Tag Archives: Boris Johnson

Roundup: Brown’s whistleblower goes public

Posted on by

We’re now in day one-hundred-and-thirty-five of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it sounds like Russia might be taking an “operational pause” to regroup before they return to hammering Donetsk province…though there was still some shelling in the region. The Ukrainian flag is once again flying on Snake Island, which is a strategic access point to ports like Odessa. For his part, Putin says that he’s just getting started, and is daring the West to meet him on the battlefield, so that’s going well.

Closer to home, the Patrick Brown saga continues, as the woman who was in his camp and reported the alleged financial misdeeds to the party came forward and said she blew the whistle, and detailed the allegation that a company was paying for her work on the campaign and that Brown knew about it (which he and his camp have denied). As this goes to the Commissioner of Elections, the Liberals, keen to make some mischief, sent in their own complaint to the Commissioner, asking him to investigate the Conservative Party as a whole in the event that they benefitted financially from any memberships the Brown camp sold that may have been done improperly. So that’s going well.

The party is also contending with how they will count votes for Brown that are received, given that they’re not reprinting ballots, and don’t want to just not count his votes in any way in case that alters the maths of the preferential ballot in some way, so…they’re consulting. And we’ll see what that says. Meanwhile, members of the Conservative committee vetting leadership candidates apparently warned the organizing committee not to approve Patrick Brown’s bid, but were overruled, so that’s also interesting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brown tries to defend himself

Posted on by

It’s day one-hundred-and-thirty-four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it sounds like Ukrainian forces have held off any Russian advances in the north of Donetsk province, as Russians shell the city of Sloviansk and other nearby populated areas. Russians are also trying to seize control of the highway linking the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces. Meanwhile, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev is warning against trying to punish Russia for the invasion, with thinly-veiled threats about nuclear conflict, so that’s some nightmare fuel for you.

Closer to home, the day was largely consumed with Patrick Brown trying to refute the allegations against him, insisting that he wasn’t given any details he could substantively repudiate to the party brass, and that this was all the work of Poilievre loyalists on the leadership committee who were afraid that he wanted to take the party in a different direction with the help of members signed up from ethno-cultural communities (with some unspoken allegations of racism there). But beyond this, he was also contending with allegations from mismanagement from his own city council, and the memories of questionable conduct when he was Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leader around certain loans (and this is without even bringing up the even older sexual assault allegations that ended said leadership). Brown, incidentally, dismissed those city council allegations as well, citing that they are from the faction of council that opposes him, and that everything has already been cleared up.

For the party’s part, they didn’t do themselves any favours by rushing the meeting and then putting out the disqualification release close to midnight, and it really just gave ammunition to Brown to claim that this was all a conspiracy of Poilievre-loyalists against him, and the fact that it was a reputed 11-6 decision also gave him fodder to work with. But the party president was doing media rounds as well, and insisted that the allegations didn’t come from the Poilievre camp, but from inside Brown’s own tent—the call is coming from inside the house. And while the party president also said there was no route to appeal, Brown has hired a very good law firm to try and overturn this decision, so we’ll see where this goes. Nevertheless, if he remains disqualified, this could have the effect of unmotivating the members Brown signed up, and giving Poilievre a better chance of taking the race on the first ballot, which he would need, otherwise the ranked ballot starts doing unexpected things (and no, they aren’t reprinting the ballots, so Brown will still be on it, but his votes not counted and the down ballot support redistributed).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Caucus confidence and garbage legislation

Posted on by

It is now day one-hundred-and-four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia has turned over several of the bodies of Russian fighters from that steel mill in Mariupol where they were holed up for weeks. Missiles continue to fall over other parts of the country, and president Volodymyr Zelensky warns that Russians are targeting the city of Zaporizhzhia in the south, as a means of advancing further into the centre of the country. As well, here is a thread about Russia’s cyberwar in Ukraine, and how they route Ukrainian internet through Russian servers when they take over territory as a means of controlling information.

