Lessons for Poilievre from Starmer and Trump

Donald Trump and Keir Starmer are in the very early and early stages of their mandates. They obviously have very different points of view and political and economic philosophies from Pierre Poilievre (if they have coherent philosophies at all). It still looks as if Mr. Poilievre will get his chance to form a majority government in due course (despite the media’s fawning over the chosen one). Right now, there is a lot to be done in Canada to react to and get out in front of Mr. Trump, but that still means that there is time for Poilievre and his colleagues to be absolutely prepared to govern when he finally gets his chance. What can be learned from the good and bad experience of the two other leaders?

?In this article I stay away from any consideration of the policies that Mr. Poilievre might employ in the early stages of his mandate. I am likely of a much more social and economic libertarian bent than the current Conservatives and they don’t need my opinions on policy. It’s also a bit tough to comment on policy as the Conservative platform is (wisely in my opinion) compressed to soundbites at present.

?What should he do?

?

·?????? Plan like you are a one-term PM

·?????? Act fast but try not to break too much

·?????? You’re not paranoid, they are out to get you.

·?????? The courts are not your friend

·?????? Make sure your allies are allies

How does the environment in the UK and the US compare to the environment that Mr. Poilievre might face?

The Bureaucracy; In the US, it is clear that only very small parts of the federal bureaucracy might be aligned with the mandate of Mr. Trump. Most are the product of coastal universities with a much higher degree of alignment with progressive politics. In the UK, the situation is somewhat similar, with the Oxbridge axis of progressivism either aligned to or mostly aligned to the Labour mandate. However, in the UK, this is the home of “Yes, Minister”, where the bureaucracy already believes that it is the natural governing party and will be resistant to politicians of any stripe wanting to “change things”. In Canada the bureaucracy has, in my opinion, a very undeserved reputation for neutrality. I suspect that Mr. Poilievre will find resistance and in some cases hostility towards his legislative and regulatory agenda. In addition, similarly to the US and the UK, the civil service has been stuffed over the last decade with so many staffers, policies and committees that getting anything done is a miracle.

?Independent Bodies: In the US, there are a relatively small number of truly independent bodies. Typically the senior leadership and boards (if any) are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. In the UK there are a much larger group of quango’s and Arms-length-bodies (“ALB’s”) many of whom have regulatory and even adjudication powers. They also have rigid rules about how a government might go ahead and start to change the composition of these Boards. In Canada there are some equivalent bodies (such as the CRTC) that stagger their boards so that it is difficult for one government to change the policy direction – although some decisions may be over-turned by the Minister.

Courts: In the US there is more overt politicization of the courts – but at least at the Supreme Court, Mr. Trump may get a more sympathetic ear. In Canda and the UK, the courts have been more overtly interventional, some might say making new law versus interpreting precedent. Both the Uk and Canada are somewhat hamstrung by the courts interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (in the case of Canada) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (in the UK). This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law, which allows for a wide range of interpretation by the courts, which has been exercised liberally. Courts in the US tend to be quite friendly to the plaintiff bar and even if not ultimately successful, litigation of decisions can persist for years. Canadian and UK courts are more measured with respect to deference to plaintiffs.

?Legislative Freedom: Subject to the points raised above, Canadian and UK parliaments with majorities have very wide powers to legislate and implement their mandates. In Canada, the Senate can influence timing and occasionally content, but ultimately may not be able to block a determined Prime Minister. Similarly in the UK, the House of Lords can frustrate timing and to some degree content. In the US, new legislation is much more complicated for Mr. Trump, with a thin majority in Congress and a small majority in the Senate. There is, however, a much broader history, especially recently, of using executive orders to implement the President’s mandate. While it might be clearer that these orders can be rescinded, new orders are likely to be heavily litigated unless there is a strong alignment with existing legislation. The other issue in Canada and to a lesser extent the United States is that substantial power rests within the constitutional division of responsibilities with the Provinces. Horrible inefficiencies such as the currently hobbled inter-provincial trade and the horribly inefficient provincial health systems can only be indirectly affected by the federal government through carrots or sticks.

?Party Alignment: In the US, there are very large divisions within the Republican (and Democrat) Parties within both the Congress and Senate and between the two bodies. With small majorities and the filibuster and a tendency for confrontation Mr. Trump may have great difficulty in getting his legislative agenda through, thus his concentration on Executive Orders. In the UK and Canada, a large majority in Parliament gives a determined Prime Minister substantial leeway to lose votes from his own party. There are established “whips” in both systems that ensure that there is party discipline over important votes. However, in the UK, while having ostensibly a stronger “whip”, party discipline tends to be weak and factions within the Labour (and Conservative) party tends to be large and vocal. In addition, in the UK there is this concept of “briefing”. Effectively members and political staffs leak dissatisfaction over policy to the press with a view to putting pressure on their own party to change approaches. In Canada there tends to be a more centralized control over the nomination process and thus more cohesiveness of the members – in fear of not being re-nominated.

