VIDEOS: Brits don't Truss cuckservative/CINO Prime Ministers

Greetings to our readers in the Disunited Kingdom, where his Britannic Majesty, King Charles, the Third of that name, will shortly receive the formal resignation of Liz Truss, the "Conservative" (read: CINO) Prime Minister who announced her resignation today, after just 45 days in office. Here's what she told the meeja just a day previous to throwing in the towel.

  

Following the presser, Ms Truss held a hastily arranged meeting in her office with Graham Brady, a senior Conservative lawmaker who oversees leadership challenges. Mr Brady was tasked with assessing whether the prime minister still has the support of Tory members of Parliament.. and found, to no-one's surprise, that she did not.

A growing number of lawmakers -- not just opposition members but MPs in Ms Truss's own so-called Conservative Party -- had called for the Prime Minister's resignation after weeks of turmoil sparked by her ill-conceived economic plan, which scared hell out of economists, the stock market, investors and everyone else. Even President Brandon said he didn't think it was a good idea, but quickly added it wasn't any of his business.

Following last month's unveiling of the plan, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng [a diversity hire? Ed.] was fired. Several 90- and 180-degree turns later, the policy was abandoned, but the damage had been done. Discipline within the Cuckservative Party broke down completely.

Walt notes with satisfaction that it was not bunny-brained economic policy alone that brought Liz Truss low. She reportedly had a 90-minute shouting match with Suella Braverman -- a woman of colour -- over, of all things, immigration. 

During the campaign to replace Boris "Bozo" Johnson, Ms Braverman was seen by grass-roots conservative Conservatives as their candidate, the one who would at last tackle illegal immigration, as the party had promised to do during the 2019 election campaign. Alas, Ms Braverman was not allowed to reach the final runoff. As a soop to the social conservatives, Prime Minister Truss named her Home Secretary, responsible for policing, national security and immigration in government. 

Unlike her predecessor (also a WOC), Ms Braverman continued to push immigration control in word and deed, leading to significant tensions with Ms Truss, who was not especially interested in it. Quite the contrary, during her push to become the next PM, Ms Truss advocated more immigration, as "needed for economic growth" -- the line being pushed by Messrs Brandon, Trudeau et al.

So, being against the open borders agenda, Ms Braverman had to go. Officially, she was made to resign as Home Secretary for sending a fellow Tory MP an email in which she wrote "Why are we trying to appease the OBR? Is everything getting thrown out the window?"

The unelected Office for Budget Responsibility, very much part of the liberal establishment, considers immigration-driven increases in GDP to be ipso facto a good thing. Ms Braverman called liberalizing immigration policy in defence to rulings by  the European Court of Human Rights "a betrayal of the 2019 electorate."

Today, the London markets are in turmoil, as is the Conservative Party and Not-so-great Britain herself. Such is the level to which things have sunk that it is reported -- breaking news as I write -- that Bojo has cut short a European vacation to return (he thinks) to 10 Downing Street. What a gong how! Or perhaps a Muppet Show? 

Populist conservative woman to lead Alberta further to the right

Earlier this week, I told you we don't normally discuss regional/local politics. Monday's Québec election had significance beyond the borders of la Belle Province, so we made an exception. We do so again for last night's election of Danielle Smith as the new leader of Alberta's so-called United Conservative Party, and thus the new premier of Canada's most America-like province.

Alberta is Canada's version of Texas, complete with flatlands, hoodoos, rodeos, cowboys and Indians. [Plus 1000s of Ukrainians! Ed.] Like Texas, Alberta's wealth comes in petro-dollars. People proudly drive gaz-guzzling pickups and SUVs. And they dislike the eastern elites and the federal government, especially when the two are combined in a nether orifice named Trudeau.

From 1935 to 2015, Alberta was governed by conservative parties, sometimes named Social Credit, sometimes Conservative. About 15 years ago, the Conservatives started fighting amongst themselves -- as conservatives do all too often -- about who was the more conservative, and a number of splinter parties were born, including the Wildrose Party (the wildrose is Alberta's provincial flower), whom Danielle Smith ran in 2009. She rejoined the Conservative Party in 2014.

A year later, against a divided -- right and righter -- opposition the "social democratic" (read: pinko) NDP took power, under Rachel Nutley, Alberta's first female premier. In response, a confirmed bachelor named Jason Kenney, who had been a minister in Steve Harpoon's Conservative federal government, succeeded in uniting the right in a new(ish) United Conservative Party, which defeated the NDP in the 2019 election.

Alas for Mr Kenney, the UCP didn't stay united very long. Mr Kenney was seen by many for what he was -- a member of that same eastern elite. When he went along with the Trudeau government's vaccine mandates and other measures to curtail individual freedom, and failed to stand up to the Liberals' attacks on the oil and gas industry, Albertans decided they'd had enough. 

Mr Kenney resigned the leadership of the UCP this past May after receiving only 51.4% in a leadership review vote, thus setting the stage for yesterday's election. 

Danielle Smith won a fiercely-fought contest on the strength of her promise to enact an Alberta Sovereignty Act, which would allow the Alberta government to not enforce federal laws. 

Mr Kenney called the idea "nuts". The proposed act is likely unconstitutional, but it's the kind of thing that Albertans, whose grievances are valid and run deep, want their leaders to do.

It would be the legislative equivalent of the now-ubiquitous "Fuck Trudeau!" flags seen across the real Canada, outside the immigrant cities of Vancouver, Montréal and (above all) Toronto.

One can argue that Mr Socks' Liberals are not to blame for the initial crash of the oil economy, which started before they took office. However, they have worked, and are still working almost single-mindedly to undermine any recovery.

They started with the cancellation of the Northern Gateway pipeline, then introduced several anti-energy policies, including Bill C-69, which makes approving resource projects more cumbersome, a tanker ban off British Columbia;s northern coast and the hated carbon tax. 

The result has been a significant decline in the fortunes of average Albertans. Any successful Alberta politician understands what has happened in Wildrose Country, and why. The Liberals and socialists are whistling past the graveyard when they mock the more hard-edged elements of Danielle Smith's message. A slightly more moderate version of her campaign will almost certainly resonate with large numbers of  voters in the next Alberta election, due on or before 29 May 2023. The Conservative Party of Canada, under its new leader, Pierre Poilievre, will be taking notes.

VIDEO: Pierre Poilievre talks about old wood (???) - a message for freedom-loving conservatives everywhere

For those readers, especially Americans, who don't follow Canadian politics [Why would they? Ed.], let me bring you up to speed. By comparison with the Excited States, Canada is a pretty laid-back... or just plain dull... country. And Canucks like it that way. They generally elect governments which are either slightly to the left or (occasionally) slightly to the right of centre. There hasn't been a really conservative Conservative federal government since Adam was a little boy.

