Will Donald Trump's Tariffs be Bad for Canada

 Yes, but they will not be the disaster that many are saying they will be.

The reason, first and foremost, is the Canadian and US economy are way too integrated. The supply chains for a whole host of products consumed in the US depend on Canadian inputs to work. If they stop then the manufacturing of many products in the US stops. Perhaps, this convinces those manufacturers to attempt to develop domestic sources for those inputs but that will cost billions of dollars, which these companies will not want to spend. In the end they will probably continue to buy the Canadian inputs and wait for Donald Trump to be distracted by the next shiny thing, while heavily lobbying Donald Trump's people to convince him that he should ease off. In the meantime they will just pass the cost of the tariffs off on their customers, who will not have any other alternative.

The second reason is once the tariffs are imposed any domestic US producers will raise their prices to match the new tariff prices for their competitors, minus one percent. So, there would be a 25% tariff on Canadian softwood, then American softwood producers will raise their prices by 24%. In short, the price differential between the tariffed goods and the non-tariffed goods will not be as big as everybody thinks. The tariffs will provide an opportunity of a financial windfall for domestic producers in the US and you do not understand capitalism very well if you believe they will not take full advantage of that.

This applies for all sorts of industries, steel, petroleum products, fertilizer, you name it.

Third, the currency markets will react like all currency markets to the tariffs and push the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar down relative to the US dollar. That will make Canadian products cheaper, despite the tariffs, and further reduce the differential between tariffed goods and non-tariffed goods. 

Fourth, Donald Trump will probably not stop at Canada, Mexico and China. I would bet a fair amount of money that Donald Trump will target the European Union before the end of 2025. A funny thing happened during the first Trump term, when he decided to impose tariffs on the US's biggest allies and trading partners. Trade flows increase between the trading partners and decreased with the US. The Canadian government has been working diligently to encourage Canadian producers to diversify where they sell their products and they have responded. While the US is still our biggest trading partner, the volume of trade with the US has actually fallen in the last few years while trading volumes with other markets has increased. Expect more of the same as more of the Western world turns away from an increasingly unpredictable US market to trade with other more stable western economies. Plus, the Trudeau government has been pushing trade in the non-China parts of Asia with some success. 

The Trump tariffs, if he actually follows through on them, will create some hardship in Canada in the short-term. However, the actions of domestic US producers to take advantage of the tariffs, the currency markets devaluing the Canadian dollar and increase trade diversification will lead to a new equilibrium in the medium-term, again assuming that he follows through on them and maintains them for more than a few months.

There will be no buyer's remorse

I do not know why but the algorithms that curate what I see on social media have been presenting alot of stories and videos claiming that once Donald Trump begins to do his thing alot of MAGA voters are going to regret voting for him.

That is just wishful thinking because the MAGA crowd have stuck with him for almost a decade. If they were going to feel any kind of buyer's remorse it would have happened during the fiasco that was his first term and he would have faded into history after 2020.

Of course that did not happen. Instead he won again, with the same number of votes he won in 2016 and 2020.

There is no reason to believe that his second term will be any less of a failure as his first one. There is no reason to believe that he will not do untold damage to the American economy and society if he manages to implement his promises. However, there is also no reason to believe that MAGA's love for him will diminish as a result of all of that.

Part of the reason for that is MAGA shows many of the same characteristics as a cult. I do sometimes wonder if Donald Trump were to tell is followers to drink the "kool aid" whether they actually would. Hell, he suggested injecting bleach to deal with COVID and I did not hear too many MAGA types say, "Whoa there Donald, that may not quite be right." 

The other part is no one likes to admit that they are wrong. No one likes to admit that they have been conned. No one likes to admit that their whole outlook on life may need to be reexamined. 

So in the end, virtually all MAGA voters will not suffer any kind of buyer's remorse. They will be as negatively impacted by his policies as those who did not vote for him but they will not blame him for that or think they made a mistake. They will find someone else to blame. Or more accurately, Donald Trump will find someone else to blame and they will follow his lead. 

The Assault on Free Trade Begins

And if you would have told me a few years ago that it would be conservatives leading that assault I would have labeled you as being nuts.

Anybody who has read my posts knows that I am not a fan of free trade. I have never believed it lived up to the promise that free trade proponents pushed for the last few decades. In fact, I have always believed that it caused much more hardship and problems for ordinary people than helped them. I have always believed that this would eventually lead to free trade being targeted by those very same people, if someone could come along to galvanize them.

There have been signs that the shine was rubbing off of the free trade rose for some time as I have pointed out a few times on this blog. So it should surprise no one that an American presidential candidate ran on imposing wide ranging tariffs on imports into the US, essentially putting paid to all sorts of free trade agreements the US has with other countries, not to mention their support for the World Trade Organization. What does surprise me is the fact the Republican presidential candidate was the one leading the charge and the Republican establishment going mute in the face of that. After all, it was conservative politicians that lead the push for free trade to begin with, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney to name three.

An assault on free trade coming from the right instead of the left. Who would have believed that even 5 years ago?

Free trade proponents have no one else but themselves to blame for this. They have failed to keep the promises of programs to assist those who would inevitably lose as a result of free trade. They failed to allow workers, in the industries that were left behind when free trade lead to jobs moving to other countries, to organize so that they could raise their salaries and benefits. They generally failed to believe that causing millions of people to lose their livelihoods would eventually come back and bite them on the ass. Short sightedness and hubris are never a good combination. 

I am also kind of surprised that conservative politicians are contributing to the continued breakdown of the conservative consensus. What a world we live in.

