Andrew Coyne – David Akin’s On The Hill

This ad — which the Conservative Party of Canada aired on TV during the 2006 election in a successful attempt to unseat Liberal prime minister Paul Martin — still makes me laugh. Beep Beep! See? You’re smiling, aren’t you?

After all, I’m a sophisticated Media Elite and the production values alone on this ad are enough to make one roll one’s eyes, followed by a condescending chuckle. And don’t get me started on the candidate’s hair! Why it looks like it was done in a hair salon in Wadena! (Media Elites will all get that joke; I’m so sorry you won’t).

And, I must say, as a Media Elite, I laughed at a lot of things Paul Wells had to say about today’s throne speech. Not only, in my estimation, was he right in his assessment of today’s Speech from the Throne, he was witty and right. That’s not easy to do, folks. And since I’ve got over feeling jealous that I didn’t write what he did, I’m now happy to quote from this piece: “In April, 2006, after the Harper Conservatives first formed a government, they made a great show of delivering one of the shortest Throne Speeches in modern times: 2,445 words, the equivalent of a mere three Jeffrey Simpson columns.” (Again: Apologies for including a joke intended largely only for Media Elites who still read Simpson.) That’s just the second sentence of Paul’s piece but I’m sure a sly grin had already spread across Paul’s face at that point as he warmed up to his topic. And, of course, I realize I shouldn’t giggle. Simpson and I once got paycheques from the same paymaster. The Media Elite world is a small one. But still. Continue reading For Media Elites Only: Are we sure we're right to laugh at that Throne Speech?

There is much in Andrew Coyne’s latest column to commend. For example,

Liberals, do not delude yourselves. You are not, whatever you may say to each other, electing “the next prime minister of Canada” here. If your checklist for assessing the candidates includes “ability to win the next election,” strike it now.

And then he develops the thesis:

… you are not choosing a prime minister, and if you allow considerations of that kind to cloud your judgement, you are unlikely to choose well. Rather, you are choosing a leader for a third party. And in that role it is quite possible to see any one of a number of the candidates. I say this with the greatest respect, for there is nothing wrong with being the third party. Get used to thinking of yourselves as one, and you can do much good, both for your party and your country.

Put it this way: that is your only chance of survival — as a forceful, effective third party, the kind that inspires a determined, loyal following. Harden up the brand, persuade even 20% of the electorate that you are their party through and through, and you can build towards the day when you might contend for power once again. Neglect that task, and you will be eaten alive by the other two parties.

Put your third-party status to work for you. See it for the advantage it is: for it frees you to take risks that those closer to power will not.

I tend to agree with this and, as Coyne has primed my cranial pump, let me gush forth some more:

Continue reading Liberals: You're electing a "third party" leader – and there's nothing wrong with that