It has therefore come as a shock to the liberal Laurentian establishment that someone who sounds like a conservaative-cum-populist, in the mould of Donald Trump, looks like becoming the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, and, quite possibly, the next prime minister of Canuckistan.

That someone is Pierre Poilievre, about whom I've written before. Mr Poilievre is not truly a social conservative like Leslyn Lewis, the dark horse on the right. He has refused to grasp the nettles of the abortion, gay "marriage" and critical race theory issues. See "More on Poilievre and Lewis + Brown", WWW 2/5/22.

He has, however, championed the cause of freedom from Big Government, associating himself with the leaders of last winter's Freedom Convoy, and condemning Emperor Justin's use of emergency powers to impose vaccine and other mandates on the Canadian sheeple.

In so doing, he distances himself from Jean Charest -- the last of the Red Tories -- and Patrick Brown, the puppet of the World Sikh Organization of Canada. [The link is for those who think Walt is making this up. Ed.] This week the CPC disqualified Mr Brown for violating was campaign rules and (possibly) the Elections Act. 

That leaves John James Charest (his real name) as the only serious (?) candidate of the old "Conservative" establishment, with the likely outcome of September's vote being the coronation of Lucky Pierre. But M Poilievre isn't taking a landslide win for granted. His team has just released a clever and skillfully made video, in which he waxes poetic over some old planks. What does this have to do with conservative values? Check it out.  

 

For those who didn't or couldn't watch the video, here's a synopsis. Mr Poilievre at home in Ottawa admiring a wooden post he recovered from an old barn and used in a DIY project. Early lumberjacks hewed it from logs, he says, leaving the scars of their axes as evidence of their labour. Then he turns to the planks on the wall. He bought them from a farmer, and spent hours cleaning and restoring them. 

Why? Because they tell a story about the people who fashioned them and the elements that weathered them. All he did, he says, was to reclaim what was already there in the wood. And reclaiming Canadians' lost freedom is what his campaign is about. That's his message.

Liberals, he explains, have been trying to build a kind of utopia, knocking down statues, sweeping away history and banning words as they go. This is nothing but a pretext to give themselves "vast new powers," which they've been trying to do all through the past seven years of Liberal government.

"Reclaim your life," he concludes. "Reclaim your freedom!" That's a powerful message -- a challenge which ought to resonate with not just the sheeplike Canucks, but with Americans, Britons and lovers of freedom throughout the western world. Walt says, "Right on!"

An alternative to mass immigration?

Note from Ed.: This is for our Canadian readers, although we know many of our American (and Australian and British and French etc etc) would welcome this kind of initiative in their own countries. 

A poll by the well-known (and non-partisan!) Angus Reid Institute, published on the CityNews website six months ago, showed that a plurality of Canadians would like less immigration. 

The Liberal government of Prime Minister Blackie McBlackface plans to accept more than 400,000 newcomers in 2022. While there is some divide based on political stripes, 39% of those polled say the target is too high. A little more than a third believe that 411,000 is a good number and 13 per cent say Canada should welcome more people looking to immigrate. 

More people who voted NDP and Liberal in the past -- 43% and 47% respectively -- believed that Canada's target was appropriate. Residents of Alberta and Saskatchewan -- 50% and 54% -- were more likely to say the target should be scaled back. 

This opinion was also more common among people who've voted for Conservative in the past, 64% of whom disagreed with the target. Less than a quarter who voted Tory previously supported the Liberal plan to admit hundreds of thousands of new Liberal voters. 

Yet in the fall election, Erin O'Tool's CINO (Conservative In Name Only) Party did not raise, let alone oppose, the immigration issue. The only party to call for fewer (and better!) immigrants was Maxime Bernier's People's Party of Canada. See "Reducing Overall Levels and Prioritizing Skilled Immigrants", in the "Platform" pages of the PPC website.

Dear Canadian reader: If you would like to address the issue of mass immigration of people who cannot and will not be assimilated into Canadian society, consider joining Opportunities for Canadians -- a coalition against anti-Canadian bias in employment. Tell `em Walt sent ya!

Canada's fake "Conservatives" admit liberal policies cost them votes which went to Max Bernier's People's Party of Canada

When will conservatives ever learn that you can't win elections by trying to beat liberals at their own game, when millions of voters want real conservatives to run the country?

I didn't use capital letters there because the lesson is one that needs to be learned by politicians in all countries, not just Canada's "Conservatives", who, under the "leadership" of Erin O'Tool, managed to lose the September election that was theirs for the taking. How did they do it? By trying to be almost as liberal as the Liberals, led by Tofino Trudeau.

When it came to policies on the economy, carbon taxes, immigration and other things Canucks care about, there was essentially no difference between the Liberal platform -- "Vote for more of the same!" -- and that of the "Conservatives" -- "Vote for more of the same, only with a blue tie instead of red!"

Canadian voters, millions of `em, wanted a real choice, and so -- as predicted here (lifetime pct .991) -- conservative voters jumped to Max Bernier's People's Party of Canada.

Throughout the campaign, the Conservatives pooh-poohed my (and others') suggestion that O'Tool's pivot to the left would drive people to the PPC. Perhaps they were lulled into a false sense of security by the controlled media's deplatforming of "Mad Max". But they were wrong! As Nelson Muntz would say, HA-ha!

Even on the night of the election, as one Tory candidate after another lost to a Gliberal by a few hundred votes, Conservative "strategists" remained unconvinced of the "threat from the right". After all, the PPC didn't win any seats, not even M Bernier's own.

It didn't take long though, for the vote tallies to reveal that, indeed, the Conservatives could have won, but for the impact of the much increased support for the People's Party. As reported here not two days later, an analysis by former Conservative MP Inky Mark showed that no fewer than 22 seats were won by the Libs (or the even more pinkish NDP) by less than the number of votes cast for the PPC!

Now, a month after the Conservatives snatched defeat from the jaws of victory [Did you make that up? Ed.], the former MP leading the review into the party's election performance says it will examine how the Tories lost votes to the People's Party. How about that....

The Globe and Mail reports that James Cumming, an Alberta representative who lost his seat to the Liberals’ Randy Boissonnault, says he will begin reaching out to candidates and campaign teams this week. Mr O'Tool asked Mr Cumming to review the party's campaign after it was defeated by the Liberals and won two fewer seats than it did in the 2019 federal vote. 

In addition to probing his party's campaign strategy, its ground game and the data it used, etc, Mr Cumming says he will be looking at the role the PPC played in their failure to defeat Mr Socks. "Anywhere that we've had bleed of vote," said Mr Cumming, "I think that that's important that we study and understand what the factors were, so the PPC would represent some of that."