Of course, the proposed tariffs that Donald Trump is proposing will have no other impact than to make things more expensive in the US. The idea behind tariffs is to protect domestic industries but there is very little domestic industry left in the West. Look in any store and look online and you will see that virtually all consumer goods that you can purchase are made anywhere but in a western country. The reason is large manufacturers only need to pay their workers in poorer countries a fraction of what they would need to pay western workers. Doing a quick calculation it is apparent that the tariffs being proposed by Donald Trump will not change that calculus. It will still be cheaper to manufacture goods in China and other countries and ship them to the US than spending billions of dollars to relocate those factories back to the US and pay workers in those factories 100 times what they pay Chinese workers. So the only thing that is going to happen is companies will import consumer goods into the country, pay the tariffs and pass along the cost of those tariffs to US consumers.

The decades of broken promises by free trade proponents were inevitably going to lead to a critical mass of people being against it, ready to be exploited by a politician of some sort. I just bet that they did not see one of their own leading the charge to reverse all of the work they have put in over the last 40 years and their erstwhile allies on the right going mute in the face of it. Go figure.

Why Do Media Types Insist on Being Political Analysts

When they suck at it so badly?

Quite by accident I found myself watching a Global News Broadcast last night and David Aiken was "analyzing" the potential impacts on Canada of a Trump presidency. Part of that analysis was to state that the PM is no longer as strong as he was during the first Trump presidency with Mr. Aiken stating that "Donald Trump can read polls too." 

Of course, this is reference to the public polls stating that the Liberals appear to be in some trouble. Ok, if you are going to talk about Canadian polling during an analysis of the impact of a Trump presidency on Canada at least talk about the right polls.

The party preference polls are irrelevant to that analysis but the polls indicating that over 2/3 of respondents preferred that VP Harris win the White House are quite relevant. I would bet a sizable chunk of money that if a poll is conducted about levels of anxiety amongst Canadians at the prospect of a second Trump presidency a similar proportion would be anxious to very anxious.

I would also point out that when Canadians do not agree with the occupant of the White House they tend to rally around the government when that White House does something Canadians do not like. Jean Chretien received a rather large boost in popularity when he told George W Bush that Canada would not be joining in the second invasion of Iraq, over the protestations of Stephen Harper and the media. That decision is still considered to be one of the wisest ever taken by PM Chretien. The same is true for Justin Trudeau. He received a boost in popularity after the agreement on the new NAFTA treaty. The media tried their best to play down his accomplishment but most Canadians realized that the deal they made was much better than it could have been and they appreciated it.

The new administration is going to be belligerent but it is probably also going to be incompetent. They have also promised to make moves as soon as possible so stuff in going to happen well before next fall. If the Trudeau government can be seen to stand up to the belligerence while taking advantage of any incompetence that will go along way towards "rehabilitating" their image, particularly in the provinces that would suffer the greatest impacts of that belligerence.

All that being said I would caution against trying to discern the exact impact the election of Donald Trump will have on our politics. Whoever occupies the White House usually does not have any impact. Most of the time the President is seen as innocuous and Canadians do not tend to get worked up about them but Donald Trump is probably not going to be seen as innocuous so how the government handles him will be an important issue for Canadians. As well, how a Poilievre government would handle Donald Trump is probably going to become an issue. Our media will try to shield him but I believe that Canadians are not going to settle for empty slogans and constant criticism of the government without them saying how they would do things differently. They were able to do it the first time around but I believe they will not be able to this time. If Donald Trump lives up to expectation Canadians are going to want to know how the two major parties will deal with him and they will want details.

In such a situation the Liberals can point to a track record and the Conservatives cannot. Again our media will try to play down that track record but Canadians will still be looking for substantive answers from both parties and so far the Conservatives have been short on providing such answers for many issues.

The election of Donald Trump has the potential to modify the current political dynamic in this country. How it does so remains to be seen but how Canadians view Donald Trump (which is very negatively) and how the Canadian government deals with him is much more important to that dynamic than the current party support numbers in the Canadian public polls. If David Aiken was the political analyst he believes he is that is that is what he would have talked about last night..

I Guess My Question Was Answered

Last July I asked the question  "Is the US Ready to Elect a Woman of Colour as President?

The answer to my question seems to be an emphatic "NO".

I have been saying since July that the election was going to come down to turnout. As well, I also asserted that the choice of VP Harris as the Democratic flag bearer had the potential to demotivate Democratic voters, who do not like Donald Trump but also do not like the idea of a woman of colour as President, from voting.

It would appear that just such a situation came to pass last night. Looking at the overall number of votes from last night, Donald Trump received around the same number of votes as he did in 2020, so the MAGA cult showed up. However, Kamala Harris only received around 70,000,000 votes which is around 12,000,000 less that Joe Biden did in 2020 and 10,000,000 votes less than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. Democrats stayed home, Republicans did not, hence last night's results.

In the postmortems of last night the idea that VP Harris' skin colour and gender was a big contributing factor cannot be ignored. While it was not the only reason why Democrats decided not to vote it is certainly an important reason why.

It is unfortunate because VP Harris would have probably made a good president and if I were allowed to vote in American elections I would have certainly voted for her. However, racism and sexism have deep, long lasting roots in the United States, that cut across partisan lines, and the US was just not ready for what Kamala Harris represented.

Update: I am seeing online that people are claiming that 20 million ballots are missing and they are demanding they be found and counted. They are not missing for the simple reason that they were never cast. Millions of Americans decided not to participate in the democratic process this year. It is that simple. They will have to live with the consequences.

Update 2: I have complained about this before. For some reason progressives are not as committed to participating in the democratic process as conservatives. We see it everywhere. Conservatives with the conviction of their convictions always come out and support their candidates, even when they may not be the best candidates. Progressives are more fickle. If a progressive politician is not considered the best candidate many will stay home, (or in Canada they decide to vote for a party that has no hope of winning, splitting the progressive vote) usually handing victory to those whose political views and policies are anathema to their own. Unfortunately, they never seem to learn from this mistake.

Is Inflation Dropping Almost 1% in Two Months Good News?

