Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6707
Reputation: 239.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( Scott Gilmore tries to explain his reasons for wanting a new party ,


April 2, 2017 11:29 am Updated: April 2, 2017 12:25 pm
Is it time for a Conservative Party split?

By Monique Scotti National Online Journalist, Politics Global News


Play Video


WATCH: Social entrepreneur and columnist Scott Gilmore tells Vassy Kapelos it has been difficult for him to support the Conservative Party over the past few years, so he will host dinners across the country to see if there is interest in starting a new socially moderate, fiscally conservative party.




It’s time for the Conservative Party to confront its identity crisis.

That was the thesis of a recent Maclean’s magazine column written by social entrepreneur and avowed Conservative Scott Gilmore, who is lamenting the state of his party and calling for a national discussion about whether it’s time for it to split into different factions.




“I didn’t expect it to be a very common view,” Gilmore told The West Block‘s Vassy Kapelos this weekend.


“But I’ve been stunned at the thousands that have responded … and that everybody has a very similar story, which is that they believe in fiscal conservationism but at the same time, they’re more socially moderate.”

As the Conservatives get set to pluck a new leader out of a field of 14 possible candidates on May 27, Gilmore will be sitting down to dinner with people across the country to talk about the party’s future.

“The intention is to have a conversation about, ‘does the party reflect our values?’ And if it doesn’t, what do we do to change that,” Gilmore explained.

His own discomfort began during the last election campaign, he said, when the Tories floated the notion of a “barbaric cultural practices” tip-line.



“That was preposterous, and it was added on to other things that were going on in the party at the time that made me think this is getting to be a little too much.”

Looking at the positions of the candidates in the current leadership race — which have included promises to boycott gay pride and to send troops to patrol the border — only cemented those concerns, Gilmore said.


“I was left asking myself, how is it possible that I’m supporting a party where these ideas are not just tolerated and welcome, but they actually reflect the most popular leaders?”



MP Michael Chong is the only candidate capable of beating Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in 2019, Gilmore predicted, “because his values are the most reflective of Canada, writ large.”

So why not just vote Liberal, instead of breaking the Conservatives into far-right and more moderate factions?

“Because I don’t believe in big government. I believe in fiscal conservationism, I don’t believe in identity politics, I believe we need a strong defence,” Gilmore explained.

“So I shouldn’t be forced to hold my nose and vote Trudeau.”

Watch the full interview with Scott Gilmore above.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3348.....rty-split/
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7516
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
What would have PC funding been without Bay Street. It was mostly a party given by corporate sponsors. But the law changed. And what was left on the ground, as a political financing tool, was the CAs grass roots operation.


Didn't the CA secure more corporate funding its last two years before the law changed than the PCs?
I would argue all parties under that system were corporate sponsored, hence why the law changed.

Simply said, the PCs outfundraised the CA East of Manitoba and the CA outfundraised the PCs West of Ontario.

Now the majority of individual donations & memberships come from the regions the PCs always did well in financially.

Arguing that the CA grassroots somehow brought in individual donations the PCs were already getting in Ontario and Quebec doesn't seem logical, especially considering that from a fundraising perspective especially in Ontario nothing really changed for the PCs, a huge donation simply became a massive fundraiser populated by the same corporate folk who had been donating prior and are donating now.

Bugs wrote:
And all Joe Clark stood for was stopping the CA, and he didn't seem to care if that kept Chretien and his Liberals in power. What grassroots would dig into their pockets to get behind that?


Every PC leader and every Reform/CA leader except for MacKay and Harper were largely in favor of grabbing the others parties support.

While Clark was a toolbox, he wasn't the sole reason for where we ended up.
He was leader for a single election under a split right.

The CA had virtually no professional party presence east of Manitoba and the structure of riding associations and general organization was lacking, I think this is something most CA or Reform administrators and party leaders would have been content to admit.

The election after the merger, the fundraising mechanisms, riding associations, and provincial leadership of all those Provinces remained almost unchanged. Hard to credit the CA for that it was all the same PC people from 2000 simply with a new logo on the wall for 2004.

The PC donors lined up behind whoever the PC leader was, its why the CA did so poorly fundraising out East.

Even in the midst of Clarks clown-show of a campaign 2000 the CA secured two seats East of Manitoba and were outfundraised by the PCs in those regions.

The money was always a PC thing, heck it still is.
Go to a CPC fundraiser in Ontario and ask the organizers who they worked with prior to 2004.

The benefit was quite mutual after the merger;
The CPC got the CAs seats out west and the PCs donor roll and infrastructure in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.

Bugs wrote:
had lost their way during Mulroney's time. He destroyed the party with his knife-at-the-throat imposition of Meech Lake. He created the Reform Party as much as Manning did. And it was Manning's wing of the party that was 'conservative' in the North American sense, that is a set of economic policies aimed at encouraging economic growth and wealth creation.


Can't disagree with that.
Mulroney's alliance with Quebec Nationalists ultimately sunk the world.

This is where we circle back to principal and my original comment.
As I have said, Manning was the most principal Conservative leader of my time.

However, he knew he would never get elected nor even has a sniff at power as his existence split the right of center vote.

