More Ridiculous Polls

I usually ignore the media polls. They are usually not worth my time. However, if you visit any kind of social media they are hard to miss. Someone is usually posting them so they are hard to miss.

About 18 months ago the media polls were indicating that the Conservatives were leading by 20 points, on average, with the seat models indicating that they would win up to 220+ seats. At the time I expressed the opinion that they were ridiculous for a whole host of reasons and that when an election looked imminent they would equalize. That's exactly what happened.

Now we are seeing the same trend, only favouring the Liberals this time. It is all BS. Yes, I would agree that Mark Carney is liked and respected by Canadians. Even my conservative relatives, who never had anything good to say about Justin Trudeau, like him. Yes I would agree that is rubbing off on the Liberal Party but not to the extent the media polls are indicating.

I will use the same arguments for that opinion. If they were true election speculation would be rampant. It would be the top domestic issue that the media would discuss. It would take second place to the ongoing war in Iran but even that is going to leave the front pages soon, if nothing really mind blowing does not happen in the next few days.

As well, I would remind you that the companies that publish these polls do not make money on them. They are marketing tools so they do not need to be super accurate in between elections because their estimates are not tested against actual election results. 

Judging by how the political parties are acting I would say that the Liberals are in a good position politically. However, I would argue that position is not nearly as good as the media polls are indicating.

As well, I would also like to point out that the "Conservative collapse" a year ago became part of the story of that election, which is also something I stated would happen.

The Liberals are in the same position. If they actually call an election you will see the leads in the media polls evaporate almost immediately, guaranteed. We saw that in the 2021 election. The Liberals opened up a10 point lead in the media polls, they foolishly called an election, and that lead evaporated literally the day after the writ was dropped. The Liberals still won but not the majority government the polls were saying they would sale to just 37 days before election day. That collapse would be the story of the campaign and media would never stop talking about.

So the Liberals should just ignore the noise and govern and hope that the media polls are right enough to win all of the by-elections on April 13.

What the End of the War In Iran Could Look Like

The two sides in the war in the middle east have provided their opening positions for the eventual negotiations for the end of the war.

The Americans have indicated that they will only accept an unconditional surrender.

The Iranians have provided a list of conditions for them to stop shooting. They are:

1. To hand over PM Netanyahu to the International Criminal Court
2. Israel to withdraw its forces to the October 7 borders
3. The Cancellation of President Trump's plans to turn Gaza into a tourist attraction
4. Lift all sanctions on Iran and unfreeze funds
5. Recognize Iran's nuclear rights
6. US and Israeli military is to leave Lebanon, Syria and Yemen
7. The US is to remove all of its military presence from the Arab soil
8. A public apology by Donald Trump to Mr. Khanenei
9. Compensation for every sanction ever imposed on Iran.

This would be very similar to an unconditional surrender by the US and Israel.

Neither side is going to accept the conditions demanded by their enemy so how can this lead to the secession of hsotilities?

As I stated at the beginning neither of these positions are meant to be accepted. They are the opening positions for negotiations. As with all high stakes negotiations the two sides always start out with the most unreasonable demands possible.

So just speculating what could an eventual deal look like.

For the US/Israel it would be:

• The promise by Iran to never close the Straits of Hormuz again.
• Iran would submit to very stringent nuclear inspections to be certain that they are unable to build nuclear weapons.
• I big reduction in their ballistic missile manufacturing. They can keep what they have currently but they cannot build new ones, unless the destroy an equal number of old ones.
• The same provision for drones.
• The recognition of the State of Israel, including statements that it has the right to exist
• A corollary to that is the ending of military aid to the various anti-Israel militias around the Middle East.

