier and his PPC. of course Splitting the Vote in the last election is what got the Turd re-elected . Enough votes were lost by the Conservatives to the PPC in some close ridings to deny Conservatives a dozen seats and in spite of the fact the Turd got fewer votes than any leader in history he won a minority. So alienating the BASE again , as did O’toole the previous tratorious CPC leader , would be disasterous in the next election.
This piece by Fernando seems to have heen written to address this isue and explain the delicate position P P finds himself in .
I am posting the piece in the first comment . VERY IMPORTANT YOU PASS IT ON TO ALL CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS..
NO MATTER WHAT WE MUST WORK TOGETHER TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX POLITICS HERE AND TO ULTIMATELY..FLUSH THE TURD
……
PS I love Bernier and in a perfect world He would be a viable Prime Minister Candidate ….but lets face it right now we need to get rid of da Turd and the only way is to Support Pierre.
I detest the fact that MOST Canadians are idiots and still think Russia is Communist and Putin is a totalitarian Dictator…BUT I do see the point Fernando is making here…Poilievre has no choice but to show support for Ukraine…to do otherwise would be political suicide as he says.
………………..
Note there are a bunch of video links and other stuff that won’t copy into the comment section …here they are…PASS IT ON…
Exclusive In-Depth Political Analysis – 2023 Edition #10
Key Issues:
1) Whine or Win? The choice facing Pierre Poilievre’s critics on the right.
2) The expanding power of the Chinese Communist Party.
3) What is Justin Trudeau so afraid of?
Whine or Win? The choice facing Pierre Poilievre’s critics on the right
Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party have never been as vulnerable as they are today.
Pressure continues to mount for a public inquiry into China’s election interference, with survey after survey showing a clear majority of Canadians are taking the matter seriously.
Even much of the establishment media – including CBC – are starting to grill Liberal Ministers on the issue, and aren’t putting up with the same empty talking points.
Canadians sense that this scandal goes to the core of our most basic, cherished, and fundamental institutions.
If we can’t trust our electoral process, and if we can’t trust our political leaders to work in the best interests of Canada, then nothing else really matters.
The more Trudeau resists calls for an inquiry, the more guilty he looks and the more it looks like he has a lot to hide.
In the third part of this newsletter, we will get into why Trudeau seems so afraid of an inquiry.
But for now, we’ll discuss the way in which elements of the right – largely led by the PPC – are choosing this moment to either wittingly or unwittingly help Justin Trudeau by launching attacks against CPC Leader Pierre Poilievre.
Those attacks – and the immensely counterproductive impact – raises the following question:
Do Conservative Canadians want to whine, or do they want to win?
Let’s start by assessing the two main lines of attack against Poilievre coming from the right.
First, that he shouldn’t have denounced right-wing German politician Christine Anderson.
Second, that he shouldn’t be expressing support for Ukraine.
Christine Anderson
Christine Anderson is a German politician from the Alternative for Deutschland Party (AfD). She recently met with three CPC MPs. The CPC then put out a statement, distancing the party from her, claiming the MPs regretted meeting with her, and stating she shouldn’t have visited Canada.
The AfD is described by some as a far-right party, and others as a right wing party.
In the 2021 German federal election, the AfD won 10.3% of the vote, down from 12.6% previously.
They won 83 seats in the 736 seat Bundestag (German legislature), also down from 94 previously.
In the 2019 European Parliamentary elections, the AfD won 11% of the vote and 11% of the seats (distributed based on popular vote).
The AfD in Germany is thus somewhere between the NDP & PPC in terms of popularity.
The party takes many positions that are relatively common among right-wing European parties, including opposition to immigration and criticism of Islam. In some ways, AfD isn’t much different than the right-wing in Quebec, where opposition to immigration and criticism of religion (generally directed towards Muslim believers), is the norm.
However, there are some key ways in which the AfD differs from right-wing parties in Canada.