What's to study? Millions of Canadian voters, from coast to coast to coast (as the saying does) wanted a real conservatives, not "red Tories", to represent them in Parliament and halt the disintegration of the Great No-longer-white North. That's not so hard to understand... unless you're the leader of the "Conservative" Party.

Further reading: "How Erin O’Toole Has Walked The CPC Into A Trap" by Spencer Fernando, 5/10/21.

Canadian election: Impact of the People's Party of Canada

In yesterday's analysis of the pointless and inconclusive Canadian election, I wrote (in the first footnote) that Maxime Bernier's People's Party of Canada had drawn enough votes away from the so-called Conservative Party to cause them to lost "seven or eight" ridings.

A former Conservative Member of Parliament with the improbable name of Inky Mark has done a more careful analysis, and finds that the actual number of seats the Cons could have won, had they had the votes cast for the PPC, is... wait for it... 22! Here's his list.

That should provide some food for thought for "Conservative" strategists when they conduct their review of leader pro tem  Erin O'Tool's clever (?) plan to make the CPC resemble the Gliberals in all but name (and party colour, of course).

Footnote: As of this morning, there are 17 ridings in which the result of in-person voting is close enough that the mail-in ballots could overturn the provisional result. I'll post the final seat count after the Liberal appointees at Elections Canada get through manipulating it, but if you bet Blackie McBlackface would lose... pay up!

Further reading: "The Problem With Canada", by David Solway on PJ Media, 22/9/21.

VIDEO: Is there any hope for conservatives in Canada? Max Bernier

As reported here a few days ago, Canada's so-called Conservative Party elected a new leader to replace the hapless Andrew Scheep. The one who now holds the poisoned chalice in his hand is Erin O'Toole. Some Canuck cuckservatives applauded -- quietly -- because (they said), at least he wasn't the establishment candidate, the Red Tory Peter McHackey. But real conservatives withheld their approval because their choice, Derek "Conservative Without Apology" Sloan, finished fourth in a field of four.

The result is discouraging for real conservatives. The Canadian Conservative Party is CINO -- Conservative In Name Only -- in reality a party of the centre, differing only slightly from the Liberals of Prime Minister Blacky McBlackface. That is not just my opinion but that of the runner-up in the previous Conservative leadership race, Maxime "Mad Max" Bernier, who quit the Tories in disgust and founded the People's Party of Canada.

Walt has a lot of time for Maxime Bernier. I call him "Mad Max" not because he's crazy, but because he's mad at the so-called Conservatives, and rightly so. You can read his scathing comments on Mr O'Toole and his faux conservatism in our previous post. Yesterday he joined The Andrew Lawton Show to respond to talk about the state of conservatism in Canada and the future of the PPC. Here's the video.

The real Erin O'Toole

Earlier today Walt told you how, after a truly painful exercise in voting by mail, Erin O'Toole came to be the leader of Canada's so-called Conservative Party. It may be remembered that in 2017 Mr O'Toole finished third in the leadership contested won by Andrew Scheer. The runner-up, by just 60 votes, was Maxime Bernier, who left in a huff [or a minute-and-a-huff? Ed.] to found the People's Party in Canada.

"Mad Max" said at the time that the Tories could not win under Mr Scheep's leadership, because they were offering policies which were no different than those of the Gliberals headed by Mr Socks. The choice, he sasid, was "Liberal or Liberal-Lite". He was right, and many Conservatives (except for some dairy farmers) wished in 2019 that M Bernier had been their leader, instead of languishing in right field.

Now the Tories have a new leader who, as Walt told you, could almost be a clone of Mr Scheer -- just another middle-aged white man of European descent, with a big white wife and two perfect children, like "the Happy Hydro family" from 1950s advertising. The only noticeable difference between Mr Scheer and Mr O'Toole is that the latter will need lots more French lessons to be able to hold his own with Mr Socks on the debate platform.

Will Mr O'Toole, who made a not-so-subtle pitch to the social conservatives in his campaign but is really a creature of the "radical centre", push the Conservative Party into anything like a conservative position on the issues of the day, both financial and social? M Bernier thinks not. He has sent us this statement of his views on Mr O'Toole and the state of conservatism in Canada today.

Two years ago, I resigned from the Conservative Party of Canada and decided to launch a new, principled, and genuinely conservative party, the People's Party of Canada. I am more convinced than ever that I made the right decision.

I said at the time that under Andrew Scheer's leadership, the Conservative Party had become too morally and intellectually corrupt to be reformed. Instead of articulating a coherent conservative vision, all he did was play identity politics, pander to ethnic and interest groups, and try to steal votes from the Liberals by proposing centre-left policies.

Andrew Scheer's leadership has proven itself to be an utter failure.

The party now has a new leader who will follow the same strategy. Erin O'Toole said early in this leadership campaign that Peter Mackay would turn the Conservative Party into the "Liberal-lite Party" if he wins. He was right. What O'Toole did not say is that he, as leader, will do the same thing.

O'Toole and Mackay are like two peas in a pod. They are both establishment, centrist, globalist Red Tories. The party's establishment wanted a Red Tory leader. They got one.

O'Toole ran as a typical Red Tory three years ago. Nobody remembers anything from his bland campaign. No bold proposal, nothing to distinguish him from the rest of the pack. That's the real Erin O'Toole.

This time he put on a "true blue" mask only for strategic reasons: to be the second choice of the less well-known candidates, Leslyn Lewis and Derek Sloan. But I have a message for the supporters of these candidates: Don't be fooled. He got what he wanted. The mask will fall now that he’s the leader. He will take your support for granted.

From now on, his main objective will be to steal centre-left votes from the Liberals. Not to advocate for real conservative principles and policies. He will revert to being the Red Tory he always was. Under O'Toole, the Conservative Party will continue advocating for policies barely distinguishable from those of the Trudeau Liberals on issues that are crucial for Canada’s future.

The vast majority of Conservatives want an end to the mass immigration policy of the Liberals. It won't happen under Erin O'Toole. He and the party’s establishment support mass immigration and official multiculturalism.

The People’s Party is the only party that will protect Canada's culture and identity. The only party that proposes a moratorium on immigration until the crisis is over and unemployment is down to normal levels. And then a return to much lower levels of immigration, with a focus on economic immigrants rather than family reunification. We are the only party that emphasizes the integration of immigrants into Canadian society rather than the cult of diversity.

The vast majority of Conservatives don't believe in climate alarmism and want an end to costly and inefficient green policies. Policies that have proven disastrous for Canada's energy sector. O'Toole will ignore them and instead court centre-left Liberal voters. He still wants to reach the unattainable Paris Accord targets. He says climate change "requires global solutions."

In his platform, he promises to focus "on making industry pay rather than taxing ordinary Canadians, by forging a national industrial regulatory and pricing regime across the country." Watch out. He will simply replace Trudeau’s carbon tax with other taxes, more green regulations and more subsidies.