So, what kind of advice might we give Mr. Poilievre considering the recent experience of Trump and Starmer?

?

1.??? Plan like you are a one-term PM

?

Trump IS a one-term President and is clearly acting as if he has only a limited time to completely change the USA. This has resulted in chaotic and likely illegal pronouncements and at the same time a laser focus on change at any cost. Starmer has been much more cautious, one might even say indecisive. His cabinet is clearly looking at forcing the Conservatives out of government for a decade, but also is keen to avoid the rising Reform. This has made decision-making difficult, although this has not yet translated into a reduction in the number of “announcements”. But the public already has figured out that announcements are not change. Starmer has a strong central political organization, but even the centre seems to find a way to battle with itself. Starmer has decided (similar to the way that Trudeau treated Freeland in Canada) that Rachel Reeves is disposable. She is being used as the excuse when the “growth agenda” falters, saving Starmer the exposure.

?

Mr. Poilievre should make the assumption that he is a one-term PM and act that way. He will need to ruthlessly prioritize the small number of things that he can accomplish through the federal government alone and those which will be extremely difficult for any subsequent government to untie. Governments have a tendency to be derailed by the day-to-day events. A comment attributed to Harold Macmillan quotes him as saying “Events, dear boy, events” about the largest challenges of government. In my opinion, if Mr. Poilievre were to concentrate of just five things in his term he is less likely to be de-railed by events. While the problems of Canada are manifold, I might suggest:

?

1.??? Reducing the size and activism of the federal bureaucracy

2.??? Significantly reducing the regulatory burden, especially around resource and other developments

3.??? Eliminating the “net zero” fixation and concentrating on energy availability and security

4.??? Attack the rent and subsidy seekers and closet monopolists within Corporate Canada (including the agricultural, cultural, transportation and financial lobby groups)

5.??? Liberate the indigenous population from its dependencies on taxpayers.

?

There are likely others that he might want to prioritize. But even these five would be of lasting benefit and while not wholly under the control of the federal government, federal leadership is essential.

?

2.??? Act fast but try not to break too much

?

Elon Musk’s strategy of acting fast and breaking things might work in the United States (although first impressions are not that positive). Announcing fast and not doing very much at all is clearly not working for the Starmer government. As I discuss further below, even with a large mandate and an aligned caucus there will be many, many constituencies that will stand in the way of change. Bureaucracies that know how to defend themselves, industries that have relied on government protection and funding, and even ordinary everyday people who voted for change, but not really that change will resist. While I might not like most of the “Days of Thunder” in the US (attributed to Steve Bannon), there is something to be said for a blizzard of activity in the first 100 days of a mandate to set the established constituencies into a confused and ineffectual frenzy – especially the establishment media. As we generally advise new CEO’s, “If you haven’t started to fix the problem in the first 100 days – you own it.” In Starmer’s first 100 days he took the winter fuel payment off of old people. Never mind that they shouldn’t have been getting this in the first place – he wasted time and goodwill on a matter that could have waited for a later time in the mandate when he was prepared to tackle the whole mess of entitlements in the UK. He acted fast and broke something.

?

3.??? You’re not paranoid, they are out to get you.

?

As already discussed, in the UK the bureaucracy is broadly aligned with the progressive instinct of Mr. Starmer and his colleagues and could be called upon to act accordingly (as long as they get to protect and enhance their numbers and perks of office – maybe a Lordship??, at least a CBE). In the US the bureaucracy managed to survive and grow under Trump 45 and grew even further in power and influence under Biden. Their inherent progressivism is antithetical to Trump and his colleagues. Trump and Musk’s clumsy and excessive attacks on the bureaucracy are likely aligned with their instincts – act fast and break things and bully your opponent into submission. But to get Trump’s agenda accomplished during his last term will require a hobbling of the internal enemies who are not at all aligned with his plans.

?

In Canada, the bureaucracy has similarly grown exponentially under the last Liberal governments. It (as with the UK) prides itself on being independent and neutral. Similarly to the UK, it knows how to protect itself. Government unions are active and well-funded and will use all efforts to derail Mr. Poilievre from the inside. The vast bulk of bureaucrats are unlikely to be Conservative voters – being the product of our recent university systems.

?

In the UK, the government has proposed modest reductions n the cost of government – less than the pay rises that they offered the bureaucracy when they came into power. Maybe you don’t hear a lot of public howling – but you also do not see any real action on this front.

?