For the Iranians it would be:

• Iran is allowed to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear power, with provisions to ensure they keep that promise,
• Sanctions against Iran would be gradually lifted until they were gone.
• The removal of all US bases that currently surround Iran. Essentially the US presence in the Gulf and wider Middle East would at least be reduced if not completely removed.
• Israel would not be allowed to redevelop its anti-missile defences, except for those designed to intercept the short range rockets favoured by the anti-Israel militias.
• Israel would guarantee the security of Iran, and automatic sanctions would be placed on them by the international community if they violate that guarantee

All of this would include provisions to make certain that the two sides are keeping their sides of the bargain, overseen either by the UN or third parties mutually agreed upon by the two sides. The compliance provisions would be quite robust and open to all parties. As well, although the three main combatants in the conflict will do most of the negotiating other countries will be involved, including China and the European Union.

You will note that nothing about the plight of the Palestinians is mentioned above. They will be part of the negotiations but Iran will drop them pretty quick, provided they can get something they really want in return. The same is true about the personal stuff around PM Netanyahu and President Trump. Those are merely bargaining chips to be discarded as negotiations proceed.

Eventually they may move towards talking about confidence building measures but that is a ways off if it happens at all.

In the end Iran is going to want guarantees that it will not be attacked again and it wants the ability to hit back, hard, if Israel or the US decide to attack again.

Israel and the US want to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power and prevent it from holding the international economy hostage again. 

Of course, like all peace agreements, the worth of this one would be the willingness of the two sides to adhere to it. 

That is a big problem but what nobody is talking about very much yet is the fact that this war is going to change the face of the Middle East. The old power dynamic that has been in existence for 60 or so years will be gone once the shooting stops. The Gulf States will never trust the US again. Iran will receive overt assistance from China to rebuild and I would bet money that they will allow the Chinese to build military bases in Iran. Global public opinion towards Israel will harden, including in the US, and their days of being able to do as they please to their neighbours will come to an end. 

All of the above is speculation but I believe it is a plausible outcome once both sides decide to stop the shooting.

Members of Parliament Crossing The Floor

The Carney Liberals picked up a fourth Member of Parliament from the Opposition parties, this time the NDP member from Nunavut. That brings the Liberals to 170 seats which means the Liberals only need to win two out of the three by-elections on April 13 to become a majority government, assuming no more floor crossings in either direction before that. Since two of those by-elections are taking place in Liberal strongholds the chances are pretty good for the Liberals, although not guaranteed. They are by-elections after all, which can sometimes surprise us.

Of course, this has created a great deal of angst and anger from the parties who lost Members, with them even stating that if the Liberals gain a majority as a result of floor crossings it is somehow illegitimate. They are wrong of course, Members switching sides predates Confederation so there is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, it is true that this is the first time in modern history that floor crossings could result in a minority government becoming a majority government and I have to admit that it does not completely meet the smell test. That does not mean I believe we should overturn almost 300 years of Parliamentary convention but I can understand why the Opposition parties might be much more aggrieved by the situation than for floor crossings that do not really have any impact on Party standings in the House.

As well, it does not look like any of the Members who switched parties are receiving anything in return. None appear to be destined for Cabinet and considering the success rate of floor crossers in subsequent elections is very low it can probably be concluded that their motivations were not completely self-serving.

As well, we need to look at the parties that have lost Members.

The Conservatives have become a caricature. Really, they are not a serious party anymore. Pierre Poilievre decisively won his leadership review but this has not positively impacted the CPC. As well, he went full Maple MAGA leading up to the review, which I thought was just because he needed to secure them to secure the leadership, but he has not pivoted to a message that would appeal to a broader audience. In fact, he has doubled down on the MAGA rhetoric. As well, it has been widely reported that his leadership style does not allow for much freedom for his caucus. That approach is a good one if you are seen as a winner. Stephen Harper did that when he was PM but no one in the CPC caucus cared because they were the governing party. When you are not the governing party such a tight leash on your members can alienate them, which can result in the floor crossings we have seen in recent months. In short, Pierre Poilievre should do some self-reflection but it appears he is not doing so. That could mean that more CPC MPs may decide life would be better on the Liberal benches.

The NDP is a mess. It is going through an existential crisis and it is rather irrelevant in Parliament. Encouragingly, the front runner for the leadership of the party looks like he will create an actual identity for the party. Whether Canadians will get on board with that identity remains to be seen but at least they will have one, which was something that was missing from the party since before 2015.