Under the weak leadership of Andrew Scheer, the Conservatives said it would take at least five years to eliminate the $20-billion Liberal deficit of two years ago. Imagine that. Five years to cut $20 billion! How long will it take under Erin O'Toole, now that the deficit is $350 billion? 25 years? 50 years?

The vast majority of Conservatives want Canada first policies. They want a foreign policy that restores Canada's national sovereignty. They want to stop sending our money to other countries, while millions of Canadians lost their jobs and suffer. They want to kick the United Nations out of Canada, along with its Paris Accord, its Global Compact on Migrations, and its socialist Sustainable Development Goals.

Erin O'Toole is a globalist, like the rest of Ottawa's globalist establishment. As Conservative critic for foreign affairs, he said last year he wanted to restore ties with Saudi Arabia "by focusing on improving commercial ties and by offering more aid, development and refugee support in the Gulf region." Can you spot the difference between him and Justin Trudeau? That's the kind of foreign policy you expect from Liberals. You can be sure nothing will change under his leadership.

Erin O'Toole won't touch the equalization program.
Erin O'Toole won't use article 92(10) of the Constitution to ensure we build pipelines.
Erin O’Toole won't repeal bill C-16 that imposes a radical trans agenda on Canadians. He won’t do anything to restore and protect our freedom of speech.

On every major issue, the Conservative Party under Erin O'Toole will be just like the Liberals. What else can be expected from the leader of the Liberal-lite Party? On each of these issues, the People's Party is the only national party offering a clear, consistent, conservative vision.

I know that real conservatives are disappointed today. Especially those whose first choice was Derek Sloan or Leslyn Lewis. Or those who supported Jim Karahalios, who was shamelessly kicked out of the leadership race by the party’s establishment. I want to tell them today: There is a place where you can fight openly for your values. Where they won't be disparaged or shut down, but will be proudly championed.

You have a home. It’s the People’s Party of Canada.
We're the fastest growing party in Canadian history. We accomplished more in our first year than the Green Party did in 20 years and 6 elections.

Nothing will change unless those who want change stop wasting their time, and their votes, on parties that will never bring any real change.
The door is open. Join the People’s Party. Thank you.

Voting by mail: Canuck Conservatives show what can go wrong

In 2019 the Canadian sheeple were herded to the polls to vote for a new government. The Conservative Party of Canada, led by Andrew Scheer, got more votes, but because the Liberals won more ridings (= electoral districts), they formed the government, and Just In Trudeau is still Prime Minister. [Where have we heard that before? Ed.]

Mr Scheer duly announced his resignation and plans were made to hold a leadership convention this spring to choose his successor. The last time the Tories did that, in 2017, they adopted a one-member-one-vote system, rather than the traditional delegated convention, to signal that they too were in favour of participatory democracy, diversity, inclusivity, yada yada yada. And they decided to allow voting by mail, as well as in person. With 13 contenders vying for the poisoned chalice, determining the winner was bound to be a complex and tedious business, but they muddled through and, by a narrow margin, chose the aforesaid Mr Scheep over Mad Max Bernier. Bad move.

The plan this time, in part necessitated by the Covid-19 "crisis", was to simplify matters by having mail-in balloting only. And instead of having votes counted at various places around the world's second-biggest country (by landmass), all ballots would be sealed in special envelopes and delivered to Ottawa (the world's second-coldest capital city) by Canada Post. What could go wrong?

Did I mention Canada Post? The crown corporation that runs Canada's alleged postal system is marginally more efficient than the USPS, but when Canucks pay 92 cents (plus tax!) for a stamp, they say it's 2 cents for postage and 90 cents for storage! Canada Post also has very strict regulations about the size and weight of letters.

In 2017 the Conservatives' ballots were so large (13 names, remember) that they had to be stuffed into oversized envelopes, for which CanPost charged extra. This time, CanPost told the Tories, use smaller envelopes and you'll save thousands of dollars. Great idea, said the genius in charge of logistics. Sadly, though, the genius didn't think to reduce the size of the ballots to fit nicely into the smaller envelopes.

Oh, you're getting ahead of me. Fast forward to Friday afternoon, by which time 174,000 envelopes, fat with ballots, were in a Very Large Room in Ottawa, where they would be opened by electric letter-openers. [They have such things in Canada? Ed.] The ballots would then be removed by human beings [Looks like only men in the photo? Ed.] and fed into machines which would scan them and tabulate the results. Again, what could go wrong?

The Big Reveal was supposed to begin at 1800 ET, and Canada's two major TV networks had cleared three hours or so of time to broadcast the speeches (to empty rooms) and the pundits' dreary drivel. At 1800 the Tories annouonced that there was a slight problem and the results of the first ballot (of a possible three -- a ranked ballot was being used) would be forthcoming at 1930. Then it was 2000, then 2100. By this time the talking heads on CBC and CTV were running out of things to say, but kept talking anyway.

What's the problem, they asked? Conservative Party officials fessed up that there had been a little problem with... wait for it... the machines. Seems the letter-openers had cut pieces off some of the ballots -- only a few thousand or so -- which then had to be taped back together to be fed into the tabulator machines, which also mangled some of them. (Think what your printer/photocopier does when a piece of paper gets caught in a cog.) In some cases, the damaged ballots had to be rewritten... by hand... onto new ballots, under the keen eyes of scrutineers for all the candidates to ensure that the voter's intention was accurately reproduced. Can you imagine...

2100 came, and still no results, so the "organizers" decided to run with a canned speech by Mr Scheep and a video of the lowlights of his career, followed by a much-too-long explanation of how the votes would be allocated so that the smaller regions of Canuckistan would not be dominated by the larger ones. Sports fans were switching over to the basketball and hockey games, but the non-show went on... and on...

After the 2230 quasi-deadline passed in silence, Party flak-catchers started saying "We'll give you 15 minutes notice." That notice came at 2315 ET. [We're running out of space. Just tell us when and how it all turned out. Ed.] The announcement of the results of the first ballot began at 20 midnights past midnight. None of the four candidates got the 50%+1 needed to win. There followed another half-hour delay, even though the votes had already been counted, and finally, at 0115 ET, the results of the second and third counts were announced in the space of about two minutes.

For what it's worth, the winner was another dimpled, slightly overweight, blue-eyed, non-threatening Canadian type named Erin O'Toole, seen here with his dimpled etc etc wife and kids. Mr O'Toole beat the runner-up (and establishment favourite) Peter Mackay, by virtue of being able to speak halting French, whereas Mr Machackey's had apparently learned his French, as a lad, from John Diefenbaker. (Older Canucks will know what I mean.)