For example, an AfD leader in Thuringia has sought to downplay the genocidal past of Germany during the fascist era:
“The party’s leader in the eastern state of Thuringia, Björn Höcke, once described Berlin’s Holocaust memorial as a “monument of shame” and called for a “180-degree turnaround” in Germany’s handling of its Nazi past. Picking up the same theme, Alexander Gauland trivialised the Nazi era as “just a speck of bird’s muck in more than 1,000 years of successful Germany history”.”
The party has also been shifting more towards the far-right:
“The AfD has managed to attract voters from the centre right and even the centre left but in the words of Verena Hartmann, a moderate MP who left the party in January 2020 because it was becoming to extreme: “Those who resist this extreme right-wing movement are mercilessly pushed out of the party.”
In the words of Matthias Quent, a German expert on the far right based in Thuringia: “Not everyone in the AfD is ideologically far right, but anyone in the party or even voting for the party is supporting a party that has a far-right objective.””
Christine Anderson herself, speaking after Pierre Poilievre distanced the CPC from her, said in an interview that she didn’t see Islam as a religion.
Such a statement would of course not go over well in Canada, especially given that the CPC has to win over ridings in Ontario with large Muslim-Canadian populations.
Now, in a free country we should be able to criticize religion. Christine Anderson has every right to share her views. That said, Pierre Poilievre is also free to distance himself from those views, and doing so is a wise strategic calculation.
Christine Anderson is also largely unknown in Canada.
She won the support of many Freedom Convoy participants when she criticized Justin Trudeau in a European Parliament speech. And while her tour through Canada received significant attention in social media, she is not a household name in this country.
And yet, Maxime Bernier is now attacking Pierre Poilievre as a fraud and opportunist for distancing the CPC from her:
Bernier seems to think Pierre Poilievre should risk his own reputation for the sake of a German politician who is less popular and less influential in Germany than Jagmeet Singh is in Canada.
Bernier and his supporters have also been calling the Liberals, CPC, and NDP the ‘uniparty,’ as if there is no difference between them.
Some within the Freedom Convoy movement are echoing Bernier’s criticism:
In the Globe & Mail, an organizer of the meeting called Anderson a “celebrated folk hero,” and said “There’s a sense of betrayal and we feel used by Mr. Poilievre, to take the freedom convoy, freedom movement and use them for his own benefit.”
What’s interesting about this is that – on a practical basis – Poilievre has done far more than Christine Anderson to support the Freedom Convoy and oppose mandates/restrictions here in Canada.
Poilievre was one of the most influential politicians to support the convoy, and many who supported his leadership campaign were among those who wanted the CPC to take a tougher anti-mandate stance.
Poilievre repeatedly pushed back against media attempts to demonize convoy participants, as he made a clear delineation between the majority of peaceful protesters, and the small number of individuals who broke the law – at a time when many in the media were trying to conflate the two.
Poilievre also spoke out against the use of the Emergencies Act, and the Conservatives voted against it in Parliament.
Poilievre campaigned against mandates during the leadership race, continued that campaign when he became CPC Leader, and the Trudeau government dropped those mandates not long after Poilievre won the CPC Leadership race, clearly feeling the pressure.
Poilievre also put forward a Private Member’s Bill calling for an end to federal Covid-19 vaccine mandates:
Poilievre has helped turn many of the ideas espoused by the Freedom Convoy – an end to federal vaccine mandates, political pressure to make lockdowns and mandates less acceptable – into reality.
Certainly – from an objective point of view – Poilievre has done much more than Maxime Bernier.
And Bernier’s attack on Poilievre also heavily relies upon dishonesty, as I recently pointed out on Twitter.
Bernier had claimed Poilievre “NEVER” mentioned the federal government freezing the bank accounts of Convoy participants:
Of course, that claim is easily disproven, with just a short visit to openparliament.ca required to disprove it:
Bernier is clearly desperate to try and weaken the CPC, and is stooping to dishonesty in order to do so.
Ukraine
The PPC is also attacking Poilievre on the issue of Canada’s support for Ukraine.
Poilievre recently attended a march for Ukraine in Toronto, where he expressed his support for the country and his opposition to Vladimir Putin’s invasion.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was also at the event, and spoke in support of Ukraine.