The NDP member who crossed the floor is from the North, which has somewhat different politics. Northerners are less partisan, tending to elect Members they believe can deliver the goods for the north. The MP from Nunavut probably concluded that she could do that much better from the government benches instead of staying with a party that does not have official party status in the House of Commons.

So if the Liberals actually do achieve a majority government by the end of next month that is going to give all of the Opposition parties time to get their shit together while virtually guaranteeing the slow erosion of the Liberals' popularity. There is no way the Liberals can fly as high as they are currently flying for the next three years. They are going to come back down to earth. If this Parliament makes it to 2029 that election is going to be very interesting and I would bet that it could be a change election. So there might be a silver lining to these floor crossings for the Opposition parties. We will see.

Impact of War on Iran to the United States

In the short term I believe this will make President Trump a lame duck long before the mid-term elections. The reason is the unpopularity of the war and the economic fallout from it are going to make the Democrats a virtual lock to take back both houses of the the US Congress. That will probably cause the Republicans to finally attempt to rein him in to try to staunch the bleeding. It probably will not happen soon but I suspect we will see it happen after most of the primaries are complete. It will be after that time when incumbent Republican politicians will no longer be in danger of being replaced for the November election and when they will need to do something to increase their chances during that election. 

As well, the US can pretty much kiss all of the alliances in the Middle East goodbye, except for Israel. The Gulf States will probably not cut ties completely, because they do not currently have viable alternatives, but I would bet a sizable chunk of money that they will begin to look to China to assist them. Their alliance with the US was to serve as a deterrent to Iran from doing exactly what it has been doing for the last nine days but that deterrent only works if the US does not attack Iran first. China will have no problem in turning the Persian Gulf into a Chinese lake and I suspect, after the war ends, the people of the United States would say "Let them have it."

In the longer term the US will be weakened by the war diplomatically. However, that has been happening for quite some time and it predates the election of Donald Trump in 2016. His election then and again in 2024 has accelerated that trend but we need to be careful not to overstate it. As well, there could be a case made that this war could hasten the time when the US Dollar ceases to be the reserve currency but if so that is a long time away and many things could happen before then so we can safely dismiss such arguments for now. It is not going to happen before the end of the decade and speculating on what will happen on a longer timeline is like trying to figure out what the weather is going to be like a year from now. 

The two main rivals to the US are Russia and China. 

One thing that everybody has to remember about Russia is it is a country with an economy the size of Italy's and it is shrinking. The once great Russian (Soviet) armed forces, which everybody thought would be able to roll through Western Europe with ease back in the 80s, has made absolutely no progress in four years of war with Ukraine. Indeed, there is some evidence that they have suffered some very substantial setbacks on the battlefield in recent weeks and many credible analysts have indicated that they have blown through all of their reserves of tanks and armoured vehicles. As well, the same analysts are indicating that they have lost around 1 million men during that four years and are suffering a recruiting crisis. In other words, they have pretty much "bled themselves white" since the war started. This all bodes ill for Vladimir Putin's ambitions for the rest of Europe. If they have a hard time against Ukraine, they will have an even harder time against NATO. Yes, they are in a bit of disarray because of Donald Trump but that really is not relevant. The Russians are going to take years, if not a decade or so, to rebuild their strength enough for any more adventures in Europe, those same Europeans are taking steps to rearm and will reach their targets before the end of the decade and Donald Trump will be gone, replaced by a President that will probably try to rebuild the alliances and trust that Donald Trump as squandered in the last few months. (And Putin will probably be gone and Russia may do what it has done for centuries, replace a leader who turned away from the West with one who turns toward it.)

Considering this, if the Russians did not have nuclear weapons, their threat to Western Europe would not be taken as seriously as it is currently. But they will be of no help because if they try to "nuke" any part of Western Europe they will have to deal with a potential nuclear retaliation from the US, Britain and France.

