In the 1993 federal election, in a blinding moment of unfortunate honesty, the Honourable Kim Campbell suggested that an election was the worst time for discussing policies. She went on to lead the Progressive Conservative party to a crushing defeat losing 150 of 152 seats, the majority government of Brian Mulroney, party status in Parliament, and her own political career. I agreed with her sentiment but knew when she said it that 1993 would be a good year for the Reform Party..Tonight I watched the convention speech of Pierre Poilievre, leader of the recombinant Conservative Party (composed as it is of the former Reform Party and Progressive Conservative Party.) Clearly, given the party’s standing in the polls, he would be giving an election speech, but would Mr. Poilievre commit Ms. Campbell’s error in honesty? To my surprise, he did. To my greater surprise he did it with an adroitness that was remarkable.. Kim CampbellFormer PM Kim Campbell, at a G-7 meeting in 1993. She famously said that an election was no time to talk about policy. She was right, but very wrong. .His policy prescriptions were not exhaustive. There was, for example, only a glancing reference to the fate of the CBC. (“I can see the smiles on the faces of the lovely family as they bring the U-Haul to their new home in the former CBC headquarters.”) But the rest of his policy statements were both detailed and artfully woven into the conference theme of “Bring it home!”.After detailing the economic pain of Canadians whose relative incomes have fallen to poverty levels because of the policies of the Trudeau government, Mr. Poilievre demonstrated how things were much better in 2015 and promised that they would be much better in the future when, presumably, he will form a government. I suppose arguments can be made to test the veracity of his comments, but the power of his rhetorical style was beyond question. He used his words as effective sculpting tools and, with appropriate statistics, drove the sword of his point deep into the listeners' hearts. I have listened to a great many similar speeches and am compelled to rate Mr. Poilievre’s abilities in the top rank..The abiding question in my mind as I waited for his wife to introduce her husband was, ”To the extent that he discusses policy, will he give enough detail to assess the validity of his vision?”.His “axe the tax” nostrums were well worn from the hundreds of stump speeches that he has given. He effectively used the CD Howe study on home construction costs to show that the Trudeau government shares responsibility for the fact that there were fewer homes built in Canada in 2022 than in 1972 and he offered policy prescriptions for incentivizing all levels of government to get out of the way of home builders so that prices come down and housing stock goes up..But when he started to discuss the inflation tax, I concluded that he was well over his skis with the tips crossed. To change the metaphor, another policy wonk was about to be hoisted on his own academic petard..He then surprised me with one of the most concise and understandable explanations of the complex connection between monetary and fiscal policy and money supply and economic growth. It was a tour de force based on my academic experience listening to any number of economics professors trying to explain the same concepts. His example of a 32 percent increase in the money supply with only a four percent increase in economic growth was used to drive the point home. Maybe Canadians finally have a happy warrior who understands why budgets don’t balance themselves and that money doesn’t grow on trees..As would be expected at a party conference, the polyglot audience were brought to their feet several times during the speech. I concluded that, quite apart from the partisan nature of the occasion, Mr. Poilievre had given them good rhetorical and logical reasons for doing so..Perhaps if Ms. Campbell had had Mr. Poilievre’s grasp of policy and Ciceronian skills, she might have attempted some policy prescriptions of her own, producing a happier election result in 1993.
In the 1993 federal election, in a blinding moment of unfortunate honesty, the Honourable Kim Campbell suggested that an election was the worst time for discussing policies. She went on to lead the Progressive Conservative party to a crushing defeat losing 150 of 152 seats, the majority government of Brian Mulroney, party status in Parliament, and her own political career. I agreed with her sentiment but knew when she said it that 1993 would be a good year for the Reform Party..Tonight I watched the convention speech of Pierre Poilievre, leader of the recombinant Conservative Party (composed as it is of the former Reform Party and Progressive Conservative Party.) Clearly, given the party’s standing in the polls, he would be giving an election speech, but would Mr. Poilievre commit Ms. Campbell’s error in honesty? To my surprise, he did. To my greater surprise he did it with an adroitness that was remarkable.. Kim CampbellFormer PM Kim Campbell, at a G-7 meeting in 1993. She famously said that an election was no time to talk about policy. She was right, but very wrong. .His policy prescriptions were not exhaustive. There was, for example, only a glancing reference to the fate of the CBC. (“I can see the smiles on the faces of the lovely family as they bring the U-Haul to their new home in the former CBC headquarters.”) But the rest of his policy statements were both detailed and artfully woven into the conference theme of “Bring it home!”.After detailing the economic pain of Canadians whose relative incomes have fallen to poverty levels because of the policies of the Trudeau government, Mr. Poilievre demonstrated how things were much better in 2015 and promised that they would be much better in the future when, presumably, he will form a government. I suppose arguments can be made to test the veracity of his comments, but the power of his rhetorical style was beyond question. He used his words as effective sculpting tools and, with appropriate statistics, drove the sword of his point deep into the listeners' hearts. I have listened to a great many similar speeches and am compelled to rate Mr. Poilievre’s abilities in the top rank..The abiding question in my mind as I waited for his wife to introduce her husband was, ”To the extent that he discusses policy, will he give enough detail to assess the validity of his vision?”.His “axe the tax” nostrums were well worn from the hundreds of stump speeches that he has given. He effectively used the CD Howe study on home construction costs to show that the Trudeau government shares responsibility for the fact that there were fewer homes built in Canada in 2022 than in 1972 and he offered policy prescriptions for incentivizing all levels of government to get out of the way of home builders so that prices come down and housing stock goes up..But when he started to discuss the inflation tax, I concluded that he was well over his skis with the tips crossed. To change the metaphor, another policy wonk was about to be hoisted on his own academic petard..He then surprised me with one of the most concise and understandable explanations of the complex connection between monetary and fiscal policy and money supply and economic growth. It was a tour de force based on my academic experience listening to any number of economics professors trying to explain the same concepts. His example of a 32 percent increase in the money supply with only a four percent increase in economic growth was used to drive the point home. Maybe Canadians finally have a happy warrior who understands why budgets don’t balance themselves and that money doesn’t grow on trees..As would be expected at a party conference, the polyglot audience were brought to their feet several times during the speech. I concluded that, quite apart from the partisan nature of the occasion, Mr. Poilievre had given them good rhetorical and logical reasons for doing so..Perhaps if Ms. Campbell had had Mr. Poilievre’s grasp of policy and Ciceronian skills, she might have attempted some policy prescriptions of her own, producing a happier election result in 1993.