One thing we need to remember is that while the CPI is a measure of the change of prices over time it is also an indicator of aggregate demand and having the CPI fall by close to a whole percentage point in two months should give us pause.

It is just one indicator so you have to look at others to see if the CPI is showing a potential problem but unfortunately they are inconclusive, which is not bad news but it is not good news either.

We will have to wait and see if that big drop is a portent of some nasty economic clouds gathering on the horizon or if it is just the echo of the massive disruption that the pandemic caused and continues to cause.

You all may recall that when we were all sent home in March of 2020 and told to stay home inflation tanked. It dropped so far that for the months of April and May we were actually in deflation territory, with the topline yearly inflation number dropping into the negative and month-over-month dropping significantly into the negative for those two months. Then the impacts of the CERB and other government supports hit and inflation flattened out to around 0 to 0.5 percent. 

In other words, aggregate demand tanked. Everybody stopped buying except for the bare essentials. However, the desire to spend money did not abate, we all just had to wait, causing a huge increase in pent up demand. Then in 2021, when the worst of the pandemic was over and vaccination rates were high enough we all decided to begin spending again with a vengeance. From haircuts to houses we went on a spending spree but before manufacturers could ratchet up production again and the supply chains that had been broken by the pandemic could be reestablished. Naturally, inflation spiked, everywhere, and then the war in Ukraine just made it worse.

That spending spree could not be sustained. It was already falling off before the high inflation and the higher interest rates that came with it caused an even bigger reduction in demand.

So again, demand fell, although not to the levels of the pandemic. That is what we are seeing with the steady decline in inflation in this country over the last year. Like many things in economics the precipitous decline in the last couple of months could just be an indication of an overcorrection, something that happens often in economics. Then again, it could be a harbinger of something bigger and nastier.

We will have to wait for the inflation data for the next few months to determine which one is true. If it is a harbinger then inflation will probably go down again and we should begin to worry. If it is just an overcorrection we should see inflation increase again, probably into the 2 to 2.5% range in the coming months and stabilize there.

Are Republicans Giving Democratic Voters a Reason to Vote

According to the polls the presidential election in the US is close. That is nothing new. It was close in 2020 and it was close in 2016. However, this closeness just seemed to happen in the last six weeks and it happened because Republican leaning pollsters flooded the political scene with polls saying the race is tight. Hell, I believe Donald Trump even stated that his campaign paid for pollsters to do just that.

My question is why? This election is going to come down to turnout. As I have stated before in this space there are more voters who dislike Donald Trump than like him so if they come out to vote he loses. So, it would be in his best interest to attempt to convince them to stay home. However, a race that looks close could do exactly the opposite. 

One of the reasons why Donald Trump won in 2016 was because everybody and their brother was stating that Hillary Clinton would win. I believe that convinced many Bernie Boys to stay home. They really did not like her as a candidate and that combined with the notion that their votes were not needed was all the motivation they needed to sit out the 2016 election. The result is history.

Then after four years of President Trump everybody that wanted him gone came out in droves. The result was an increase in votes for the Democratic candidate of around 6 million in 2020, while the number of votes for Donald Trump stayed at 2016 levels and he was history.

So, if Donald Trump and the Republicans want a result more closely resembling the 2016 election they should be encouraging the notion that Kamala Harris has a much better chance of winning than Donald Trump. That might convince those who do not like him but are also not that comfortable with a woman of colour being President to stay home. A close race may convince them to do otherwise.

If there is some grand strategy for the Republicans to push the narrative that the race is tight I cannot see it. Maybe the Republicans are worried about turning out their vote so showing a tight race would also convince them to show up too. Or maybe Donald Trump does not want to be seen as losing the election going into election day because of his fragile ego. Or maybe it is a whole other reason that I cannot see. Whatever the reason, I cannot believe encouraging potential voters of your opponent to vote is a sound strategy when their are more of them than your own voters. But what do I know?

Immigration Levels Returning to the Mean

Recently the Federal government announced that they were reducing immigration levels. Upon further examination the reduction is essentially to the historical mean.

Nothing really out of the ordinary right?

Not according to our media. Of course, they indicated that this is a reversal or a pivot away from recklessly high immigration levels and the result of political pressure on the Liberals and a change in attitudes of Canadians towards immigration. 

What a load of crap.

Immigration levels in this country are not pulled from the ass of any government. They are arrived at after extensive consultations by the government with the provinces, the business community, demographers and other stakeholders. They are designed to allow Canada's population growth to be sufficient to allow younger Canadians to replace retiring Canadians in the job market. This is because the Canadian fertility rate is way below replacement level so if we did not bring in immigrants our population and the pool of people looking for work would decrease, leading to all sorts of negative economic outcomes for the country, including lower profits and falling stock markets.

As well, remember that immigrants are not refugees or asylum seekers. Canadian immigration official look for people with specific skills from those seeking to enter Canada. If they want to come to Canada they have to prove they are able to work here and get a job very soon after they arrive.

The reason why there was a spike in immigration levels in the last three years is all because of the pandemic. After the worst of the pandemic was over everything spiked; aggregate demand, prices, wages and other economic indicators. What also spiked was the demand for labour. Many of you with decent memories probably remember all of the stories about a labour shortage immediately after the worst of the pandemic was over. The government responded by increasing immigration levels.

Well, although COVID is still stalking the land, the pandemic is over and everything is returning to what it was pre-COVID. We are seeing it with inflation and we are now seeing it with unemployment. The labour shortage of three years ago has abated so immigration levels do not need to be so high. Thus, we see their return to the historical mean.

By the way, these immigration levels are very similar to the ones the Harper government had during its tenure and that is why, if you are hoping another Conservative government will further reduce immigrations levels, you are in for a big disappointment. Simply put, big business will not let them.

The government continues to do what it is supposed to; govern. And governing means looking at the current situation and adjusting policies to address any issues. That's the job and this government is just getting on with doing it.

