2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[Fishbone Jones]

One of the aspects of the GC investigation should be if any of the money went back to the liberals, their organizations and how much.

 

[dimsum]

So... He's stating a personal opinion, but not looking to overstep his bounds to create legislation... The bastard!

Answering a question about whether the CPC supports something is a bit beyond “personal opinion”.

If he said “I, as Pierre Poilievre, support…” would be a personal opinion. Saying “yes” and not clarifying afterwards could be seen as the CPC opinion, not just (or not) his. Hell, it could be the party’s opinion which he may personally not agree with, but “yes” by itself doesn’t necessarily answer that.

 

[Furniture]

Answering a question about whether the CPC supports something is a bit beyond “personal opinion”.

If he said “I, as Pierre Poilievre, support…” would be a personal opinion. Saying “yes” and not clarifying afterwards could be seen as the CPC opinion, not just (or not) his. Hell, it could be the party’s opinion which he may personally not agree with, but “yes” by itself doesn’t necessarily answer that.

Regardless, it changes nothing. Whether it was PP's position or the CPC's position, the end result is the same. They clearly stated a position on a topic, then went on to state that it was not their business to introduce legislation on the topic.

The only way to be mad about that is to already dislike the CPC, and be looking for a way to rationalize your dislike.

In reality it's likely very smart politics, because it offers a definitive answer to a contentious topic, meaning they can't be ambushed with it during an election campaign. The Twitter mob will spend their energy now to make it a big deal, and by the time the writ drops it will be forgotten. Add to that, the fact that the majority of Canadians seem to agree with the CPC stance, and the silliness of trying to make this a big deal becomes even more obvious.

 

[Remius]

One has to wonder why PP would bring this up after avoiding it for so long. It’s not a subject that seems to be pressing other than reinforcing the culture wars.

I only see dog whistles from both sides on this subject.

 

[Furniture]

One has to wonder why PP would bring this up after avoiding it for so long. It’s not a subject that seems to be pressing other than reinforcing the culture wars.

I only see dog whistles from both sides on this subject.

I suspect he didn't bring it up, but was pushed for an answer.

From the NP article posted earlier:

It is the second time in a month that Poilievre has been asked to take a public stand on trans issues. Two weeks ago, Poilievre said he was against the use of puberty blockers for minors, arguing that children should be able to “make adult decisions when they become adults.”

So, PP isn't bringing it up, activist reporters are trying to get a "gotcha" on PP.

 

[QV]

One has to wonder why PP would bring this up after avoiding it for so long. It’s not a subject that seems to be pressing other than reinforcing the culture wars.

I only see dog whistles from both sides on this subject.

How to identify a fence sitter.

LPC: aggressively pushing trans bathroom changes

CPC: "we're not doing that"

Remius: "Both sides are dog whistling!"

 

[Brad Sallows]

So, PP isn't bringing it up, activist reporters are trying to get a "gotcha" on PP.

That is the template for a lot of what is asked. There's not much upside to responding with substance anymore. If the media community could divide itself into "accredited professionals" and "non-accredited", then politicians could respond to the former reasonably and fully and ignore the latter entirely. "Accredited" would mean, not exhaustively: no "gotchas", no fishing for incendiary headlines, no out-of-context quotations, no cut-and-paste edits which are deceitful misrepresentations of what was actually asked and answered during a Q&A or other interview, no "when did you stop beating your wife" questions. In short, serve the public interest only and always, and never a narrow political agenda.

Fail the ethical test; lose accredition immediately and permanently.

 

[Remius]

How to identify a fence sitter.

LPC: aggressively pushing trans bathroom changes

CPC: "we're not doing that"

Remius: "Both sides are dog whistling!"

Or maybe I don’t see this as boogey man issue one way or another and see both sides using this as a wedge issue.

I don’t understand your irrational fear of it to be honest.

My question still stands. Why even bring it up?

 

[QV]

Or maybe I don’t see this as boogey man issue one way or another and see both sides using this as a wedge issue.

I don’t understand your irrational fear of it to be honest.

My question still stands. Why even bring it up?

When it comes to Canadian politics you will never take a principled stand. For you, it is always "both sides..."

And then to inflame discussion you will frequently use pejoratives, because you have nothing else.

Why even bring it up? Ask the reporter who questioned PP.

 

[IKnowNothing]

One has to wonder why PP would bring this up after avoiding it for so long.

I actually think it was a pretty calculated, and potentially really smooth political move.

It's bait to hard left identity politicians to froth over an issue that is not currently a top of mind priority for a lot of voters
Its respect for the limitations of Federal jurisdiction plays well
Its deliberate vagueness ("biological") leaves both moderates and the hard right able to agree with him.

He's got a lot of room to clarify and make himself look very reasonable to the population at large (ie. accepting of trans-people that are now "biologically men/women") while framing his critics as comparably unreasonable zealots that are distracted from more serious issues.

 

[Remius]

When it comes to Canadian politics you will never take a principled stand. For you, it is always "both sides..."

Like what? Maybe just maybe some of us don’t live in partisan echo chambers. And yes both sides do a lot of the same things in different ways for similar reasons. I’m really not sorry if that sort of thing or position escapes you.

Not everything is black and white.