The CBC, owned and operated by and for the Liberal government, is already spinning Mr O'Toole's win as proof that "socons" -- social conservatives -- are gaining control of the Conservative Party. Mr Mackay, they say, was the last of the oxymoronical Progressive Conservatives, whereas "Erin O'Toole courted the right of the Conservative Party and won" (Éric Grenier, 24/8/20).

Walt says Mr O'Toole is just another bland contrist with no real vision of where he wants to lead his party or, indeed, the Great No-longer-white North. All he wants to do is beat Mr Socks in the next federal election which could happen as early as November 3rd. [Eh? Ed.] In that, Walt wishes him many good lucks.

No room for SoCons in Canada's "Conservative" Party

In four short months, Canada's Perpetual Opposition Party (currently calling itself the Conservative Party of Canada) will hold a leadership convention to replace the Hon. Andrew Scheer, whose inability to talk out of both sides of his mouth about abortion and "gay rights" was demonstrated in last fall's federal election.

Canada's Cuckservatives had no position on "values issues", because they were (and remain) deeply divided. On the left there are the Red Tories who will do and say whatever it takes to win (or at least not lose too badly), even if that means sounding like alt-Liberals. Opposing them are the True-Blue Tories, who claim to be social as well as fiscal conservatives, but don't like talking about killing unborn babies or the nonsense of gender ideology.

It appears that although Mr Scheep himself claims to be a SoCon, the Red Tories had the upper hand in the smoke-filled backrooms. Thus true Canuck conservatives had no party to vote for except "Mad Max" Bernier's People's Party of Canada, and even the PPC was not very strong on the pro-life side, saying merely that they would "allow debate" on the issue. The result, a whoda-thunk-it victory for the Rt. Hon. Justin Blackface, was utterly predictable.

Knives were stuck in Mr Scheep's back within 24 hours, not just be Canada's liberal media (Hello, CBC!) but by those who would be the new leader, notably Peter MacKay, who likened the Tories' loss to "having an empty net to shoot at, and missing." Mr MacHackey is now the leading contender for the leadership, with only a non-entity named Erin O'Toole [Mr or Ms? Ed.] claiming to be "true blue".

Six other "Conservatives" have entered the lists, bringing the total number of contenders for the poisoned chalice to eight. Not admitted to the list, officially announced yesterday, was Richard Richard Décarie, a social conservative whose post-secondary education includes graduate studies in Philosophy – Applied Ethics from the Université de Sherbrooke. M Décarie had submitted the required application, fee and nomination signatures, and was interviewed by the party, as required by its rules. Yet his nomination was rejected.

Why is M Décarie not being allowed to put his name forward? CPC spokesthingy Cory Hann [Ms or Mr? Ed.] couldn't say specifically why not, because "the process is confidential." Walt suggests it may have something to do with M Décarie's very public statements of his belief that being one of the alphabet people is a choice, and that government should defund abortion.

M Décarie has also said that "LGBTQ" is a liberal term, and that governments should work to uphold and restore "traditional values." Some of his opponents, including Mr MacHackey, Erin O'Toole and Marilyn Gladu [Who she? Ed.], condemned his remarks as did current MPs, party strategists and former staff. It appears that M Décarie is about as welcome in today's "Conservative" Party of Canada as a skunk at a garden party.

Walt predicts that on June 27th, Peter MacKay will be chosen as the new Cuckservative leader. Walt further predicts that he will never become Prime Minister of Canada. Never! Lifetime pct .992.

Canuck Cuckservatives to hold leadership vote June 27th

The self-styled Conservative Party of Canada -- in reality only a tad to the left of centre, compared with the Liberals -- managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory [No more clichés please! Ed.] in October's general election.

Instead of stopping to think why their "Liberal lite" policies failed to stir the imagination of jaded frostbacks, party backroomers quickly plunged their knives into the back of leader Andrew Scheer -- the Mr Rogers of Canadian politics, a man with all the charisma of a bed of kelp.

Political has-been Peter MacKay waited less than a week before publicly liken Mr Scheer's performance to "having an empty net to shoot at, and missing!" (Canadians will understand that, or so Poor Len Canayen tells us.) Other verbal daggers were stuck into Mr Scheer until he was "done like dinner" (ditto), and he duly fell on his sword at the beginning of December.

Now the Tories will have to pick a new leader. Mr MacKay is said to be thinking about having another go. So is former leader Jean Charest, who has won and lost elections as both a Conservative and a Liberal. Maxime Bernier, who was screwed over by anti-French Tories and angry dairy farmers in the last Conservative convention, is not expected to be invited to throw his chapeau in the ring.

On January 3rd, the Tories announced that a leadership convention will be held in Toronto on June 27th, following which everyeone will go to the cottage for the summer. Former Harper cabinet minister Lisa Raitt, defeated in the October election and then made party chairthingy, told the meeja, "The committee is meeting frequently to make sure we do this in the most open, efficient and transparent way to make sure we get a good result this time." `nuff said.

Wot? Brexit ain't done yet? Walt explicates the muddification

The story so far... Way back in June 2016, the people of the so-called United Kingdom got a rare chance to vote on an issue, as opposed to for or against a political party. After years of dithering, the Conservative government of the day, led by the Rt. Hon. David Cameron, called a referendum on whether or not the country should remain in the European Union. This was the result.

Instead of "country", let's say countries. London, the capital region (and (((international banking))) centre) voted to stay in the EU. So did Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The rest of England and Wales voted to take back control of Britain's affairs (particularly her borders) from the globalist Euro-weenies. Since there were more non-London English voters than all the others combined, the overall result was nearly 52% in favour of what became known as Brexit.

The first lesson the British people learned -- should have known already -- is that the people don't actually rule or govern anything. The ruling is done by governments, not the people wot put them there. So it fell to the government of Theresa May (who succeeded Mr Cameron, who had unwisely campaigned on the "remain" side) to make a deal with the other 27 (or so) members of the EU to put the borders back in place and disentangle the great ball of red tape devised by the Brussels sprouts.

A coalition of one-worlders, loony lefties and minor parties clamoured for a do-over of the referendum, and generally obstructed Ms May's efforts, so she called a snap general election in June 2017. It resulted in a Conservative minority government supported by the Ulster Protestant baskets who call themselves the Democratic Unionist Party.

Subsequent UK–EU withdrawal negotiations resulted in a withdrawal agreement in November 2018, but the UK parliament voted against ratifying it three (count `em, three) times. The Labour Party wanted any agreement to maintain a customs union, while many Conservatives opposed the agreement's financial settlement on the UK's share of EU financial obligations, as well as the "Irish backstop" designed to prevent border controls between Ulster and the Republic of Ireland.

Ed. here. I don't understand that last bit. You mean the Protestant Ulstermen refuse to be part of Catholic Ireland, but they don't want a hard border between the two parts of the island? Exactly.