Provincial Elections

In the past week there have been two provincial general elections and the results of both surprised virtually everyone. That is strange because we have a whole industry, the polling industry, that is supposed to provide us with an idea of what is happening leading up to an election. In both cases they were way off. Kind of makes you wonder about the federal polling we have been seeing. Are their estimates accurate? Probably not.

Many are trying to read the entrails of both elections to guess how a federal general election might turn out. I would caution people from reading too much into the results for the federal level. This country is famous for voters voting one way federally only to have the same voters vote the exact opposite provincially. 

All that being said there are some encouraging signs. Blaine Higgs won a minority government six years ago and during that time he seemed like a moderate conservative. Then he won a majority government, governed from the far-right, and was crushed in the next election. A government only lasting 6 years in this country is a rarity. 

The results in BC is the biggest surprise. The incumbent NDP government had been in power for about a decade. Like all governments, they had a lifespan and like all governments they were running on borrowed time after eight years. Considering these facts the BC conservative party should have swept to power. Instead, as of writing this blog entry, they are tied. Either one could come out on top but regardless of which one does they will not have a strong majority either way.

Overall, the results of these elections shows us just what Canadians feel about the far right. The far-right Premier of New Brunswick lost big, including his seat. The BC conservatives, lead by an extreme right politician could not score a decisive victory over a 10 year incumbent government. That should give more than one conservative politician in this country pause, considering they have been drifting further and further right for about two decades.

While I will reiterate my caution about reading too much into these elections' impact at the federal level the one is BC is interesting. Like the federal level, a progressive government, long in the tooth, was up against a conservative opposition. That conservative opposition ran on far right policies (and continuously and blatantly lied) and they could not "bring it home". Kind of makes you wonder if something similar will happen when the writ is finally dropped at the federal level considering the parallels between the BC election and the probable federal election will be stark.

I am not certain how the next federal election will turn out but these two provincial elections seem to indicate that governing and campaigning from the far right has limited appeal to a significant number of voters, making being elected that much more difficult. (Except in Alberta where voters there seem to have this perverse belief that they have to punish themselves.)

Another Trudeau Scandal

Many in the media are all aflutter because Justin Trudeau has stopped announcing his itinerary and has resorted to just showing up at places. These media folks claim that Justin Trudeau is lying about his whereabouts and hiding from Canadians.

That's it. That's the final straw. The only solution is for Mr. Trudeau to resign.

Of course none of these media types points out that Mr. Trudeau is the first politician to announce his whereabouts at all and that includes all of the past PMs and current politicians such as Mr. Poilievre. Mr. Trudeau made the conscious decision to buck past practice but now that he has decided to stop doing that it is a "scandal".

As well, none of these media types mention that the political environment today is much more toxic that it was in 2015. Hell it is more toxic that it was in 2021 when there were people throwing rocks at the PM during the election of that year. Although, many in the media have argued that "rocks" is a misrepresentation of the objects that were thrown. They were actually "pebble". Schmucks.

It is a fact that a few years ago some guy rammed the gates of Rideau Hall, probably to do harm to the PM, but he was stopped by security. The media at that time played down that aspect of the event instead focusing on that fact the guy was a "happy sausage maker". Really, this guy just drove from Manitoba to Ottawa, with a pickup truck full of firearms and rammed the gates of the Official Residence of the Governor General and the Prime Minister because he wanted a fulsome discussion on the finer points of the government's environmental policies with the PM.

It is also a fact that this summer two men were charged with threatening the PM. 

Finally, Mr. Bexte ambushed the PM on a beach while he was on vacation with his kids. Bexte is an idiot and a poseur but he is harmless. He would not have the guts to actually try to harm the PM but there are others out there who would. Incidentally, Mr. Bexte must have been disappointed. He always has people there to record his stupidity and in this case he was probably hoping that they would get a juicy recording of the PM's security detail wrestling him to the ground. That did not happen and then the PM schooled him when Mr. Bexte asked his questions. 

With all of this it is no wonder Mr. Trudeau stopped announcing his itinerary in advance. His security detail probably recommended it. Indeed, I would bet that they recommended it awhile ago and he finally decided to take that advice. Good on him and I hope he continues to do so. It is bad security practice to tell those that might want to do you harm where you are going to be in advance.

Another aspect of this "scandal" is the PM has been showing up at places where there are large crowds to "give the impression that he is more popular than he really is." While it is true he is showing up at these events it is also true that no other Federal leader is doing the same thing. Both Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Singh could do the same thing. The question is why are they not doing so. Mr. Poilievre in particular is supposed to be running away from the PM in the polls. You would think he would take every opportunity to show that popularity by spontaneously intermingling with ordinary Canadians. Imagine the fawning by our media if there were pictures similar to the ones that came out last week of the PM at the opening of the CNE and other events. That is not happening and I would love to hear someone ask the reason for that.

The Ukrainians Open Up a Second Front

It has been expected for weeks that the Ukrainians would launch a summer offensive but it was also expected that they would launch it at the static front in Eastern Ukraine. Instead they attached North into Russia itself.

A couple of things.

First, the fact the Ukrainians could launch the offensive and encounter little to no resistance is a testament to Russian hubris. They firmly believed that the Ukrainians would never have the temerity to actually launch ground operations into Russia itself so they never actually defended against such a possibility. Make no mistake, if they had the Ukrainian incursion into the Kursk Region would have been nothing more than a raid in force, ending almost as soon as it began.

This could change the strategic situation on the ground somewhat. With this incursion the Russians are going to have to spread their troops a little thinner to prevent a repeat of it after the Ukrainians finally withdraw. Up until now the Russians could concentrate their forces in the Donbass region, effectively outnumbering the Ukrainians at the point of attack. Now they are going to have to put more troops on the other borders with Ukraine. Where are those troops going to come from? They will either come from Eastern Ukraine for from Russia itself. In the first instance that will lead to the weakening of the Russian lines in the East and in the second instance it will lead to less reinforcements being available to replace the losses they have been experiencing in the the war of attrition taking place in the east. Either way, things just got harder for Russian commanders.

