O'Leary's Out

Kevin O'Leary has dropped out of the Conservative leadership race because, he says, he can't get support in Quebec. That was obvious on the day he announced his candidacy. Even though he was born in Montreal, he never lived outside Quebec's Anglophone bubble. But, Paul Wells writes, there is another reason why O'Leary's candidacy failed:

The lesson, which a lot of people seem slow to learn, is that conspicuous success over here does not constitute any kind of guarantee over there. Politics is its own set of skills and challenges. If you can’t speak in a way that inspires at least part of your audience, if you can’t make others want to give their time and energy, if you can’t make hard choices, stand withering abuse, organize your way out of a paper bag—if you can’t do politics, then politics doesn’t care what you can do.

So where does O'Leary's departure leave the Conservatives? Still confused: 

Is Maxime Bernier now the heir-presumptive? Maybe. This would be a remarkable outcome: handing the party of Stephen Harper to a man who believes that, on the scale of what’s possible and needed to restrict the role of government in the nation’s life, Harper did nothing significant. If Harperism was about a partial rehabilitation of social conservatism on one hand, and a steely incrementalism on the other, Bernier rejects both hands. On social questions he’s a libertarian. On economic questions he has no interest in moving slowly.

If not Max, then who? Andrew Scheer (medium-right) and Erin O’Toole (rightish) have been fighting for the mantle of Harperite continuity. Each of their campaigns is sure they see a path to victory. The rest of the field is a mix of quirky gambles (maybe Conservatives want a carbon tax! Maybe Kellie Leitch isn’t a self-animated golem!), social conservative proof-of-concept candidacies, and tragically misfiring former ambassadors, whom I won’t name but, you know, Is-Chray Alexander-way.

They are a fractious bunch. But what are we to make of O'Leary's bid for power? Like Donald Trump's presidency, it was an ego trip. Unfortunately, Trump was elected. In O'Leary's case, Canadians dodged a bullet. 

Image:  Yahoo News Canada

O'Leary Doesn't Get It

Kevin O'Leary skipped the last Conservative leadership debate. Instead, he held his own event at a near by hotel. Brent Rathgeber writes that, more than anything else, O'Leary's no show shows that O'Leary is profoundly ignorant about how politics work:

O’Leary claims he boycotted the debate because the format, with all the candidates on stage at once, was unproductive and boring. The people I talked to in Edmonton weren’t buying it; they said O’Leary stayed away because it was a bilingual event and he didn’t want more exposure for his lousy French. (He needn’t have worried; apart from the moderator, very few people at the debate were actually speaking French, and those who were spoke it slowly enough so that even unhyphenated Anglos like me could follow it.)

Whatever his real reason, his decision to flout the rules and run his own event says volumes about O’Leary’s approach to politics. He’s a lone wolf — someone who’s used to getting his own way. He plays by his own rules and is prepared to ignore the ones he finds the least bit inconvenient. He’s already hinting that he might skip the last officially sanctioned debate if the format isn’t changed.

But the format isn’t the issue here — O’Leary’s attitude towards party politics is. Superficially, the worlds of politics and business have a few things in common. In both fields you need leadership skills and an ability to inspire people – and you won’t get far without a healthy sense of self-confidence. But when you own your own business, you can fly solo — making decisions on your own, taking the wishes of others into account only when they’re regulators, or customers.

That’s not how politics works. Canada may have fallen into the habit of letting its politics revolve around party leaders to an unhealthy degree, but politics here is still not a field in which you can freelance. Business leaders can surround themselves with loyal lieutenants. Party leaders and prime ministers are surrounded by ambitious rivals, braced to take over the minute they stumble.

Prime Ministers and presidents have to accomplish their goals by cooperating with a legislature. Donald Trump is just learning that. Obviously, Mr. O'Leary hasn't learned that.

He simply doesn't get it.

