SpankyMcFarland

What does ‘many’ mean there? You’re speaking frequently live using a teleprompter? To whom are these speeches addressed? Should we know you?

One thing one certainly shouldn’t do when making a mistake reading a teleprompter - pretending it’s part of the written text:

Nothing Freudian about it. Firstly it’s not as easy as it looks. Try reading a speech like that off a teleprompter live. Secondly, he’s old. The right age for heads of government is 40-60.

Poilievre is a brilliant debater but I hope he doesn’t turn this into a petty partisan fight. He has to appeal to Liberals too. The threat from the PRC existed long before JT became PM and will continue into the foreseeable future. Supporters and politicians from every party need to work together on this grave national problem.

Much, much worse.

Thing is the problem is only going to get worse because the CCP wants it that way. As a voter who generally goes Liberal, I’m none too impressed by JT calling Opposition criticism of his choice of rapporteur ‘horrific’. Such a term should generally be reserved for the actions of murderous tyrants like Putin and his friend across the border. Let’s face it, we’re not going to stop PRC interference in our elections (and everything else) any day soon - it’s a global initiative after all - but we should at least stiffen resistance while we still run this country. I’m tilting towards a public inquiry to see how far the rot has already set in, but focused on our government’s actions or lack thereof. The testimony of Chinese dissidents here tells us in no uncertain terms that the threat is real and growing.

Our Canadian system is literally based on the British system. To answer the question I posed, Thatcher was, of course, a highly successful PM but time tarnishes every career. They all come back to earth in the end. People became tired of her and her party could see that. Getting rid of her was a good move because the Tories won the next election with their new leader as the Liberals won with Martin. Harper should have seen it was time for him to go as well.

OK, these things don’t turn around in a year or two. The analogy of the ship of state captures this. The problem with overspending started under Trudeau. You have to look at where the PCs started on deficits, debt and inflation compared to where their predecessors started, and where they ended up. Wilson and Mazankowski began to right the ship and Martin continued the job.

So, by those criteria, did Margaret Thatcher fail BADLY? For my money, any politician that gets re-elected is a success, at least at the electoral side of politics. Twice or more of that makes them a big success on selling their message. It’s an unbelievably difficult game. And there are worse ends than being voted out by your own party. One of them is staying on too long. Churchill should have retired when he was defeated in 1945. Instead he hung on as leader for another ten years despite being physically unfit for office, and another nine years as a backbencher until he was almost dead. I’ll end with a quote from Enoch Powell, of all people:

Balanced budgets are fine. Economic reform is fine too and young people want more houses in our big cities, yes please. As I’ve said before, if Poilievre can sort out health care in this country, more power to him. However, Bitcoin isn’t fine and convoys aren’t fine. The whole Bernier agenda ain’t fine. Canada is not the US and even down there Republicans are a shrinking minority. Not really. In the absence of premature retirement, all political careers fail. I arrived in Canada during Mulroney’s time, a Progressive Conservative whose Finance Minister was concerned about the debt. PT and JC still define Canadian politics and we are overdue a shift to the right on fiscal matters. However, any conservative who gets too far to the right from the Mulroney/Chrétien/Harper consensus will have a short time at the helm.

Admit the magnitude of the challenge for starters.

Again, you have to admit the economic levers China possesses that the USSR lacked. This is a different situation against a much more formidable foe.

China has the financial resources to interfere in our system and they have barely started. Think of Huawei etc. as a tiny appetizer before the main course. Anyone who imagines this campaign will be confined to the Liberal Party is sorely mistaken.

If America hangs back these countries may do what China wants. They are not united by much apart from the Chinese threat. South Korea is in mortal danger already.

Again, I urge you to examine the scientific literature and witness the tsunami of original contributions being made by Chinese authors in China

I am merely listening to what the Chinese say to all their neighbours. It’s not very nice.

I’m afraid that analogy doesn’t work well. Unlike the Soviets, the Chinese produce stuff the world actually wants. China competes with us in every sphere, not the just the military. About to become the world’s largest economy, it’s a hybrid state with a huge private sector, fascism with Chinese characteristics rather than a chip off the old Soviet block. If you are right we wouldn’t need to worry about Chinese interference in our elections which I regard as the beginning of an existential struggle for our freedoms. Anyway, I think I have drifted this thread far enough.

Ah, you’re acting the eejit now. That’s just wishful thinking. Show me the Nigerian equivalent of Huawei.

There’s no question Xi is damaging China’s economy with his absurd Marxist ideology but that economy is incredibly resilient. China has a critical mass of the worlds best entrepreneurs. They can take a lot of oppression before they stop making money.

In that case you take a rather limited view of the changing nature of warfare.

C’mon now, are the skylines of Shanghai or Beijing holograms? Like many successful countries that lose the run of themselves, China has a real estate problem. That’s a symptom of how successful it’s capitalists have been.

Are the cities of China mirages? Do the CEOs of Tesla and Apple curry favour with the CCP for no reason at all? Are TikTok and Huawei paper tigers? China is no basket case - it is spectacularly successful despite the murderous regime in charge - and unless it reforms it will be a non-trivial problem for every one of us very soon.

Here’s a quote attributed to the same man: China’s threat is far beyond geography or current military strength. It’s about to become the largest economy in the world, something the USSR could never dream of, and will go from there as standards of living increase. Unfortunately, it is the Koreas combined, an economic miracle run by a vicious totalitarian elite bent on crushing dissent at home and abroad.

That’s right now but not for the future. Russia is imploding and will be lucky if it avoids becoming a Chinese satellite. Across the world, China is supporting development and lending money to create dependent relationships. India, for example, already faces China’s partners east and west as well as north.

Nobody looks to Russia, a country of drunks and gangsters, as a model these days.