Some are saying the the war has weakened the US enough to allow China to take Taiwan. (I even heard one fool say they could take Japan *headshake*). The problem with that is even after this war the US will have the most powerful military in the world. That is not going to change anytime soon. Any attack on Taiwan will be different from what we are seeing in the Middle East. The Taiwan Strait is not wide but it is wide enough that any invasion force would be at the end of a very tenuous supply line, which could easily be cut for a time by the Taiwanese themselves and permanently cut with the assistance of the US. They still have 11 carrier groups that would pay merry hell with the amphibious ships that China would have to use to invade Taiwan. If they successfully cut that supply line then the invasion of Taiwan fails and the Chinese know it. That fact has not been changed by the events of the last 10 days.

Economically China's progression towards replacing the US as the largest economy has slowed to a crawl. It could speed up again, particularly if they gain more influence in the Middle East, but we probably will not see that happen for the foreseeable future and there are just too many variables at play to conclude it will happen at this point. I personally believe it will but that is just my gut talking. I have no solid evidence to back it up and at any rate I also do not believe it will happen soon. 

So the US is going to come out of this war more diminished than it already was when it started the war. We are going to see some shifting of influence and alliances away from the US in the Middle East but they will not come out so diminished that either Russia or China will be in a position to take real advantage of that. The great power struggle that we have been seeing for the last few years will continue without any resolution, one way or another, for the foreseeable future.

They Really Are That Stupid

I have been trying to wrap my head around the events in the Persian Gulf for a week. Really, no one has seen this kind of thing before. Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to convince successive American presidents to attack Iran for decades but none of them have been stupid enough to do so. They realized that attacking and militarily defeating a country the size of Western Europe, with a population of around 90 million people is a virtually impossible task. Then Mr. Netanyahu met Donald Trump and all of that changed. Some are asserting that the Israeli PM has some Epstein dirt on Donald Trump but I do not believe that. I think Donald Trump is just that stupid. In all likelihood PM Netanyahu appealed to Donald Trump's narcissisms and the rest is history.

The other piece of stupidity is the Israeli PM's belief that they could have ended this war in a few hours by taking out the Iranian Supreme Leader. That man was 86 years old. The plan to succeed him was well established. I stated in a post in June, during the first attack on Iran by Israel, that Israel just seems to underestimate Iran, its leadership, its will to fight and its people. At this point it is almost looking pathological.

So how does this end? Damned if I know.

Here are a few things we do know:

• The US and the Israelis have a limited number of interceptor missiles. They are already showing signs that they are running low.
• The US and Israel have a massive number of offensive ordinance but even that is finite and not quickly replaced. The consensus I see from some of the experts is they have between two to six weeks of ammunition left
• It is unknown the exact number of missiles and drones the Iranians have, which should have stopped any notion of attacking them from the beginning. Like last June this war is going to come down to who runs our of ammo first. The people who planned this war should have taking that into account.
• The Strait of Hormuz is closed and the international insurance industry will make certain it stays that way until the war ends and there are assurances that ships will once again be able to go through it without being threatened with being attacked.
• Energy prices are increasing and that will be the X-factor going forward. 
• Iran is taking a beating but so are the US bases in the Gulf and Israel. 

The American and Israeli current strategy (Their strategy seems to change on a daily basis) seems to be to level Iranian cities as quickly as they can. The Iranians seem to have the same approach but they have decided that this is going to be a marathon instead of a sprint so they are moving slower. Some have argued that this is a sign of them running out of ammunition, and that could be true but it is just as possible that this is all part of the plan. After all, if your strategy was to use ballistic missiles and drones against your enemies, and those enemies have a supply of anti-missile missiles, then you would work to deplete that supply before launching the real weight of your attack. That is what I would do and I am just some guy tapping away on a keyboard in Canada. I am certain if I could figure this out someone who makes a living developing military strategy could also figure it out.

Long-term what will happen? That depends on how this all ends but here are some possibilities.

If the Iranians do not suffer a strategic defeat, and it is possible they will suffer such a defeat, then they will survive and develop nuclear weapons before the end of the decade. They do not need many. Their principle enemy is Israel, which could be destroyed as a functioning state by three to five 100 kt warheads. So Iran would only need 50, assuming as hit rate of 10%, to destroy Israel. They will probably announce they have them by 2030 and the power dynamic in the Middle East will change forever.