Image: You Tube

You Can't Believe A Word He Says

Kevin O'Leary has been making the occasional trip up from Boston in his bid to become Prime Minister of Canada. His sales pitch -- like Donald Trump's -- is that, as a business man, he knows how to get things done. Alan Freeman writes:

O’Leary’s Trump-esque bid to lead the Conservative party is based on selling his supposed business acumen. But as is the case with the U.S. president, O’Leary’s policies are largely incoherent and mostly based on ‘alternative facts’. In the end, it’s all about one thing and one thing only: Kevin O’Leary. And it’s a reminder that being successful in business (or the narcissism industry) really has nothing to do with your ability to run a government or lead a country.

Consider O'Leary's position on the federal government loan to Bombardier:

O’Leary has been on a rant about Bombardier for years, calling it “one of the most mismanaged aerospace companies in the world.” At another point, he said it was time to cut Bombardier off from any government assistance and allow it to “succeed on its own or fail on its own.”

Okay … so O’Leary is willing to sacrifice the 21,000 well-paid Canadian jobs at Canada’s largest investor in R&D. You can make a case for the idea of ending corporate welfare. But that’s not what O’Leary is talking about. In his latest Bombardier rant, posted this week on his Facebook feed, O’Leary says he understands why Ottawa would want to support Bombardier and adds that it’s important for the company’s customers to know their government backs the company.

The problem, says O’Leary, is that Justin Trudeau has “never done any deals.” O’Leary . . . has done lots. “No more stupid deals,” he bloviates. “I could negotiate that (Bombardier) deal in 24 hours.”

But is he really good at making deals?  Look at his record on Bombardier:

In November of 2015, during one of his periodic anti-Bombardier diatribes, he told an interviewer, “I wouldn’t touch that stock. It’s radioactive waste.” At the time, Bombardier shares were trading at about $1.25 apiece.

Five months later, the company landed a deal to sell up to 125 of its C-Series jetliners to Delta Airlines in a deal worth as much US$5.6 billion. If you had bought $10,000 worth of Bombardier shares when O’Leary was telling you not to, you would have doubled your money. Clearly, nobody ever told Kevin about buying low and selling high.

Donald Trump's record as a business man is pretty spotty. So is Kevin O'Leary's. And, like Trump, you can't believe a word he says.

Image: The Walrus

Mr. Wonderful?

Kevin O'Leary is in. But Brent Rathgeber isn't impressed by either O'Leary or his prospects:

The first few times I saw Kevin O’Leary harshly criticize a contestant, I thought it was so over the top that it had to be contrived. His affected viciousness repelled me; predictably, it also earned him a seat on the American copycat program Shark Tank. The American entertainment industry has a history of embracing the obnoxious.

There are those in the Conservative Party that are trying on Trump Lite for size:

We’ve already seen some of the worst aspects of the excruciating 2016 American presidential campaign migrate north. Kellie Leitch’s opportunistic proposal to screen potential immigrants for their embrace of ‘Canadian values’ is carefully nebulous, allowing it to send different messages to different people. Steven Blaney wants to revoke citizenship for terrorists and ban the niqab from the public service. Red meat for the anti-Muslim crowd.

Both Leitch and Blaney went after Maxime Bernier last night in Quebec City, before and during the French language debate, for campaigning to end corporate welfare after having handed out the pork as Stephen Harper’s industry minister. Leitch, the queen of the drive-by smear, quickly issued a press release calling Bernier a “liar and a fraud.”

But O'Leary sees himself as the Trump of the North -- a notion that Rathgeber doesn't think will fly:

I believe the Trump phenomenon was more an accident then the beginning of a trend. He’s the outcome of an unlikely collision between multiple factors: a deeply disillusioned electorate, fear of undocumented workers ‘stealing’ jobs, fear of terrorists — or anybody who looks like he might be one — and a very, very unpopular Democratic nominee. Take away any one of those factors, and Trump loses.

And the conditions that could permit the ascent of ‘Trump Lite’ simply don’t exist here. Undocumented Mexicans ‘stealing’ Canadian jobs? That’s not even a thing. Terrorism? Canada hasn’t been immune from terrorist attacks — but mass shootings are, thankfully, rare here. Stephen Harper tried to capitalize on islamophobia in 2015 but the barbaric cultural practices ‘snitch line’ and the war on the niqab were soundly rejected by the electorate.