The question that this incursion does not answer is whether the Ukrainians, with their superior equipment, training and morale, can outlast the Russians, with their greater number of soldiers and their total lack of concern about casualties. That has been the question of this war since it began.

Democratic Party VP Choice, Bots and still no election speculation

VP Harris made a decent choice with Governor Walz. I still believe she should have chosen someone a little more centrist or slightly right-of-centre to offset her slight left-of-centre instincts but the Governor is a middle-aged white guy, with an honourable military service record and who likes to do "manly" things like hunting and fishing. That should allow those who do not like Mr. Trump but who would be uncomfortable with the prospect of a woman of colour as President to feel a little better about it. The whole point is to not provide them with a reason to stay home in November. She might have accomplished that.

For now, ignore the polls. It is predictable that Ms. Harris would receive a bump in them when she took over the nomination and named a running mate. They will receive another bump after the convention and then the hard slogging to November will commence. Do not bank on any bumps being permanent.

So the Conservatives in Canada got into a little trouble because thousands of bots wrote glowing reports on his visit to Kirkland Lake. That made me laugh considering how small that town is. However, it would also seem to indicate that these bots acted without the knowledge of the CPC as they would probably have been able to predict that having more bots than the actual population of Kirkland Lake mentioning his visit would raise eyebrows. This still warrants an investigation of who owns these bots and their motivation for releasing them into our politics. Foreign actors are interfering in our politics more and more and I believe something more substantial than the inquiries we have seen so far into this issue needs to be done. A full blown Royal Commission, with broad powers to call witnesses and access evidence, would be very useful. 

It has been more than a year since the CPC took a double digit lead over the Liberals in the public polls yet no one is suggesting that we will have an election before the Fall of 2025 despite the fact the Liberals are leading a minority government. Remember, election speculation is a favourite pass time of our media. Hell, they have been talking about Doug Ford calling a snap election even though we just went through a provincial election in 2022. So why no election speculation when the Federal Liberals have been trailing the CPC by double digits for a year or so? Maybe, and I am just spit balling here, those polls are full of crap and the actual political situation at the federal level is much different from what the public polls are saying. Maybe all involved, the political parties and the media, have access to data they are not sharing with the public that is showing a much different situation. It is absolutely unprecedented that a minority government has survived more than a year while trailing its main opponent in the public polls. Something is just not adding up.

VP Harris, Do Not Choose Pete Buttigieg as your Running Mate

In my previous post I asserted that the nomination of Ms. Harris as the Presidential candidate for the Democrats will make them winning the White House more difficult than if Mr. Biden was the nominee. The reason is I believe that there are many who may really  dislike the idea of Donald Trump being President again who are also uncomfortable with the idea of a woman of colour being President. That could result in many of them staying home on election day, particularly in some of the states she needs to carry to win the election.

If she now turns around and selects an openly gay man as her running mate she can probably kiss the White House goodbye and the Democrats would probably lose both Houses of Congress as well.

While having those two running together is the proverbial wet dream for progressives on both sides of the border those very same progressives have to remember that not everybody thinks like them. Racism and homophobia are still very strong in the US, even amongst voters who identify as Democrat, so having both a visible minority and a gay person running together, along with the Presidential candidate being a woman could be a recipe for disaster.

It is unfortunate but that is the hand she has been dealt.

I am willing to accept the idea of such a ticket attracting alot of new young voters but history has demonstrated that while young voters may be becoming more and more involved in politics they still do not vote in numbers to really effect outcomes. So, if the Democrats are counting on the youth vote to act as a counterweight to those more dependable voters who would be uncomfortable with a woman of colour as President and a gay man as Vice President they could be in for great disappointment.

So please Ms. Harris, choose a middle aged, white guy, who is just a little right of centre as your running mate. Yes I know that they are already overrepresented in politics but they still reflect a sizable proportion of your electorate (and ours in Canada) so you cannot ignore their concerns and expect to win.

The Democrats just made their life a whole lot harder

An alternate title for this post could also be: "Is the US Ready to Elect a Woman of Colour as President?

As I stated in a previous post the election in November was going to be about Donald Trump and whether Americans wanted to have him back as President. Although he was up against an old man in Joe Biden I believed that Americans would again reject Donald Trump for the highest office in the land. More people hate Mr. Trump than love him and that would have carried the Democrats as long as they could bring out their vote. Yes, Joe Biden is an old man but, to be brutally honest, he is a white old man so many people who prefer such as President could safely plant their vote there if they were inclined to vote against Donald Trump.

Now that advantage for the Democrats is gone. There are many Americans who dislike Donald Trump, who would not vote for him, who would also dislike the idea of a woman of colour as President. This would be particularly true in some of the states the Democrats have to carry in order to win, Georgia being a very good example. That is unfortunate but that does not make it any less true. BTW, one of the strikes against Hillary Clinton was she is a woman. That was not the only thing that went against her but do not be so naïve to think that it was not a factor. 

I do not believe that those who hate Donald Trump and who would be uncomfortable with Ms. Harris as President will switch their votes. However, they may just decide to stay home. I do believe that the GOTV efforts of the Democrats in several key states will much more challenging. 

I believe that VP Harris would probably make a good president and looking at her resume she is not any less qualified than some of the other candidates who have won the presidency in the last 30 years but you cannot deny that her gender and colour will be a factor for a significant number of voters come November. I am not saying she cannot win but her path to victory is probably narrower than Joe Biden's would have been, the recent hype about his age notwithstanding.

The election was always going to come down to voter turnout. Whichever side is most successful in getting their voters to come out is going to win. The Democrats just reduced their chances of being the side that accomplishes that task.