In response, the PPC has gone on the attack. This is just a small example of what Bernier and his supporters have been saying:
Now, aside from the fact that Bernier is promoting the Kremlin narrative that the West is ‘escalating’ by helping Ukraine defend itself (notice how Russia starting the war, destroying cities, kidnapping children, committing war crimes, etc… is never considered escalatory), Bernier’s position is also politically illiterate.
As noted by Stephen Taylor, Ukrainian Canadians are a big part of the CPC support base:
Additionally, while the discourse on Ukraine online often gives the impression Canadians are split on the issue, that discourse is wildly unrepresentative of public opinion.
As I discussed at SpencerFernando.com, an overwhelming majority of Canadians support Ukraine, while the number of those who support Russia are almost a rounding error:
“As noted in recent polls, support for Ukraine is an overwhelmingly popular opinion in Canada:”
“Furthermore, opposing Russia’s expansionist goals has long been a bedrock Conservative position.
Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was very critical of Putin, and very supportive of Ukraine.
If Poilievre didn’t support Ukraine, and if he bought into the irrational & conspiratorial Kremlin-propaganda line, not only would he push the CPC to the far extremes of public opinion, but he would be completely out of step with the history of the party, the history of Canadian Conservatism more broadly, and would be out of step with much of his base.
In fact, the real surprise here is that anyone is surprised to see Poilievre support Ukraine.
Poilievre has long taken an anti-authoritarian stance, opposing governments that act in oppressive ways and speaking out against those who violate rights and freedoms.
Poilievre is an out-spoken anti-Communist, so why would people be surprised to see him oppose Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an invasion being conducted by a ruthless authoritarian state led by a former Communist KGB agent dictator?”
If Poilievre did what Bernier wanted and took a more pro-Russia position, the CPC would hemorrhage votes, and there would be an internal caucus revolt. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper would almost certainly denounce the shift as well.
Why would a politician shift from a position that has close to 80%, in order to move closer to a position that has 3% support?
It would be political suicide.
Bernier attacking Poilievre on the issue of Ukraine is another example of how the PPC will exploit anything in order to try and weaken the Conservatives.
This may have had some utility before Poilievre became CPC Leader, when it seemed the Conservatives were trying too hard to be like the Liberals on issues like carbon taxes, government spending, mandates, and more.
But now, with the CPC led by someone who is taking Conservative stances on many issues, it’s absurd and counterproductive.
The big thing is that the PPC – and Poilievre’s other critics on the right – are acting as if nothing has changed in the CPC.
They are being willfully ignorant.
As noted above, the CPC has shifted in a more Conservative direction on the following issues since Poilievre became party leader:
Carbon taxes, government spending, budget deficits, freedom of speech, vaccine mandates, and firearms legislation. Those are some of the most consequential issues facing our country, and Poilievre has moved in a more conservative, pro-freedom, limited government direction on all of them.
For the PPC and Poilievre’s other right wing critics to ignore this, and pretend that he is somehow the same as Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh is deeply dishonest.
At some point, Poilievre’s critics on the right will have ask themselves whether they want to whine, or whether they want to win.
They can whine all they want about Poilievre not giving them 100% of what they demand, but doing so will only increase the odds that Justin Trudeau stays in power.
The expanding power of the Chinese Communist Party
It seems impossible to imagine the Chinese Communist Party becoming even more powerful, but that is exactly what is happening.
“Xi Jinping is preparing a profound overhaul of China’s government and party institutions at this year’s National People’s Congress (NPC), China’s rubber-stamp parliament, which begins its annual session on Sunday.
On Tuesday, the Chinese Communist party (CCP) trailed changes of “far-reaching significance” that are expected to include a reorganisation of the bodies tasked with managing the financial and technology sectors, as well as state security. The changes will all have one goal in mind: to strengthen the party’s control.”
Another rumoured change is that the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of State Security could be removed from the State Council’s portfolio, and placed under the oversight of a newly created, party-controlled, internal affairs committee. “By moving so many of these core functions away from the oversight of the state, it would arguably weaken the state while greatly strengthening the power of the party’s Central Committee and, of course, Xi Jinping himself,” said Patricia Thornton, a professor of Chinese politics at Oxford University.