Finally, there’s the obvious: Justin Trudeau is no Hillary Clinton. I may disagree with many of the current government’s policies, but Trudeau is young, hip, photogenic and (politics aside) personally very likeable. Moreover, Canadians already have had the opportunity to “drain the swamp” — and to some extent they did so in 2015.

Rathgeber is betting that Canadians will understand that Mr. Wonderful is not who he says he is.

Image: sharktankmrwonderful.blogspot.com

O'Leary

Kevin  O'Leary is muttering about entering the Conservative leadership race. Lisa Raitt is trying to head him off at the pass. She'll do us all a favour if she succeeds. Michael Harris writes:

Bottom line? O’Leary will flounder in the Smart Tank because he knows squat about Canada and is about as homegrown as a banana. He is a de facto American trying to rewrite the history of the War of 1812.  Instead of getting even for the burning of Washington, O’Leary merely wants to muck out Ottawa with a spatula, which is a strange implement of choice for a dragon, right? A tongue of flame, a swishing tail, raking claws, sure. But a spatula?

And why should O’Leary delay announcing his entry into the CPC leadership race until after the French-language debate just because he doesn’t speak French? Whenever his turn came to speak, he could just hold up his bank book and show Quebeckers the balance. In O’Leary’s world, money talks and bull roar perambulates. How else could he actually say that he understands what Quebecers want?

O'Leary went to English language private schools when he grew up in Quebec and then headed to the University of Waterloo. He lived his life entirely in the English Solitude. Like Stephen Harper, he believes he doesn't need support in Quebec to become prime minister.

But he needs Alberta. And consider what he says about that province:

Consider his rantings on behalf of the Corporate Kleptocracy against Rachel Notley. The Alberta premier is to blame for Alberta’s skyrocketing unemployment rate, the plummeting dollar, and yes, Calgary’s loss in the Grey Cup.

Not a word about Conservative politicians in Alberta who let foreign multinationals cash in on the tar sands with pathetically low royalty rates (compare Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund to Alberta’s), and who never thought to diversify the provincial economy against the day when the oil wealth would be gone. Forty years of never asking the “what if” question.

O’Leary’s answer to Notley’s alleged screw ups – even more spineless concessions to the oil patch. On new oil and gas production capital expenditures, he wants to let the investor write off the entire investment in the year it occurred, and give a 36-month royalty “holiday” on any new capital investment. Increase the already gaudy returns for investors and all will be well.

Like his hero, Donald Trump, he's appallingly ignorant of the country he proposes to lead. Let's hope that Canadians -- and, more importantly, Conservatives  -- have learned something from recent events to our south.

Entertainment And Politics

So you think Canada would never elect a Donald Trump? Think again. Debra Van Brenk writes:

Conservative voters would be more more likely to choose outspoken TV personality Kevin O'Leary as their party leader among a field of seven declared and potential candidates for Stephen Harper's old job, a Forum Research poll suggests.

But among voters generally, not just those likely to vote Tory if an election were held today, former cabinet minister Peter MacKay leads the pack. 

All it would take would be a party of crazies -- people who are seething with resentment and not very bright -- to make it happen. And a culture that confuses entertainment and politics. Consider the field of potential Conservative leaders:

Forum asked more than 1,500 randomly-chosen adult Canadians who would be the best Conservative leader from among a field of seven that includes party stalwart Jason Kenney, the already-declared Maxime Bernier, interim party leader Rona Ambrose and former cabinet ministers Lisa Raitt and Kelly Leitch, the latter of which was a children's orthopedic surgeon in London before entering federal poltiics.

 O'Leary is as prepared as Trump to change his positions:

And just as Donald Trump's actual political leanings confound some in the U.S. Republican party, O'Leary's take on politics has to be decidedly unsettling to established Conservative candidates. O'Leary has said his main aim is advocating for tax-paying Canadians and he hasn't even ruled out running for the Liberals for the next election.