Who Would Replace Donald Trump for the MAGA Crowd?

I have had this question percolated in my head for some time and the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on the weekend caused it to gel.

The simple fact is even before the attempt it could be said that Donald Trump is an old, over weight man who could go at any time by natural causes. The same is certainly true of Joe Biden, except he is not over weight. Kind of makes you wonder just how broken politics is in the US that it cannot put up candidates that have more than an even chance living to 2028 but that is the topic for another post.

So when he goes what happens to MAGA? It is a fact that MAGA's only loyalty is to Donald Trump. It really is his own personal cult of personality. They have absolutely no loyalty to the Republican Party just like he has no loyalty to it. They only care about Donald Trump.

So when he goes is there someone that can replace him? I know that some would try but I believe there is no one who would be able to take his place. Love him or hate him but Donald Trump is a larger than life figure, which is why he has been able to get away with all of the shit he has been getting away with since before he entered politics. So although there are many like him who would share his populist political outlook and who would be more than willing to lie their ass off for political advantage they would not have the same snake oil salesman vibe, being able to work up a crowd like Donald Trump. 

And really, a large number of MAGA are only involved in politics because of Donald Trump. When he goes so will many of them.

So when he goes the Republican Party will be in some trouble. They have completely alienated moderate Americans by embracing Mr. Trump and many MAGA's will turn away from politics. That would be a large number of voters not voting for Republicans. Then again, many of those who hate Donald Trump, who have only voted that last few elections because of their dislike of him, may decide to abandon politics as well. 

It could be a wash but I believe it would not be. Republicans are going to be more impacted by his disappearance  and for a couple of elections the Republicans would have to go through a period of adjustment to recapture more moderate Americans. Or not. After all, Donald Trump is just the logical extension of the Tea Party movement that took over the Republican Party a couple of decades ago. In all likelihood, the departure of Donald Trump would provide the Tea Partiers the opportunity to retake the Republican Party.

People Usually Vote Against Someone not for Someone

That is a simple fact.

I know several people who are Conservative supporters and all of them do not really like Pierre Poilievre. Indeed, I heard one of them call him a f&*%King asshole a few months ago. However, most of these folks absolutely hate Justin Trudeau so they will overlook the general assholery of Mr. Poilievre if they can get rid of PMJT.

I bring this up because of all of the wingeing over Joe Biden's debate performance last week. The doom and gloom is misplaced. I can pretty much guarantee that the reason he became president is not because the voters liked him and were inspired by him. He became president because people hated Donald Trump and wanted him gone. 

Donald Trump is a polarizing figure. Those who love him really love him but those who hate him really hate him. Unfortunately for him there are more people who hate him than love him. That was proven in 2016 and in 2020. I imagine that it will be true in 2024. He has not done anything in the last four years to reach out to those who hate him, in fact, he did the exact opposite. So the biggest threat to Joe Biden's bid for a second term is not voters turning away from him to Donald Trump but people who voted for him in 2020 deciding to stay home. Donald Trump will probably not gain any more votes than he gained in 2016 and 2020. All the Democrats need to do is convince those who hate Donald Trump to come out and vote and they will win.

In the Canadian context this voter motivation is the reason why Conservatives and their media allies are trying so damned hard to get Canadians to hate Justin Trudeau and have him resign. After all, there are countless examples of people voting against a party over voting for one. I can assure you that very few people felt happy voting for the Harper or Ford Conservatives or the Trudeau Liberals. Voters were just voting against people and governments they really did not like and in those cases enough people did so to bring about a change in government.

Judging by the increasingly shrill and strident calls for his resignation by the media I would say that they are not succeeding in turning Canadians against PMJT. Certainly, there is a small minority of Canadians who hate him for many reasons but they have always hated him and I would guess that their number is not increasing fast enough to the liking of Conservatives. As well, I would like to point out that the media is focusing exclusively on trying to get Canadians to hate Justin Trudeau but no one is trying to get Canadians to like Pierre Poilievre, including Mr. Poilievre himself. They are content to keep preaching to their base while working diligently to get Canadians to hate Mr. Trudeau. 

Yes, yes, yes, I know what the polls are saying but I also know that polls never tell the whole story and in many cases the story they do tell is often wrong. 

By the time the election rolls around in 2025 the Conservatives might be successful in their efforts to turn Canadians against Justin Trudeau, or that might just happen organically as a result of the sheer amount of time the Liberals will have been the government. However, at the moment, judging by the actions of the Conservatives and the media, they have not done that yet.

If they have not been able to do it and if Conservative opponents can be somewhat successful in reminding voters of why they do not like the Conservatives and Pierre Poilievre then the next election will not be the shoe in for the CPC that most political commentators are saying it will be.

So in 2025 the ballot question is going to be who are the voters going to be more against? I am not even going to attempt a guess at this point.

Collective Bargaining Works When It Is Allowed to Proceed

Without going on strike the border crossing union managed to settle their labour dispute with the government. This despite all of the histrionics and gnashing of teeth by the Conservatives and their allies in the media, which now is pretty much the entire media.

Is it not amazing that the government and union managed to come to an agreement despite all of the noise? Not really. I have always disagreed with PSAC's adversarial first approach to negotiations. They seemed to have never learned the old adage about attracting more flies with honey. However, they like to follow their process and that strike vote was just part of that process.

I am not surprised by the government's role in this. As usual they just got on with the business at hand and quietly resolved the problem.

We can say that the crisis was averted accept that there was never going to be a crisis. This does point out the stupidity of the CPC and in another time that would have been pointed out by our news media. However, since they all hopped on the "sky is falling" bandwagon they cannot point out Conservative stupidity without shining a light on their own.

So this whole thing further proves that if collective bargaining is allowed to happen without the government giving itself, or one side in the case of collective bargaining between unions and private companies, an unfair advantage labour disputes are often settled without disruptive labour action.