Meanwhile, a lot of attention has been paid to the confidence vote that UK prime minister Boris Johnson was subjected to within his own party, which he barely survived, and at a much lower margin than other UK prime ministers survived theirs before they made their political exits. With 42 percent of your caucus against you, you cannot survive more than a few more months. It’s simply untenable. Of course, Michael Chong had to pipe up to make yet another pitch for his (garbage) Reform Act and trying to goad the Liberals into signing onto it, which is wrong, and tiresome. Like the Liberals did when Chong first proposed the bill, there was this assertion that this would be what would do in Stephen Harper because his caucus must hate him, erm, except they didn’t. And Chong is making the very same assertion here, which seems to be yet one more Conservative falling into the trap of believing that people hate Trudeau as much as they do. Additionally, as I have stated time and time again, MPs did not need Chong’s garbage legislation to be able to oust leaders—they already had that power if they chose to use it. Putting a legislative framework around those powers only curtails them by stealth, while pretending to “give” MPs powers they already have, it absolutely limited senators’ powers within their caucuses, and it gave leaders even more insulation by putting up thresholds to levels beyond what would ordinarily have been considered fatal to a leader. It doesn’t need to spread further.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Craven for Quebec votes

Posted on by

The day was marked by reflection on the part of political leaders on the hate crime that took place in London, Ontario, that killed a Muslim family, along with vows to do better. Of course, within each of those was their own particular issues. As much as Justin Trudeau insisted that this was a “terrorist attack” before such a designation could be applied by means of police investigation, he also vowed to keep dismantling far-right groups, patting himself on the back for the designation of the Proud Boys as a terror group, even though that really just drove its membership underground. Erin O’Toole steered clear of his party’s recent history of dog-whistling and the absolute histrionics they engaged in around M-103, which you may recall was to have a parliamentary committee deal with the issue of Islamophobia in Canada. (Conservatives and their defenders will point to a similar motion on systemic racism that the Liberals voted down, ignoring that the motion was essentially the parliamentary equivalent of “all lives matter”). Jagmeet Singh loudly wondered how many more attacks needed to happen before the government did something about it, though there are limits to what the federal government is able to do, and they have been putting resources into their anti-racism strategy.

But the part that really reflects poorly on Trudeau is the fact that at his media availability afterward, he was asked if he thinks that Quebec’s Bill 21 (dubbed their “secularism” law but really disproportionately attacks Muslim women) fosters hated or discrimination, and he said no. We’re not sure if he was simply saying no about the hatred part, given that he has called out the discrimination inherent in said bill before – but he also still hasn’t taken any moves to combat it, apparently waiting for it to reach the Supreme Court of Canada before he’ll intervene. Which is more than the other leaders would do (well, Singh has reluctantly said he also might intervene at the Supreme Court if he were prime minister, but that’s after being pressed). Trudeau also mused that perhaps all of the mask-wearing in the pandemic will change Quebeckers’ opinions on religious symbols and face-coverings, but apparently François Legault is not moved. Either way, it’s a sign that every federal leader is way too craven to stand up to Legault on this because they’re all eager for Quebec votes, and that’s pretty gross all around.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1402432194564526080

To that end, Susan Delacourt calls out Trudeau, O’Toole and Singh for their refusal to discuss Bill 21 (or in O’Toole’s case, acknowledge their past dog-whistles about “veiled voting” and “barbaric cultural practices tip lines”), and praises the courage of that former PC candidate who acknowledged the racism of his community that he shrugged off at the time.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1402313600602157058

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flashbacks about prorogation