Israel is not going to come out of this war in a good place. Just the shear amount of destruction to its cities and military, political and social infrastructure will require huge amounts of money and resources to repair. Before this war many Americans were coming to realize the oversized influence Israel has on its politics, and not liking it, and that is probably only going to become worse. That could preclude them from providing all of the aid Israel will need to rebuild as quickly as they would need to. As well, there is a chance that Israel will actually suffer a strategic loss in this war, probably equal to the chance of Iran suffering such a loss, in which case Israel could go through an existential crisis.

As for the US, that is more complicated and deserves its own post, which I will publish in the coming days.

Different Approaches to Canada/US Relations, Part 2

Pierre Poilievre gave a major foreign policy speech last week and it demonstrates perfectly the two approaches that I described in my previous post. 

Quickly, the two approaches are: Work with the Americans but push to maintain our sovereignty and distinctiveness or take a more "subordinate" approach to the US, generally following their lead with less concern about sovereignty and distinctiveness. For decades the Canadian approach to US relations has been a mix of these two approaches with the Liberals tending to favour the first approach and the Conservatives tending to favour the second.

Mr. Poilievre's speech was very critical of Donald Trumps words and actions towards Canada and it had several themes and ideas that were similar if not identical to those expressed by the PM at Davos. However, where the PM stressed the need for Canada and other middle powers to work together to navigate the post-American world Mr. Poilievre maintained that Canada should work harder to strengthen ties with the US. A perfect contrast.

I stated in my previous post that the PM gave a rather extreme speech in Davos. He said a great deal out loud that many foreign policy experts and professionals have been saying behind closed doors for decades. That is, and I am paraphrasing, the international system is an anarchic system where whether the rules apply to a certain country is a function of its relative power in the world and that Canada and other middle powers need to begin make decisions with that in mind instead of hoping what rules that do exist will protect them from those bigger powers.

Pierre Poilievre seems to disagree with that assertion, or if he does agree his solution is not to work with other middle powers but to tuck Canada even further under the US's protective wing. As I stated in my previous post, considering the current US policies and goals of the administration and the fact that Donald Trump disappearing from the scene would probably not see changes in all of those policies and goals would mean that any government looking to improve relations with the US would also have to go to extremes to do so. What that looks like is anybody's guess, which is one reason why Mr. Poilievre did not go into details.

Mr. Trump wants to make Canada a part of the US or at least a vassal state, taking orders from Washington. His history has proven that he does not compromise so it would be an all or nothing proposition for him. The Trump administration is using several economic tools in his attempt to make that happen and it is still a question of how much would a Conservative government go to appease the President.

Personally, I really do not want to find out.

Different Approaches to US/Canada Relations

I, like many, watched Mark Carney's speech in Davos. I am not going to address the specifics of his speech but I am going to attempt to put it into a broader context.

Many believe that it was just a rebuke of Donald Trump, which it certainly was, but it was much more than that. It was a very articulate and rather extreme expression of one of the two approaches that have dominated Canada's relations with the United States for decades.

The first approach is the one PM Carney expressed rather forcefully. That is, the United States is our neighbour and our friend but they are so large there is an ever present threat that they will swallow Canada just by its very existence. Therefore, there needs to be a constant effort to push back on that to maintain our sovereignty and our distinctiveness.

The second approach is to be somewhat more subordinate to the United States. They are the dominant country on the planet, financially, militarily and culturally, so trying to fight that is futile and besides making us more like them can only be beneficial to Canada and its people.

Of course, that is a simplification of the complex interplay between the two approaches. No government has ever chosen to follow one approach over the other but all governments have chosen to give one more weight in their dealings with the US.

The Liberals tend to choose the first approach. Think of PM Pierre Trudeau and his much more conciliatory approach to relations with the Soviet Union and Communist China of the 1970s and 80s. Think of Jean Chretien telling George W. Bush that Canada would not participate in the second invasion of Iraq in 2003. 