In March 2019, the UK parliament voted for May to ask the EU to delay Brexit until October 31st, so a better deal could be sought. Having failed to pass her agreement, Ms May resigned as prime minister in July and was succeeded by the Rt. Hon. Boris Johnson. He sought to replace parts of the agreement and vowed to leave the EU by the new deadline, with or without an agreement. On October 17th, his government and the EU agreed on a revised withdrawal plan, with provisions for a special status for Northern Ireland. The British parliament approved the new agreement, but rejected plans to pass it into law before the Hallowe'en deadline, and forcing Mr Johnson's government to ask for a third Brexit delay, to 31 January 2019.

So everything's fine now, right? Ed. Errr, no. Having suffered a couple of defections along the way, Mr Johnson heads a minority government, dependent on the support of the DUP. With no guarantee that the enabling legislation will be passed by March 31st... or ever... Mr Johnson wanted an election to put an end to the uncertainty, one way or the other. The head of the Labour Party, Jeremy Lenin [Corby, shurely. Ed.] refused, but on Tuesday did a flip-flop and directed his members to join the Tories in approving an early election to break the deadlock. Brits will go to the polls on December 12th. Merry Christmas! [Happy Holidays!, shurely. Ed.]

Brexit has turned into a tussle for the soul of the country, and will be the main issue on which weary voters will have to decide. Mr Johnson's Conservatives tout his deal with the EU and claim they can get Brexit done at last, while Comrade Corbyn's Labourites are promising to negotiate a "softer" Brexit, following which they will give the British public the final say by... wait for it... holding a second referendum!

Will this vote break the Brexit deadlock? Who knows? [Certainly not you! Ed.] The rise of smaller parties means the possibility of a hung parliament is greater now than in previous decades. If the December election fails to deliver a party with an overall majority, Brexit could go in a number of different directions. A hung parliament with a minority Conservative government would likely mean more of the same paralysis that has dogged British politics for the past year. If Labour emerges as the largest party, that makes a second Brexit referendum more likely, given that's also the ambition of the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party.

And even if the Conservatives won a majority on the back of their promise to "get Brexit done," the saga won't be over. Mr Johnson would be able to get his deal through Parliament by the next deadline, but that's only the start. Months of negotiations with the EU about a future trading partnership would certainly follow, and the risk of a no-deal Brexit could return all over again if a trade deal isn't concluded by the end of the Brexit transition period in 2020. So while this vote will likely set a new Brexit course for Britain, it would be naive to think the issue will be off the agenda by the beginning of 2020. We wish all our British readers a Happy New Year!

What if no-one wins the Canadian election?

Suppose a country holds an election and no-one wins. What happens then? Because of the nature of the parliamentary democracy which it inherited from Britain, Canada may, this coming Monday, become a case in point.

Public opinion polls (which Americans know are always reliable) show Justin Trudeau's Gliberals in a virtual dead heat with Andrew Scheer's Cuckservatives, each with just under 32% support. In Canada, as in the USA, having more votes than the other guy doesn't guarantee that you'll become head of state. What counts is how many seats your party wins in the 338-seat House of Commons.

If the polls are accurate [as they always are in the USA. Ed.], neither of the two main parties can hope for a majority. Today's morning line has the Liberals emerging with 4 to 8 more seats than the Tories. But suppose it's the other way `round. Will Mr Socks resign and hand the reins of power over to Mr Bland? Time for The King-Byng Thing, a lesson in Canadian history and constitutional law from Agent 3.

The man on the left was a King. The man on the right was a Lord.

Julian Hedworth George Byng came from a noble English family, and commanded the Canadian Corps of the British Army at Vimy Ridge, in World War I. The Canucks won the battle but Byng won the honours, becoming the 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy. In 1921 he was sent to Canada to become the country's Governor-General, the representative of King George V.

William Lyon Mackenzie King (not "king" as in sovereign) was Prime Minister of Canada for most of the period from 1921 to 1948. He lost his grip on power, though, in a general election in the fall of 1925. Then, as may be the case now, no party got a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. Mr King's Liberals came second, a few seats behind the Conservatives. But (and this is where the constitutional point comes in), Mr King was the incumbent Prime Minister, and as such felt he had the right to meet the House and seek its confidence.

Lord Byng thought the Conservatives should have been called on to form the government, since they had more seats, but acceded to Mr King's request on condition that if the Liberals lost the vote of confidence, Mr King would not seek a dissolution of Parliament and a new election. Sure enough, the government fell and "Mackenzie King" went back to Lord Byng to ask that the election writ be dropped. Lord Byng refused and, in 1926, called on the Conservatives to form a government. They did, and almost immediately lost the next vote of confidence. Whereupon a new election was called, which the King Liberals won.

Lord Byne was duly recalled and a new Governor-General placed on the vice-regal throne. Upon returning to power, Mr King's government sought at an imperial conference to redefine the role of the Governor-General as a personal representative of the sovereign in his Canadian council and not of the British government (the king in his British council). The change was agreed to at the Imperial Conference of 1926 and came to be official as a result of the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and Statute of Westminster 1931.

It is therefore settled that the Governor-General of Canada may not refuse a request of the Prime Minister. The last time that possibility was raised, when Prime Minister Harper sought to prorogue Parliament to avoid a vote of confidence, Mr Harpoon threatened to go directly to the Queen to get what he wanted. It wasn't necessary, as the G-G caved.

What that means for Canadians is that even if, on Monday, Just In Trudeau's Liberals elect fewer Members of Parliament than Andrew Scheer's Conservatives, M Trudeau can make a good case for remaining in office. He could meet the House and, with the support of the socialist NDP and/or the separatist Bloc Québécois, could continue his misrule until such time as enough MPs desert him.

It is true, as Mr Scheer says, that no Prime Minister has done that in modern times. The convention for the last half-century or so is that a Prime Minister whose party finishes with fewer seats than another party should resign, and that the Governor-General should then call on the leader of that other party to form the government. It doesn't matter that the other party didn't get a majority of the seats. A plurality would do. So it will be up to M Trudeau, if he loses, to the right thing. But will he? Stay tuned.

Max Bernier quits Tories, will form new "truly conservative" party

Maxime Bernier, whose tweets that diversity is killing Canada are resonating across the Great No-longer-white North, has just announced that he is leaving the so-called Conservative Party.

He said he will, in the next few weeks, will discuss with real conservatives the founding of a new party prepared to stand up for conservative and Canadian values.

This is a breaking story. I'll have more within the next 24 hours. Right now I'm going to visit M Bernier's new website. If you're a Canadian conservative (note the small C), I urge you to do the same. Tell `em Walt sent ya!

Further reading: "Why I Am Leaving the Conservative Party of Canada", by Maxime Bernier, published just a few minutes ago.