Posted on by

It was a day of flashbacks to 2008, as Boris Johnson asked the Queen to prorogue the Parliament in Westminster, and social media had erupted with cries of “coups,” “dictatorships,” and wannabe constitutional scholars ignoring nearly two centuries of Responsible Government as they tried to implicate the Queen in granting Johnson’s request. Of course, there are some fundamental differences between now and the 2008 prorogation, such as the fact that there will still be a “washing up period” of a few days, as is traditional with UK prorogations, and time where the opposition can still try to move some kind of motion to try and stop a no-deal Brexit, though I’m not sure what mechanism they would use. A private member’s motion would be non-binding (and would carry only the symbolic weight of the Chamber), while a private members’ bill would try to impose some kind of negative obligation on the government – even if it could be sped through in those final days – and if there is no no-deal option on the table, it would then impose the necessity to have some kind of deal, which the Commons has already rejected. There is also the option of moving a non-confidence motion in those remaining days, which could topple Johnson’s government, ostensibly. The prorogation is also for a couple of weeks, and will return Parliament by October 14th, which still leaves it time to do something about Brexit before the October 31stdeadline. Johnson’s move may be dubious – and a dick move – but it could have been much worse. It’s not a coup. It’s not demolishing democracy. And it’s not eliminating parliament as an obstacle to Johnson – in fact, it may have only made it worse, as the move signals his desperation.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166695661108105216

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166717156140244992

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166680410392289280

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166683151588057089

All of this being said, we need to also remember that some of the received wisdom of the 2008 prorogation crisis needs to be challenged. For example, people keep insisting that Michaëlle Jean was wrong to grant Harper the prorogation (ignoring that if she refused the advice of her prime minister, he would have been obligated to resign, which would have created a whole other constitutional crisis), that an opposition coalition would have been able to take over. The problem is that said coalition was never really viable, and pretty much everyone knew it. And this was proven correct by the fact that it did not survive the prorogation period. Had it done so, had they banded together and moved a motion of non-confidence, then formed a coalition, then sure, it would have proven that it was viable, and it would have reinforced that the system was working (as it did in when Sir John A Macdonald did not survive a prorogation to avoid a confidence vote around the Pacific Scandal). But the coalition fell apart, proving that Jean was right to simply grant the prorogation – making Harper stew about it for a few hours – and doing her job in acting on the advice of a first minister. But you’re going to hear a rehash of the coalition fanfic of the day, and we need to remember that it was only that – fiction.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt offers her thoughts on the prorogation, the disconnect between parliaments and the outside world, and the idle speculation about whether Stephen Harper’s 2008 prorogation may have inspired Johnson.

Continue reading →

Roundup: What high cost exactly?

Posted on by

As people talk more and more about the upcoming election, the notion about the “high cost of living” is a theme that keeps recurring, and it’s fairly interesting because it’s something that, well, doesn’t really bear out in the data. Inflation has held relatively steady for decades now, and in the past few years has remained within the target range (between one and three percent, with two percent being what they generally aim for), and was on the low side of it for a while, briefly flirted with the high side of the target range and has been back to two percent.

As part of populist rhetoric, all parties have been trying to make this a selling feature – the Conservatives with promises to cut carbon pricing (even though that has not had a significant effect on inflation or even gas prices) and the restoration of boutique tax credits (that don’t benefit low-income people), the Liberals through the Canada Child Benefit, and the NDP through promised massive spending programmes (that have zero details on implementation). So it’s worthwhile asking just what exactly they’re referring to when they rail about the high cost of living, because it can refer to specific things that have specific solutions that they may or may not be advocating.

Housing prices are one thing that are lumped into cost of living, but isn’t really, and again, that’s very dependent on which market you happen to be in. Toronto is coming back to normal after being on a housing bubble, but Vancouver is still high in part because of housing supply. Alberta and Saskatchewan are depressed because of the oil market, but other parts of the country? Not really an affordability issue, and some plans to deal with housing affordability will just drive up prices by the amount of the incentives and not deal with the structural problems (which is what the Liberals tried to circumvent with their shared equity plan in the last budget). Essentially, when the parties start talking about dealing with the “high cost of living,” we should be pushing back and asking what, specifically, they’re referring to. There is enough populist bilge out there that means nothing and promises snake oil, so unless you can get specifics, don’t trust that they will deliver anything of substance.

Continue reading →