here's a question.

is it possible that freeland could go down in history as a bigger loser than kim campbell? and, might the liberals follow the progressives into the dustbin of history? well, let's think this through.

in 1993, you had a progressive/conservative (same thing.) government in place. an extremely unpopular prime minister, who had earlier swept into power on the back of a populist movement, was at this point absolutely decimated in the polls. history argues it's because he shifted the manufacturing tax from a hidden tax (on corporations) to an obvious consumption tax, that is he shifted the tax burden from the corporate sector to private individuals, and he got nailed at the box for it. i'm using the word 'shift' because it mirrors the neo-liberal propaganda pushed by the corporate sector; they modeled it as a shift, but it was in truth a tax increase, because corporations will always seek to maximize accumulation at all costs, and they took it as an excuse to price gauge. so, yes - if you work it out with the models, it's a shift. but, the models do not reflect reality - which is a general problem with economics.

mainstream economics is not a science, it's mostly magical thinking with badly designed graphs. and, you can trust me on this - i'm a mathematician, i actually understand what they're doing, and what they're doing is always flatly wrong. you can throw the lot of it in the trash - which we keep doing when it fails, and then forgetting.

that is the history; we have the memories of goldfish. we trumpet orthodoxy in economics over and over, and watch it fail over and over; then the keynesians and krugmanites and mmt people come in and fix it, and within a few years we're back at orthodoxy, which fails again. we don't learn. homo economicus is a fucking idiot, incapable of any sort of cogent thought. they should rename it to homo retardicus economicus.

but, anyways.

mulroney stepped down in 1992 or 1993 (look it up) and was replaced with kim campbell, who had a few months to try and salvage a bad situation, something she was not intellectually or organizationally capable of. she was an elitist that thought she was really, really smart but just simply wasn't, so she went out and ran off a bunch of demeaning statements and got thoroughly rejected for it.

here's one:

an election is no time for serious issues.

you can see this kind of attitude in freeland, and she's not likely to be able to hold in her misguided contempt for very long.

the liberals won the 1993 election in a landslide, but it's not because there was a shift to the left in the conservative base. rather, what happened is that conservatives utterly rejected kim campbell as an airhead idiot (and, she was an airhead idiot), and moved en masse to the reform party, a new party that developed in the west to the right of the conservatives. and, they never really saw it coming.

you know the line about history repeating; i don't want to repeat myself, yet again.

but, there's a huge opening for either the greens or the ndp to walk into, if she falls flat on her face - which she will.

so, will a chrystia freeland led party manage two seats as the base caves in to the left?

stay tuned.