Something to think about.

Image: kevinoleary.com

Forcing The Decision

                                                        http://www.cbc.ca/

There has been a lot of chatter recently about whether or not Kevin O'Leary should make a bid for the leadership of the Conservative Party. Linda McQuaig thinks it's a good idea -- because it would put inequality squarely on the Canadian political map:

What perhaps distinguishes O’Leary from Rob Ford, Stephen Harper and Tim Hudak is the sheer openness with which he advocates greed and making Canada safe for billionaires.

Ironically, if O’Leary enters the federal Conservative leadership race, his candidacy could shine light on inequality and the emergence of a class of billionaires in Canada — although not likely in the way the bombastic businessman wants.

The number of billionaires in this country has risen more rapidly than the average Canadian salary:

In 1999, Canadian Business magazine reported 31 billionaires in Canada (in inflation-adjusted dollars). By 2015, only a decade and a half later, the number of billionaires here had almost tripled to 89, according to the magazine.

South of the border, U.S. Democratic contender Bernie Sanders is surging in the polls as he denounces the wealth and power of billionaires. Meanwhile, in Canada, the subject of concentrated wealth and excessive corporate power is rarely mentioned in political debate.

Certainly there’s no talk of taxing it or reining it in.

And that kind of talk should be taking place -- particularly as the deadline for sign the Trans Pacific Partnership looms. But domestically there is good reason to raises taxes on billionaires:

Canada could certainly use the extra revenue. The right argues that raising taxes on the very rich wouldn’t make much of a difference. But it would. Even the $3 billion extra in corporate taxes advocated by the NDP would have gone a long way toward paying for a national child-care program or reducing homelessness across the country.

Just as important, higher taxes would help curb the political power of the corporate elite, which effectively holds veto power over our economic policies, undermining our democracy.

The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted: “We can have democracy … or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both.”

Brandeis was right. We can't have both. O'Leary could force us to make a decision. 

Mutually Exclusive

                                                    
This week, Kevin O'Leary offered to invest a million dollars in Alberta if Rachel Notley would resign. Michael Harris writes:

In offering to give Alberta’s premier a million dollar investment in the oilpatch in return for her resignation, O’Leary declared both what he and his class stand for — and, more importantly, what they think of democracy.

What they stand for is the greedy, reflexive urge to run everything to the financial advantage of the one per cent. As for society at large — and especially for those who wonder why there’s so much month left at the end of their money — a Great White shark has more social conscience than O’Leary and his ilk.

O'Leary blames Notley for a mess Conservative blowhards, like himself, created:

In fact, all of Alberta’s fundamental problems were created over decades of PC leadership by a bunch of self-styled market messiahs who gave away most of the treasure of the tar sands to foreign corporations — while severely under-taxing them. They virtually ignored the people’s stake in their own energy resources, while fouling other, more precious public commodities, like fresh water.

Nor did these oil-junkies, who passed themselves off as solid fiscal managers, ever ask the most basic “what if” questions about their economic stewardship of non-renewables.

What if cheaper alternatives to tar sands oil could be found — like improved solar? What if new oil and gas supplies were to be discovered in the U.S. using new technologies — like fracking? What if the Saudis drove down the world price of oil to preserve their market share from the threat of plentiful but more expensive crude?

There was another alternative:

Knowing how much Kevin likes numbers, here are a few for him to chew on. Both Norway and Alberta have sovereign wealth funds from sales of their non-renewable energy resources. Norway’s fund — the largest in the world — holds over a trillion dollars. In Alberta, the fund was valued at $17.9 billion in 2014. Chump change.

The main difference between the two approaches and their staggeringly different outcomes is that Norway taxed oil companies at a rate that expressed the public ownership of the resource. Oslo also salted away 100 per cent of the government’s share of revenues from North Sea oil.

Mr. O'Leary and his ilk like to think they're the smartest guys in the room. That conclusion is based on the false premise that wealth is a sign of intelligence. Obviously, the two can be mutually exclusive.

Image: quotesgram.com