This will mean that Mr. Poilievre will not be able to uncritically depend on the bureaucracy to execute the mandate. Nor, given the lack of experience can his political staffers expect to fill the gap. It may not take a Musk, but it might be the time to insert some substantial new blood into the senior ranks of the bureaucracy. This has been tried in the past with “Special Advisors”, but these highly talented and driven individuals quickly ran into the “slow play” strategy of bureaucratic protection. Nothing like a dozen committees to reduce the efficiency of decision-making. My recommendation to Mr. Poilievre is to utilize the very effective talent of retired CEOs in Canada, pay them a dollar a year and insert them into the most critical ministries as deputy ministers. If, according to my advice the government focuses on just five essential priorities, it may be that the number of insertions can be small. There will be arguments that “government cannot be run as a business”, but we could certainly try to bring it into a more focused attachment to clear results.

?

In addition, of course, a message needs to be sent. The “back to the office five days a week” message is a strong one to demonstrate the focus of the government on service rather than as disguised unemployment. As in the US, this will necessarily cull those who are not committed. Unions will have to be run over in this effort.

?

Similarly, a conscious culling of the growth of the departments since 2019 is a place to start. Make the assumption that the 2019 level of staffing would, with some productivity improvements be sufficient for 2025. Mandate reductions, starting with the most senior staff before working down to the front line. Mr. Poilievre will likely find that most of the bloat has occurred outside of the client facing staffs, but the bureaucracy will react immediately by wanting to cull? the front line in order to stare down the government’s plans for efficiency..

?

?

4.??? The courts are not your friend

?

While Canadian courts are not overtly partisan, such as in the US, they do have distinct activism and a progressive bent at the highest levels. In addition, as noted, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been used by the courts in the past to try to create new “rights” and new law. In the UK, the courts have done the same with the Human Rights Act of 1998.

?

The current Justice Department in Canada has not been shown to be an aggressive supporter of the kinds of policies that Mr. Poilievre might have in mind. It is more than likely that interest groups will launch a blizzard of cases in order to try to derail the Conservative agenda.

?

In the US, the Justice Department is highly politicized and at the highest level might have some sympathy for Trump, but also might feel that it is the last barrier between the imperialism of the President and democratic and constitutional norms.

?

Because of the high potential for many of Mr. Poilievre’s policies to be controversial with the constituencies that have manipulated the previous Liberal government, his Justice Minister must be a tiger and the staffing of the Justice Department likely needs a solid clean-out. Even in advance of election, Mr. Poilievre should be enlisting legal support to ensure that he hits the ground running with legislation designed against attack. As much as feasible, he should be doing what Mr. Trump is doing – although without pushing the constitutional envelope quite as hard. What can be done to further the agenda without legislation, how fast and how hard.

?

5.??? Make sure your allies are allies

?

Trump has done a very good job of cowing everyone around him into submission, even to date the notoriously difficult tribes in the Congress and the Senate. This is not? a good way in Canada, even if it were possible. And even in the US, Trump has not really been tested with the necessity to square extension of the tax cuts and entitlement reform – which he will eventually need to through Congressional support.

?

In Starmer’s cabinet, there are already hints that the group is not cohesive, and this has resulted n a number of false starts and reversals. Opposition parties and media can smell the disorganization and will continue to make it difficult for Starmer o execute his vision (if he has one). He may have stared down Miliband on the third runway at Heathrow, but it remans to be seen whether he can do the same with the Jackdaw and Rosebank oil field approvals.

?

In Canada it will be possible to develop a small cadre of Ministers and advisors who can be guaranteed to be solidly behind the agenda. Finance, Justice, Investment, Innovation, Housing, Environment and Public Safety will be key. It may be that Mr. Poilievre needs to appoint a new Minister that could fulfil (perhaps a bit more gently) the Elon Musk role. Having a new senior colleague with a time-limited role to restructure the efficiency of government could be useful. While there is very little history in Canada of the British trait of “briefing” against other Ministers,? Mr. Poilievre should be worried about this for the departments’ staffs, who, as noted, will not likely be behind the agenda – especially when their jobs are likely at risk. There will be terrible leaks – they will have to be ignored.

?

However, Mr. Poilievre should likely heavily resist the tendencies of the prior government to control everything from the PMO.? That has been a recipe not only for deep dissatisfaction (which erupted in Ms. Freeland’s resignation letter) but also a loss of cabinet and caucus cohesiveness that takes energy away from the mission. Canadian caucuses are naturally more cohesive than those in the UK or the US (Congress), but that doesn’t mean that they can be ignored. Mr. Poilievre, if he is to be successful in his mandate is going to have to directly attack the fat and sacred cows that have fed off the trough for decades. Each of those sacred cows will complain loudly to local MP’s when the trough is emptied, and he will need to be fully prepared for that. ?

Pierre Poilievre Keir Starmer Rt Hon Rachel Reeves President of The United States