1. I think this will do it. I think you've finally convinced the Liberals and the Media Party to like you. I hear @rosiebarton and the CBC will now drop her lawsuit against you.

This is the seventh day in a row you have danced to their tune. Do you not have one of your own?

2. This doesn't really say anything, though. It's all boilerplate. It's defensive. Does it move a single vote? Why have you been silent on the key issues of our era -- censorship, lockdowns, cancel culture, carbon taxes, UN/WHO misconduct? Because the CBC disapproves?
3. You will always be in a controversy, because you are a politician in an adversarial system. You cannot wish that away. What you can do is choose better battles -- ones where you're on the offensive and the Liberals are on the defensive. Why not try that?
4. I don't even know what you mean! When you're against Trump -- who do you mean? He's not in Canada. When you're against the "right" -- who do you mean? Whoever the Liberals the CBC tell you are off limits? Aren't you a party of the right? You are in a fetal position, begging.
5. Why not take a stand against lockdowns? Surely that would appeal to more Canadians than you connect with now. Why not talk against tech censorshi, and show Trudeau's connections to Silicon Valley's bullies? Why not stand up against cancel culture for real, not just in memes?
6. You can be for gay rights but still take a thoughtful stand against transgender extremism -- men in women's prisons; men playing in girls sports teams. You'd see a 5% pop in the polls for that alone.
7. How about taking a serious stand against his plans for mass, online censorship, and his oafish minister in charge, the convicted criminal @s_guilbeault? You'd actually get some real, earned support from media companies for that.
8. If you're intent on being anti-American, which I think it beneath you and any Conservative Party, why limit it to Trump who is gone in three days? Why not focus on Trudeau's deep connections to U.S. Democrat dirty tricksters?
9. Why not insist your critics come back from vacation, and actually work for a living by, you know, criticizing? You are silence on the largest issue of our era -- the lockdowns. Have you nothing to say about those?
10. But mainly: why don't you ignore the Media Party taunts. As in, shut off Twitter and get out of the bubble? Don't you see how you are being played like a fiddle by the Liberal war room?
11. Let me close with my quiz for Canadian political watchers. WITHOUT GOOGLING IT, can you name the Conservative critics for health, energy, environment, defence or foreign affairs? I literally have not met a single person who can -- I bet many Conservative MPs couldn't. Why?
12. Does the party not have any policy differences with Trudeau? Are critics not allowed to say anything controversial? Are they not allowed to talk at all? Are they in staycation mode? I'm guessing it's partly each of those -- and a completely partisan media culture in Ottawa.
13. If O'Toole is seeking the Media Party's permission to win, he won't get it. They won't stop calling him names either -- in fact, he's just proven he'll spend a week off-message at the slightest breeze. Expect them to do a lot more of it, now that they know how to provoke him.
14. The greatest conservative success in recent Canadian politics was Jordan Peterson. He was demonized by the Media Party (especially the CBC, including by the racist Wendy "N-word" Mesley). But he knew what he believed, so he couldn't be blown off course by some lame heckler.
15. And though he did do mainstream interviews, I know from observation that he literally did hundreds of alternative interviews. He would spend half an hour on an independent YouTube channel that would get more views that Wendy N-word Mesley, and would ask better questions too.
16. How about just turn off CBC News -- like 96.1% of Canadians have -- and be a normal human, instead of their most loyal servant?

- FIN -

More from Government

This article by Jim Spellar for @LabourList misses the point about why Labour needs to think seriously about constitutional reform - and have a programme for it ready for government.


The state of our constitution is a bit like the state of the neglected electric wiring in an old house. If you are moving into the house, sorting it out is a bit tedious. Couldn’t you spend the time and money on a new sound system?

But if you ignore the wiring, you’ll find that you can’t safely install the new sound system. And your house may well catch fire.

Any programme for social democratic government requires a state with capacity, and a state that has clear mechanisms of accountability, for all the big and all the small decisions that in takes, in which people have confidence.

That is not a description of the modern UK state.

You May Also Like

So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.

This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.

The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."

This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.