The NSICOP Report

The NSICOP released a special report on foreign interference in Canadian politics and it was much more useful than the public inquiry that was completed earlier this year.

The public inquiry was not very useful because it did not follow the money. That is how we are going to find out just how badly compromised our politics is by foreign actors, both governmental and non-governmental. Instead we got a report that did not tell us much of anything useful.

The NSICOP report on the other hand flat out told us that more than a few parliamentarians were witting and unwitting helpers of foreign actors in influencing our politics. They did not go into details because to do so would break more than a few national security laws but the message is clear. Some of our elected officials have both knowingly and unknowingly allowed themselves to be supported by foreign actors.

That is a very serious situation and it bears much more scrutiny. If we had a fully functioning Parliament all of the parties would be working together to get to the bottom of it and then coming up with new laws and regulations to reduce foreign interference in all of its forms.

Of course we do not have a fully functioning Parliament and I will not go into details as to why.

What I did find interesting was the thundering silence on the findings of the report from the CPC when it was published. It took them 24 hours to finally come up with an attack line and that attack line was that the government should release the names of the MPs. Of course they cannot do that because to do so would be breaking the law. So the CPC can safely continue to demand the release of those names knowing that the government cannot comply.

I do have a question as to why the Conservatives took this tack. I have stated before that none of the Federal parties would come out smelling like a rose if the names were released because I can pretty much guarantee that some past and current MP's, of all political stripes, have benefited in some way from foreign interference. 

So does the fact they took this tack indicate that one or more of the Conservatives MPs on the NSICOP informed Pierre Poilievre of the names and him seeing that his name was not mentioned or a very prominent Liberals being mentioned lead to their reaction? Or is this just Pierre Poilievre being himself and throwing shit at the wall hoping it would stick knowing that the government has no defence because they cannot legally release the names?

For now I am going to give the Conservative MPs the benefit of the doubt. The second option is typical Pierre Poilievre and I cannot yet think that the Conservative members of the committee can break the law so readily.

Of course, we cannot talk about this without talking about the media reaction, which has been as predictable as the tides. I have noticed that many in the media have parroted the Conservative talking points while downplaying the fact the government cannot release the names without breaking the law. Indeed, I saw one news report last week that completely omitted that fact. 

As I stated in my last post the government has to cut off all public financial support going to our media. The fact one news organization completely omitted the legal reasons for not releasing the names is obvious and overt misinformation. It is the right of the media to tell stories as they see fit. It says so right in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, it is also the right of Canadians not to have their tax dollars to go to organizations that lie to them. 

In the end foreign interference will continue in our politics because no real measures have been taken to measure the true extent of it and its impacts in our politics, probably because all parties know they would be badly hurt if the truth were to really come out. As well, do not expect any of those MPs named in the report to ever see the inside of a courtroom as a result of the report findings. It's just not going to happen.

They are still talking about the changes to the capital gains tax

Too bad no one else is.

In my previous post I stated one of my laws of politics is whenever your opponent talks about your policy for longer than just a single news cycle they are worried that it might resonate with voters.

So here we see them still talking about one of the less remarkable provisions of the 2024 Budget. I realize that one of the reasons is the government is going to have a vote on the provision tomorrow but votes for government bills happen every week when the House is sitting. So why are they singling this one out? And why has there been low grumblings about this provision since it was announced?

I can see four reasons. The first is in my first sentence of this post. The simple fact is taxing the wealthy is a popular idea. Most ordinary Canadians see no problem with it. Added to that is the fact that most Canadians will never be impacted by this provision. So they are not going to get worked up about it, despite the efforts by those opposed to it to make them care. The trotting out of doctors and assertions that some Canadians will take a hit when they sell their cottages is not going to have the impact they hope it will. Most know that doctors are going to be fine financially regardless of the changes, most people do not own cottages and they also know that rich people will be paying more.

The second reason is this provision is going to directly impact those who are pushing to have it canceled the most. Namely, the wealthy, which includes the owners of our media. Our media has been trashing the Liberals for almost a decade but the fact that the owners of them are going to take a hit explains why I have yet to see a media outlet give equal time to the benefits of the changes. The media is obsessed with "both sides" of every issue but for some reason not this one. The obvious bias, probably at the behest of the owners of our media, further cements in my mind that we need a complete overhaul of the media landscape in this country. The government can probably go along way towards bringing that about if they would stop all subsidies and financial support to the media. The media has been purveyors of disinformation and misinformation for quite some time and I believe that we taxpayers should not be on the hook to pay for that. Stop all support and let the chips fall where they may.

The third reason is the wealthy are actually being forced to pay more. Make no mistake, these changes will not put any of them in the poor house. Hell, they will not even see a single change to their lifestyles. However, the wealthy have been calling the fiscal shots in this country for more than three decades and having their demands be ignored by the government must be disconcerting. 

Which brings me to reason number four. The continued breakdown of the Conservative Consensus. Since 2015, the Liberal government has raised taxes on the wealthy at least twice before the 2024 budget and they actually introduced a new "tax" in the form of putting a price on carbon. Further they have not suffered any political harm from any of it and it appears they will not suffer too much harm from the changes in the capital gains tax. As well, they have not suffered from running deficits, while substantially increasing government spending. None of this would have been accepted by Canadians 15 years ago. (Nor would the recent anti-scab legislation) Now they are and that must really be freaking out those who benefited the most from the Conservative Consensus. Incidentally, that breakdown is probably one of the reasons why our media has been so damned hostile to the Liberal government, not the only reason but certainly one of them. Those that own the media and those who benefit from the Consensus want to maintain it and they are doing their damnest to convince Canadians that it is in their interest to maintain it and not succeeding very much it would seem.

At any rate the vote will happen tomorrow and the changes will be the law of the land. There is no way the NDP, which supports higher taxes for the wealthy as a matter of general principle, are going to vote against higher taxes for the wealthy. (Yes I know, famous last words and all of that, but I do not think they want to commit political suicide.)