And then to inflame discussion you will frequently use pejoratives, because you have nothing else.

Like what? Please go ahead and show me the pejorative. What part here was inflammatory?

Why even bring it up? Ask the reporter who questioned PP.

No need to. He asked for his reasons, I just wonder why PP even adressed it.

 

[Remius]

I actually think it was a pretty calculated, and potentially really smooth political move.

Someone who actually wants to discuss. Cool. To an extent I agree. But he’s so far ahead in the polls on bread and butter issues, I really don’t know why the subject needs addressing.

It's bait to hard left identity politicians to froth over an issue that is not currently a top of mind priority for a lot of voters

That bait isn’t really required though. We know who they are. The media has been trying to get PPs stance on this since Smith brought it to the fore in the news cycle. Sort of my point. It’s not really top of mind so why bother.

Its respect for the limitations of Federal jurisdiction plays well
Its deliberate vagueness ("biological") leaves both moderates and the hard right able to agree with him.

Which agrees with my dog whistle description.

He's got a lot of room to clarify and make himself look very reasonable to the population at large (ie. accepting of trans-people that are now "biologically men/women") while framing his critics as comparably unreasonable zealots that are distracted from more serious issues.

Possibly. It could be that his polling is showing that Canadians have other issues that preoccupy them and it was a safe thing to state now. He’s avoided it for a while. We’ll see if the risk pays off.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Or maybe I don’t see this as boogey man issue one way or another and see both sides using this as a wedge issue.

I don’t understand your irrational fear of it to be honest.

My question still stands. Why even bring it up?

To what fear do you refer? If you mean fear that women are going to be abused by men, that has already happened, repeatedly. There's nothing irrational about it.

 

[Quirky]

No need to. He asked for his reasons, I just wonder why PP even adressed it.

Saying "no comment" on the issue would've been worse than taking the stance he did. Damn if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Brad Sallows]

it was a safe thing to state now.

The further away from a potential election that a general stance can be established on controversial issues, the better. It leaves fewer controversies to try to wrestle with under the pressure of time. Having taken this position, he can just keep pointing back to it whenever anyone raises the issue. Time desensitizes people to a controversy unless new information periodically surfaces to stoke the fire; politicians know this, which is why they put so much effort into stalling tactics (denials, "modified limited hang outs", etc).

 

[Remius]

Saying "no comment" on the issue would've been worse than taking the stance he did. Damn if you do, damned if you don't.

Fair point. But I think he could have deflected it far more aptly. But point taken.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I really don’t know why the subject needs addressing.

If I'm right about the word choice re: biological vice birth it could be that he's setting himself up to stake ground on both sides of the wedge and reframe the issue ahead of the election. Takes time to convince voters from both wings

 

[Good2Golf]

But he’s so far ahead in the polls on bread and butter issues, I really don’t know why the subject needs addressing.

I think he chose to respond to the question at this point, because he likely took time to assess the risk/reward of answering the question at a number of points in time. A number of polls more recently have been released where public perceptions of, amongst other issues, transgendered issues were identified. Public positions, for the time being at least, now show a large plurality as being concerned about trans-related issues such as surgical/drug-facilitated treatment of legal minors to be of concern, as well as access to safe spaces where women are concerned. A greater percentage of Canadians polled than those directly supporting or showing intent to support Poilievre have indicated their position consistent with what he has most recently provided to a question that has been asked of him for some time. Not an unsound pragmatic methodology. Yes, this is usually a Liberal tactic (policy by polling), but I think that Poilievre has deliberately taken an approach that has a not insignificant element of success in the past.

The issue is about transgendered people using washrooms and the backlash about it and the whole issue of transgenderism writ large in the public discourse. If a man wants to abuse a woman in a public washroom, no amount of legislation on transgender rights is going to change that.

If I'm right about the word choice re: biological vice birth it could be that he's setting himself up to stake ground on both sides of the wedge and reframe the issue ahead of the election. Takes time to convince voters from both wings

Both points above I think are a “distinction-space” that Poilievre is willing to investigate while he’s polling in super-majority territory, and where he can adjust and use some “you [Canadians] have spoken, we hear you, and we have responded to Canadians’ feedback, so….”[insert savvy adjustment here].”

 

[IKnowNothing]

Both points above I think are a “distinction-space” that Poilievre is willing to investigate while he’s polling in super-majority territory, and where he can adjust and use some “you [Canadians] have spoken, we hear you, and we have responded to Canadians’ feedback, so….”[insert savvy adjustment here].”

I was definitely thinking of that Angus Reid series when I wrote that.

The LPC position has minority agreement.
The hard right position has minority agreement.

The majority sit in the middle, with the LPC having put a lot of work into convincing people there is no middle- you're with us or evil.

That middle majority is ripe to not be bullied by the self righteous- but need an option that doesnt threaten their sense of morality with rank intolerance. The pragmatic acceptance that sits between bigotry/hatred and an ideological chrusade

 

[The Bread Guy]

Quick note: pulled all the generic trans detail discussion/posts and moved them here to the generic LGBTQ political thread and left the posts specifically referring to political reasons for/effects of PP's dealing with the issue. Feel free to keep parsing/hashing out the details elsewhere, and let's stick to the specific political stuff here. Thanks, all!

Milnet.ca Staff