Top Conservative says diversity will destroy formerly Great White North

Cazart! Maxime Bernier, runner-up to Andrew Scheer in last year's contest for leadership of Canada's so-called Conservative Party, showed this weekend that he had the cojones to say -- OK, to tweet -- what his party won't even imply. See "Canuck 'conservatives' wimp out, pull anti-border jumpers ad", WWW 18/7/18.

In a thread of six tweets posted yesterday, the Québec MP accused Canuck Prime Minister Just In Trudeau of fostering a "cult of diversity" that he believes will destroy the country. He said that more diversity (which he described as "cultural balkanization") will "divide [Canada] into little tribes" and bring "distrust, social conflict, and potentially violence."

Walt is pleased to share the entire six-part thread. Note especially #4. Truer words were never spoken, and they apply not just to Canada but to all the AABC countries and the ultra-liberal democracies of western Europe as well.

@MaximeBernier
1/ Trudeau keeps pushing his “diversity is our strength” slogan. Yes, Canada is a huge and diverse country. This diversity is part of us and should be celebrated. But where do we draw the line?
Diversity is what makes Canada strong: Trudeau https://globalnews.ca/video/4382393/diversity-is-what-makes-canada-strong-trudeau …
8:28 PM - Aug 12, 2018

@MaximeBernier
Replying to @MaximeBernier
2/ Ethnic, religious, linguistic, sexual and other minorities were unjustly repressed in the past. We’ve done a lot to redress those injustices and give everyone equal rights. Canada is today one of the countries where people have the most freedom to express their identity.
8:29 PM - Aug 12, 2018

@MaximeBernier
Replying to @MaximeBernier
3/ But why should we promote ever more diversity? If anything and everything is Canadian, does being Canadian mean something? Shouldn’t we emphasize our cultural traditions, what we have built and have in common, what makes us different from other cultures and societies?
8:31 PM - Aug 12, 2018

@MaximeBernier
Replying to @MaximeBernier
4/ Having people live among us who reject basic Western values such as freedom, equality, tolerance and openness doesn’t make us strong. People who refuse to integrate into our society and want to live apart in their ghetto don’t make our society strong.
8:32 PM - Aug 12, 2018

@MaximeBernier
Replying to @MaximeBernier
5/ Trudeau’s extreme multiculturalism and cult of diversity will divide us into little tribes that have less and less in common, apart from their dependence on government in Ottawa. These tribes become political clienteles to be bought with taxpayers $ and special privileges.
8:34 PM - Aug 12, 2018

@MaximeBernier
Replying to @MaximeBernier
6/ Cultural balkanisation brings distrust, social conflict, and potentially violence, as we are seeing everywhere. It’s time we reverse this trend before the situation gets worse. More diversity will not be our strength, it will destroy what has made us such a great country.
8:36 PM - Aug 12, 2018

Canuck "conservatives" wimp out, pull anti-border jumpers ad

The Canadian brand of conservatism is pretty thin gruel compared with the chunky stuff which got Donald Trump elected. The leader of the so-called Conservative Party of Canada, Andrew Scheer, is a decent guy, good Catholic with several kids, whose baby face, dimples and short-sleeved madras shirts make him look like a small-town insurance salesman. [What is he, actually? Ed.] He never has a bad word to say about anybody -- even "Mr Socks" -- and is in grave danger of becoming a "Joe Who" footnote to Canadian history.

Mr Scheer's high wimp factor is only a reflection of that of his party, which appears not to understand that its function, as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, is to be politically incorrect to the degree necessary to counter the exagerrated political correctness of the Trudeau Liberals, which now has the status of political orthodoxy, not to be questioned by anyone, anyone in politics or the (((media))).

The latest PC commandment, handed down by the Somali-born Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (no, I'm not kidding) is that the dark-complected people who cross the Canadian border other than at a port of entry are not "illegal", even though their actions in jumping across the undefended border are clearly in violation of Canadian law. Moreover, it's not Just In Trudeau's fault that they're coming, in their 1000s, from a safe country (the USA) just because Junior tweeted after the election of DJT that all those "fleeing persecution" are welcome in Canada.

The Conservatives have argued (although not very forcefully) that Mr Socks' Tweet is exactly the reason that a large contingent of Mounties has been deployed near St-Bernard-de-Lacolle QC to carry the bags of the "asylum seekers" to the bus which will take them to the welfare offices of Montréal and (they hope) Toronto. See "Canuck Conservatives demand Liberals stop border jumpers", WWW 24/4/18.

Since speaking in Parliament and on the Sunday morning snorefests doesn't seem to be doing any good, the Tories decided to publish an ad calling attention to the problem which the Liberals deny is a problem, let alone a "crisis". So here's what they put up on their Twitter feed yesterday.

In a display of cowardice in the face of the PC police unusual even for Canadians, the Conservatives pulled the ad, even before the day was done. Tory spokesthingy Cory Hann told the CBC (of course!) that the ad was axed because the situation at the border is "not about any one group of people." LMAO. Mr Hann said the image, which shows an actual person of the coloured persuasion illegally crossing over the Canadian border was originally used by a number of media outlets with stories about the surge in asylum seekers. But, he added, the full photo shows the man with a group of people, so they shouldn't have singled out this one guy who happens to be, errr, black.

Walt's challenge to Cory Hann: Search through all the images of illegal border crossers, including the one I used in my post of April 24th, and show me one (1) of the illegals who is not a vizmin. Even a hoser knows what's going on. Why are the Conservatives afraid to depict the truth? Trying to work both sides of the street, perhaps?

UPDATED: Canuck Conservatives demand Liberals stop border jumpers

Yesterday, in "Trudeau's plan to reform Canadian immigration system", Walt told you that Québec's Immigration Minister warned Canada's federal government that, come summer, up to 400 "refugees" and asylum-seekers from shithole countries could be crossing into his province every day. And why wouldn't they, having heard about the Prime Minister of Canuckistan's "Give us your tired, your poor, your scum" tweet following the inauguration of President Trump.

Although Just In Trudeau's "Let them all in, as long as they promise to vote Liberal" stance is patently obvious, the government of Québec, which received 90% of the 20,593 illegal immigrants who entered Canada in 2017, has told the feds that they'd better help, because the province's education and social service agencies won't be able to cope with the influx.

Now the opposition Conservatives are entering the debate. Tory immigration critic Michelle Rempel today tabled a motion in the House of Commons urging the Liberal government to take "immediate action" to halt illegal border crossings, describing the flow of asylum-seekers from the USA as a "crisis without a plan." Things are so bad, said Ms Rempel, that the Mounties have had to work overtime and transfer staff from other parts of Canada to help with arduous tasks such as carrying the bags for the scores of "refugees" who arrive every day at the "unauthorized" border crossing near St-Bernard-de-Lacolle QC.

