McParland: Fair And Reasonable But...

I'm largely in agreement with what McParland writes in The National Post. However, I have a question: Do all of you know what it is? Byrne is the litmus test as to whether the leader's mindset is genuinely focused on substantial reform, both in the way caucus does things and how the leader operates in his office. My contention is that the leader is gaslighting us and has absolutely no intention of modifying the status quo in the OLO, or how he approaches retail politics. So, given that assessment, I want the leader out yesterday.

For its part, caucus has clearly telegraphed that they will not lift a finger to turf him, so I say fine. When the snap election comes, far sooner than conventional wisdom expects, the Carney Liberals will finally get a majority, and we will come off as we usually do: a bunch of naive, foolish, compliant losers who couldn't win an election even with God's help.

The best part of McParland's piece is this: As far as Pierre Poilievre is concerned, there’s nothing to decide. “We had the biggest vote count in our party’s history, the biggest increase in our party’s history, the biggest vote share since 1988, and we’re going to continue to work to get over the finish line,” he replied when asked. That same argument is on offer from other Conservatives keen on moving past the vote that left them once again in second place. [emphasis added.]

That argument is bullshit: Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, was returned to office with a reduced majority. This genius did not win government, much less a minority. A total rank amateur with no retail politics skills did that. Not some delusional, prideful guy called Pierre. In short, when the leadership vote comes, Poilièvre needs to be given his walking papers. However, caucus foolishly agreed to a review vote in the spring. That will allow the Liberals to go to the polls this fall and win a majority. Oh well, Conservatives shooting themselves in the head once again. What else is new?