Last week the CCP and the State Council published a joint opinion on legal education. The document calls on state institutions to “persist in following Xi Jinping Thought” on the rule of law and that schools should “oppose and resist western erroneous views” such as “constitutional government” and “independence of the judiciary”.
Some analysts expect the opinion to be formalised in some way at the NPC. The language in the opinion echoes that of the “Two Establishes” and the “Two Safeguards”, CCP slogans that establish Xi and his ideology as the “core” of the party. The “Two Safeguards” were added to the party charter in 2022.”
Real communism
An argument made by many China apologists is that China isn’t ‘really communist,’ and is instead a technocratic state.
Xi Jinping’s has made that more and more difficult to claim, since he has continually placed the power of the Chinese Communist Party above all else, including economic growth and China’s relations with the world.
Xi Jinping gives every indication of being a ‘true believer’ in communism, and an opponent of any move towards political/economic liberalization.
Xi has continuously expanded his own power, and the power of the CCP, culminating in the most recent party congress where his term was extended and his loyalists were placed into every position.
However, the broader government structure in China is immense, and that means there are likely many people who are still proponents of a more balanced, technocratic style, rather than a politically ideological style.
Xi would see that as a threat, since rational, reality-based thinking doesn’t tend to meld with communist ideology.
So, by weakening the state and empowering the party, Xi Jinping further expands his own control and further politicizes China’s governing apparatus.
This is concerning.
It’s concerning in regards to Taiwan, as rational technocrats would be against an invasion, while political communists would be more in favour of it.
The technocrats know that an invasion of Taiwan would carry a severe risk of failure for China, and would lead to a large portion of the world sanctioning them and cutting off trade. Political officials – desperate to win the approval of Xi by taking the most hardline position possible – will be much more likely to advocate for an invasion and tell Xi what he wants to hear.
Here in Canada, we are dealing with disturbing revelations of China interfering in our democracy. That’s all an outgrowth of the United Front Strategy employed by China, something Xi has called one of China’s greatest weapons.
An even more politicized and centralized Chinese state, dominated by Xi Jinping to an unprecedented extent, is likely to expand their United Front efforts and ramp up efforts to intimidate other countries.
This is why our country needs to rapidly get a handle on China’s interference efforts, push back against those efforts, and ensure our nation is protected. The more our country looks like a weak and inviting target, the more an increasingly aggressive and politicized Chinese government will take advantage.
What is Justin Trudeau so afraid of?
Why hasn’t Justin Trudeau agreed to hold a public inquiry into China’s interference in our elections?
That’s the question on the minds of many Canadians.
Public opinion surveys continue to show clear majority of Canadians take the issue very seriously.
A recent Nanos survey showed 71% calling China’s election interference a “major” threat.
Other surveys have shown even a plurality of Liberal voters see it as a major issue, outpacing those who see it as overblown.
The pressure is mounting.
Even former B.C. NDP Premier Ujjal Dosanjh is calling for an inquiry, saying Canada could become a “banana republic.”
Even Toronto Star opinion pieces are calling for action:
A House of Commons committee voted to hold an inquiry, and a full vote in the House of Commons overrode Liberal opposition to pass a motion (non-binding) calling for an inquiry.
So why is Justin Trudeau still refusing an inquiry?
At this point, a better question is “what is Justin Trudeau so afraid of?”
Because at this point, if he really wasn’t concerned about what an inquiry would find, he would have already called one to ease the pressure.
After all, he could likely maneuver the situation in such a way that he could appoint a Liberal-friendly head of the inquiry, and the NDP has proposed an inquiry so broad that it would dilute the impact.
And still, Trudeau refuses.
Clearly, he feels that the risk of an inquiry, and the risk of what it would find, is more of a political danger to him and the government than all the pressure he’s under.
He would rather people think something corrupt is taking place, than risk an inquiry finding out definitively one way or another.