Ms Rempel told the (((controlled media))) today that she's worried that the absence of a more forceful response from the federal government to illegal border crossings could erode Canadians' support for immigration. "You're not going to get any argument from Canadians that we support immigration in this country," she said, prompting reporters to rewind their tapes to make sure they heard her correctly.

Without skipping a beat, Ms Rempel put herself firmly on the path of political correctness, adding, "My concern is that if the government does not take steps to rectify [its] failure to manage our borders, we are going to rapidly see Canadians lose that social licence for immigration, because there will be a lack of faith in the ability of the government to ensure planned and orderly migration."

The rest of her statement was inaudible due to howls of laughter and hoots of derision.

UPDATE ADDED 26/4/18: Toronto Mayor John Tory (Tory by name, Tory by politics) apparently heard that the Liberals are planning on diverting 1000s more "refugees" to the Wormy Apple and expressed grave concern in a statement reported today by CTV News. Mayor John Tory says that the city has reached the limit of its ability to provide shelter and other social supports to new refugee claimants arriving in Toronto, and is in "urgent need" of assistance from the federal and provincial governments (read: from all Canadians who pay taxes to the federal and provincial Liberal governments). Fancy that!

VIDEO: British MP speaks clearly vs abortion, same-sex "marriage"

Last week, in a piece headed "The pinstriped populist", The Economist 's "Bagehot" opined that the selection of Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative member of the British Parliament, as his party's next leader (once Theresa May is defenestrated) would be a "calamity".

What is it that the ancient "newspaper" (as it still styles itself) has against Mr Rees-Mogg? Apparently they don't like him because he is rich, upper-class, conservative in matters both economic and social, and a practising Roman Catholic. Even with all those millstones around his neck, Bagehot fears that he has the "Moggmentum" to succeed Mrs May and lead his party into the next election. If he does, Bagehot asserts, the Tories would be wiped out because everyone knows there is no alternative to the liberal, secular humanist policies which have proven so successful in the AABC countries for over half a century.

Among other epithets, Bagehot calls Mr Rees-Mogg "eccentric". This would appear to be because, unlike most politicians, Mr Rees-Mogg is unafraid to state his opinions, however at variance they may be with the "conventional wisdom" or politically correct thinking. Case in point, an interview given early last September to ITV's Good Morning Britain in which the MP confounded the interviewers by stating, clearly and calmly, his opinions that (a) life begins at the point of conception, making abortion for whatever reason wrong, and (b) marriage is a sacrament and "the view of what marriage is is taken by the church, not parliament." Here's the clip.



For this precious minute alone, Jacob Rees-Mogg deserves (IMHO) the Order of Saint Thomas More... and if there isn't such a thing, there should be! If only Pope Francis would speak so clearly, and with such high regard for the tenets of the True Faith!

British election too close to call?

I can work up but little interest -- and less excitement -- about the UK general election. Polling day is less than 24 hours off. I won't be voting, don't even know how to bet.

Theresa Maybe (as The Economist dubbed her) called the snap election after only two years in power, hoping to run a bare majority in the House of Commons up to awesome numbers. The thinking (?) behind doing so appears to have been that the UKIP had effectively disbanded itself after the Brexit referendum, and the Labour Party had all but committed suicide by choosing a leader -- Jeremy Corbyn -- from the loony left. [But he's on the right in the picture! LOL Ed.] The Liberal Democrats, the party of the mushy middle, look like being reduced to only a handful of seats, and the Green Party have yet to elect a member of parliament.

As recently as a couple of weeks ago, Mrs May looked to have the winning strategy. The polls had her Conservative Party well ahead, with most of the betting being on the spread. Then came the Manchester massacre. Then, just last weekend, the London Bridge terrorist attacks. As if those things weren't enough to shake one's faith in Mrs May's leadership, she flip-flopped on a pledge to end the cap on social care bills. The Reds [Labour, surely! Ed.] and even some of her own supporters said the financial impact on seniors -- very determined voters, that lot -- amounted to a "dementia tax". As for fighting back against Islamic terrorism, Mrs May is having trouble living down massive cuts to the police budget when she was Home Secretary, and her party's failure to cut immigration to under 100,000 per year, as they had promised.

So here we are, less than 24 hours out, and a projected Tory win by over 20% has dwindled to 6% or less, depending on which poll (if any) you believe. It's possible (but not probable) that Labour may win, making Mr Corbyn Prime Minister. That would really shake things up. Mr Corbyn appeals to the naïve young people who, in America, supported Bunny Sanders. But Mr Corby is way way to the left of Mr Sanders. He is an avowed Marxist, who, under previous leaders, defied the Labour whip 428 times. Among other things, he opposed anti-terrorist legislation (!) and the invasion of Iraq. His inner circle is even more hard-line. His shadow chancellor (= minister of finance) is an admirer not only of Marx but also of Lenin and Trotsky.

For many reasons, British politics has become almost as polarized (and polarizing) as that of the Excited States of America. Realistically, the choice for voters is between the right (Conservatives) and the hard left (Labour). There is no more "moderate centre". That means the real losers of tomorrow's election will be the "progressives" and liberals, and for that, much thanks.

Question from Ed.: Are you going to call this or not?
Answer from Walt: Not. Lifetime pct .988.

"Social conservative" Scheer to lead Canuck Tories

Scheer joy reigned last night wherever Canadian conservatives -- true conservatives -- gathered to watch the Conservative Party of Canada elect a new leader. The winner... on the 13th ballot... by a margin of only 2% of over 141,000 votes cast... was... may I have the envelope please... the right envelope... ... the winner... and next prime minister of Canada (let us hope and pray fervently)... ANDREW SCHEER!

Andrew who? Mr Scheer is 38 years old, from Saskatchewan, the father of five children ("so far", he says), and was Speaker of the House of Commons for much of the Harper years. A rarity in today's Canada, he admits to being a Christian (practising Catholic), and is known to be opposed to gay "marriage", abortion and other social evils being foisted on Canadians by the Liberals in the name of progress, inclusivity, diversity, yada yada yada.

Agent 3 thinks it a pity that there was no parimutuel betting on the outcome, as he would have hit the Exactor, having voted (on a ranked ballot) for Mr Scheer and runner-up Maxime Bernier, in that order, out of a field of 14, one of whom (Kevin O'Leary, star of Dragon's Den) was scratched just before the starting bell.

Agent 3 says he's hopeful that Andrew Scheer will be able to pull the Conservative Party together to mount a strong challenge to Justin Trudeau's Liberals in the next federal election, due in two years. What worries him, though, is Mr Scheer's resemblance (especially in profile, he writes) to Joe Clark, another "nice guy" who became Tory leader and then prime minister in 1979. Sadly, he lacked the killer instinct to hold onto power; his government lasted only six months.