The Conservatives tend to favour the second approach. Think of the Diefenbaker government giving into pressure from the Kennedy Administration to scrap the Avro Arrow and buy the Bomarc Missiles, missiles that were obsolete before we bought them. Think of the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement or think of the trial balloons, from both Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, of adopting a common currency with the US. Only to see both never to mention that idea again when those balloons were shot down by Canadians with extreme prejudice.

Again, that is not to say they exclusively follow these approaches. The Chretien government negotiated the NAFTA and sent troops to Afghanistan after 9/11. The Mulroney government took the lead in negotiating the treaty that banned CFCs and they took the lead in the efforts to bring down Apartheid in South Africa, breaking with the Reagan Administration in both cases.

So Mark Carney's speech was just another example of the first approach and it was consistent with the Liberal's preferred approach to Canada/US relations. What was remarkable about it was how extreme of an example it was of that approach. As someone who has followed Canadian foreign policy for over four decades I was shocked by that speech, not because what he said was wrong but because I never believed a Canadian PM would articulate such a position in public.

Then again, Donald Trump, and his actions towards Canada, has created the conditions where the Canadian government would have to go to extremes to defend our sovereignty. The corollary to that is if we were being governed by the Conservatives they would probably have to go to extremes in their preferred approach.

That prospect scares the hell out of me as I have always preferred the first approach. This is not a partisan dig at the Conservatives by the way. I have always appreciated that governments of every stripe have balanced the two approaches in such a way that we have had decades of peace and prosperity with our southern neighbours. I have often disagreed with specific policies and decisions but overall I have been satisfied with how governments have handled the Canada/US relations.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump has eliminated the balanced approach as an option. He demands complete subordination from Canada, either as the 51st or a vassal state so we are left with having to choose a single approach. Therefore we either have to push back on that hard, as PM Carney is doing, or we have to give in to his demands. I am glad that PM Carney has chosen the approach he has chosen.

Well the Canadian Auto Industry Is Not Up to the Task

In a previous post I asked if the Canadian business class was up to the task of taking advantage of all of the new opportunities being presented by Mark Carney's efforts to expand and diversify markets for Canadian goods and services. I expressed doubt they would be and it would appear I am correct with regard to the Canadian auto industry.

My reasoning is they are beginning to make noise about having the government eliminate or at least delay the requirement to eliminate the sales of gas powered cars by 2035. That requirement has been in the books for over a decade and the Trudeau government gave the industry a couple of decades to meet it.

Those calls have become a little more louder with the Americans eliminating a large number of green house gas emissions requirements in the US, including measures that impact the US auto industry.

The reasoning I have heard is that with the US eliminating the requirement Canada no longer needs them and that pretty much sums up my distain for the Canadian business class.

As usual, they are falling on the old habit of depending on the US market for their business even though the actions of the Trump Administration is disintegrating the North American auto industry. They just cannot help themselves. The evidence is mounting, almost daily, that the US market is no longer a reliable one and will become increasingly unreliable as time goes on. As well, even if Donald Trump were to drop dead today it would not change much because his ideas about tariffs have been embraced by MAGA and will not go away quietly even after he is gone.

Therefore, if the Canadian auto industry wants to continue to be a viable industry they are going to have to expand their access to markets in Europe and Asia. The problem is those countries are toughening environmental requirements, not loosening them. So if the Canadian auto industry fails to meet those requirements they will not be able to sell their cars in those markets. They will be frozen out on environmental grounds. To be clear these will not be tariffs they will be bans on Canadian made automobiles on environmental grounds, i.e. no sales at all.

So the Canadian auto sector should be looking to accelerate their efforts to replace the sale of gas powered cars, not asking the government to loosen requirements. 

It is almost a state of nature that governments trail behind private businesses. There are many examples of that. However, we are seeing an exception. The Canadian government has embarked on a quest to completely change who Canadians can sell their goods and services to and our industry appears to be oblivious to this, falling back onto old but increasingly nonviable habits. 

It is both sad and infuriating.