And here I think we are seeing the consequences of both a life-long affinity with Communist China that Trudeau inherited from his father, and the mistaken bet that came out of that.
Justin Trudeau came into office desperate for a stronger relationship between Canada and China.
Trudeau showed a willingness to sell out Canada’s values in order to make that relationship happen, including pursuing a free trade deal with China and an extradition deal with China that would have made our country complicit in many of the abuses of the Chinese legal system.
Trudeau sought to distance Canada from our traditional Western allies, and draw closer to China’s orbit.
He was clearly betting that China would continue to grow more and more powerful, and more and more dominant within Canada, and that he could speed up that process without scrutiny.
That bet hasn’t paid off.
A combination of demographic collapse, covid-19, belligerence towards their neighbours, rampant debt, the kidnapping of the Two Michaels, the betrayal of Hong Kong, and cultural genocide against the Uyghurs has decimated China’s image in Canada and the West.
China is now seen much more as a threat, rather than an opportunity.
Canadians have morally recoiled at the totalitarianism of the Chinese Communist State, and want nothing to do with it.
This leaves Trudeau politically exposed.
Had his bet paid off, Canadians wouldn’t care if China’s influence within Canada grew, as China would have been popular and influential. He would have faced so little institutional resistance that we likely wouldn’t have ever heard about any of this.
But because public opinion has turned so decisievely against China, Canadians will not put up with our country being compromised by China if those details fully emerge.
So Trudeau is desperate to ensure those details don’t emerge.
At this point, he’s playing for time.
He’s hoping he can resist calls for an inquiry, accuse his opponents, government officials, and the media of being racist, talk about other issues, and rag the puck long enough for the issue to go away.
But just like his bet on China, it looks like Trudeau is going to be wrong.
The China interference scandal cuts to the very core of our democratic institutions, and that’s not something Canadians are going to let slide.
Spencer Fernando
I can’t even finish this nonsense. Perhaps tomorrow. In the meantime, fuck you and the horse you rode in on, Spencer Fernando!
So if Pierre has no choice but to support Ukraine what else does he ultimately cave on? We went through the same bullshit down here with Trump. Mostly a lot of talk but still not much changed. Now under Bidet it has gotten worse but someone has to take a stand against this nonsense with Russia.
I say we fooked as it appears that our choices are skinny. For all our sake, I am hoping that PP is not a trojan horse. He does not much history as a freedom supporter until the truckers showed up. He has flip-flopped on them as well.
Here is my doubt and it is my anecdotal experience. I don’t see 80-3 split in Ukraine support. As time goes on, this number of supporters and flag waiving morons is dropping. I work with a large population of Eastern Europeans and still, only cnn watching dumb asses believe that Russians blew up their own pipeline. So if PP took a neutral, pro peace, end the war stand, he would not loose many pro Ukrainian supporters, would keep all of the pro peace and Russian background backers. To me, this is poor strategy, if that is what it is.
Frankly, most of us here are not ant-Ukrainian, but simply ant war monger Zelinski and his US deep state handlers.
I had this exact same talk with a very good Ukrainian friend, pro war, pro Zelinski, cousin died in war, protesting in front of Russian ambassy….
At the end she agreed that the peace is better than death, destruction and a prospect of all out global hot war.
So it would be a very novel ( sadly ) approach if a high profile politician spoke peace other than pouring gasoline on fire. Xi did it.
As far as Christine Anderson is concerned, she has been much more vocal and heroic during the oppressive times of COVID than anyone else. PP could have simply played neutral and not defame her.
Hard for me to justify all this logically, but still take PP over Castro , at least there are few good men, women around him.
Time will tell
I am aware of the history of the region and I support Russia! I have no problem with Ukrainians but with their US-puppet government.
Perhaps we should have our own poll here!
There is NO Doubt 90%+ here support Russia and Putin. WE HAVE THE BRIGHTEST MINDS HERE ! The Problem we have is 90%+ Canadians support Ukraine and if we want to Flush the Turd…P P cannot support Russia…POLITICAL SUICIDE !!