The 2024 Federal Budget

One of my rules of politics is if a political party's opponents are loudly and repeatedly condemning a policy or a Bill in Parliament it is because they know that it could resonate with Canadians.

I am reminded of this rule by the continued reaction to the 2024 Budget.

Really, in most cases the budget is in the news for a single news cycle and then the media and the Opposition politicians go back to talking about the banal and the inane. That was not the case this time.

My favourite so far is some of the doctors being trotted out by the media to show the "error" of the changes in the capital gains taxes. I recall seeing one doctor, who is younger than me, stating that the changes could cause doctors to close up shop. The idea of course is to try to scare Canadians into rejecting a policy that only impacts a very small minority of Canadians by claiming it could lead to a doctors shortage. 

Of course, if you just use a small amount of critical thinking yo would realize that the main source of income for doctors is practicing medicine. If they stop doing that no amount of capital gains will compensate for that lost income. So closing up shop is not really an option, unless you were planning on retiring soon anyway. 

Then there is the old chestnut that doctors will head South. Again, a little critical thinking will help you realize that the American Medical Association might have a say in that plan and the cost of developing a new practice in a new country is much more than the loss in capital gains that would result from the very modest changes in the 2024 Budget.

There has been some talk about the deficit but the 2008 financial crisis and the cost of the COVID supports in 2020-2021 has demonstrated that the old deficit bugbear is not to be feared. Throw in the fact the deficit hawks only complain about deficits when they pay for social programs but are strangely quiet when they pay for tax cuts and you can safely ignore them.

Yes, yes, I know the argument that tax cuts are supposed to be better for the economy than government spending but that is ideological BS of the highest order. The simple fact is tax cuts and government spending are one in the same, just ways to get money into the economy. They both have their place but if the objective of a policy is to assist people with finding affordable housing then investing in programs to do that will be much more effective than a $200/year tax cut.

I have read the budget and it is actually quite ambitious, more ambitious than that last couple at least. I do not agree with all of its policies but I am all for the government taking real action on some of the issues that they outline in the document. It is about time.

Now if only this government could screw up the political courage to finally do something other than pay lip service to finding out whether and how the auto-fuel companies are colluding on price. When every company raises their prices by 20 cents all on the same night, within minutes of each other, a case could be made to suspect collusion and to go beyond the usual pro-forma inquiries that happen when the auto-fuel companies get too greedy.

The Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Inquiry

I read that the inquiry is hearing witnesses. I am not paying much attention to this inquiry. I will wait for the final report. However, I will say that if that final report does not include any attempts to follow the money then the whole thing is a colossal waste of time.

I am not going to attempt to guess the final outcome except for two points.

The first is no federal political party is going to come out of this smelling like a rose. There are many foreign actors that do not like democracy and they want to discredit it. They really do not have any allegiance to any Canadian political party. They choose targets of opportunity regardless of partisan considerations. If the inquiry discovers those situations all of the political parties at the federal level will have red faces. There are other foreign actors that have a preferred Canadian political party and it will be interesting to see if the inquiry identifies them and who they are supporting.

The second is the reaction to the final report will be along partisan lines. That is, each political party will grab hold of the parts of the report that hurts their opponents and benefits them. As well, we can expect our largely Conservative media to play up any foreign interference that either benefited or was perceived to benefit the Liberals while they play down or ignore interference that benefited the Conservatives. 

In the end we will have to see what is in the report and then it will be up to us voters to decide what we consider to be legitimate political actions by foreign actors and what we consider to be illegitimate foreign interference in our political system, institutions and processes. 

Him, Her, They, Them

I was born a male. That is, I have certain genitalia typical of the male of the human species and I am unable to bear children.

I am also a man. Is there a difference?

Yes. With rare exceptions there are only two biological sexes for our species and every other mammalian species. That fact cannot be disputed. However, your biological sex at birth is not the only determinant of ones sex or gender. Psychology plays a much bigger role.

I am not a man because I have certain sex organs. I am a man because I think like a man, I feel like a man and for lack of a better phrase I identify as a man. Sexism, feminism and all sorts of other "isms" only exist because we have a brain that allows us to have values and beliefs about ourselves and our world. I believe I am a man but, here is the kicker, I do not know why I believe that. I do not know the reason that when I was young I believed I was a boy and when I became old enough I started to believe I was a man. It just happened. Maybe it was genetic. Maybe it was the environment I grew up in. I cannot be certain.  

So if the biggest part of being a man or a woman is in our heads why are people surprised that some might not be able to reconcile how they feel about themselves with their biological sex? There are over 7 billion of us on this planet so it stands to reason that some of us would not be wired like everybody else.

Looking back at my childhood I can recall some kids that did not fit the mold of being typical boys and girls, as dictated by the norms of society. Could they have been having difficulty with their gender identities? We know back then that talking about that kind of thing was a one way ticket to trouble. We know that gays and lesbians did what they had to do to avoid being persecuted so I would not be surprised that those who were atypical genders would have to do the same thing, or more likely, they had no way to really process their feelings in a useful way so they just suffered and did their best to cope.

Alot of time has passed and now people can be more honest with themselves and they have the freedom to explore themselves with less fear of persecution. That is probably why it seems that this phenomenon seems to have come upon us suddenly. We know that homosexuality was much more prevalent than outward appearances made it appear so it would make sense that the same can be true of atypical genders.

The biggest fear that homosexuals created amongst us straight folks was that being around them could cause their homosexuality to rub off on us, or worse yet our children. I feel that same fear is being felt about people with atypical genders. To which I say, stop worrying. It does not rub off. If their existence is causing you to doubt your own gender it is not because them it is because of your own psychology and it has been proven again and again that no amount of persecution of someone will allow you to reconcile the conflict you may be experiencing.