To be Principled in opposition is the easiest game in Politics.

And this point I cannot stress enough:
The Reform/CA didn't once in three elections run a full slate of candidates

The Natural Law Party of Canada ran more candidates in 1993 than the Reform Party did

How can you win if you don't play or bother to campaign in areas you need to win?
Did they want to win? or just be uncompromising in their Principals?



Bugs wrote:

But why is the legacy of Stephen Harper something to avoid?


You have three candidates basically running as the "party unifier" and the continuation of Stephen Harper, I could likely stretch that to six except three are so far down its not even a factor.

Who is avoiding the legacy?
O'Leary and Bernier? Maybe.

Bugs wrote:
Why does our discussion of the leadership race seem like a search committee meeting, searching for a candidate for a job that has no description? It's because this party seems to be being led by the propaganda in the media, rather than the needs of the electorate, as a whole.


I can understand your frustration;

Here I can only explain my perspective,
As I said elsewhere, I really like Maxime Bernier and from a platform perspective he likely is the guy who ticks most of my boxes from a Fiscal Conservative standpoint.

The issue is that in order to govern in this country you need 40% of the electorate to line up and vote for your party and in the process secure 170 seats across the country.

Lets say the general floor for CPC support is around 28% Nationally and 90 seats;

We need that 12% of the voting population and 80 seats to be onside with whomever we pick, and those folks are not always onside with me.

I can fully admit that if we selected a leader who met my criteria 100% we likely stay around 30% mark.

Winning in this country is about coalition building;
Ontario's PCs voting for someone who doesn't engage former Reformers in Alberta and vice versa.

For me leadership has always been about the same thing;

Even getting a leader who gives me what I want 60% of the time (as was the case with the former PM) its better than getting a leader who believes in what I want 90% of the time but is sitting in opposition across from a Liberal Majority who gives me what I want 10% of the time.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4373
Reputation: 245.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I don't agree with everything you said, but it amounts to quibbles.

What I do wonder about is voting the way you do. Assuming all the candidates have legitimate conservative bona fides, what is better -- vote your heart (or convictions) or vote for the one you think can win?

This discussion (which I call the 'search committee' approach) suggests that the voters know what the times require, and I see no indication of the least awareness of the precariousness of our economic position, let alone have a plan that would steer Canada forward, as a nation. They seem to be looking for 'royal jelly' -- personal attributes -- that would ensure victory.

The issues of the millenials aren't even discussed. I posted a test case to illustrate the point. It has to do with s PEI Workman's Compensation award to a man who was bullied by his female boss to such a degree that they gave him an award for his disability. Lest anyone think they can get his on 'empathy', without hard medical evidence, I invite them to try it. So far, nobody has anything to say. It's as if the whole Conservative followership is afraid to utter what people really think about femiinism because .. you know ... the wife. They're afraid they'll be sleeping on the couch.

Nobody has replied. These are just examples. As far as I can see, none of the candidates understand what is happening on our campuses, or the threat that so-called human rights poses.

I saw a news item where O'Toole diffidently explained -- almost apologetically -- why he had used a parody to criticize O'Leary. He came across as a nice smart reasonable weakling. Sorry.

It's unfair to single him out since I have so little impression of the others.

Full disclosure: my own preferences are Bernier first, and O'Leary second. I don't think Leitch is a pariah because she brougt up immigration and Islam, I just think she's narrow. I have little info about any of the others.

But these are just my private opinions, and really, my support is up for grabs.

What I like about Bernier is that he's a dyed-in-the-wool quebecois, articulate and willing to take on the welfare state. The fact that he dated the best rack in the Beauce does him no discredit in my eyes. The plus for O'Leary is that he strips issues down to their essence, and flails Trudeau aggressively and (I think) effectively. Both of them can crack a joke, and both of them have some fire in their belly. As for 'royal jelly' ... I don't believe in that stuff.

But my larger point is that we are at a point where real change faces us. and we have a idealistic goof in charge. It's vitally important to recognize the kind of changes we are going to be faced with. We should be looking for a leader who can take Trudeau down, as a first requirement, and who is capable of charting a course for the future that recognizes the value we place on things like freedom, prosperity, and independence.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7516
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I don't agree with everything you said, but it amounts to quibbles.


My pleasure.
I always enjoy a spirited debate.

Bugs wrote:
What I do wonder about is voting the way you do. Assuming all the candidates have legitimate conservative bona fides, what is better -- vote your heart (or convictions) or vote for the one you think can win?


I will tell you the exact moment my principal melted away and I started voting with my head over my heart.

Watching Jean Chrétien and the Liberals force MP raises down the throats of Reform MPs by changing the legislation forcing them to the salary.

It was what Principal looks like when its powerless.

At that point it became clear that voting for a Reform candidate in Midwestern Ontario ultimately assured a Liberal MP.

Bugs wrote:
This discussion (which I call the 'search committee' approach) suggests that the voters know what the times require, and I see no indication of the least awareness of the precariousness of our economic position, let alone have a plan that would steer Canada forward, as a nation. They seem to be looking for 'royal jelly' -- personal attributes -- that would ensure victory.


I don't at all disagree with you;
In some cases its up to those running government to make suggestions on how to better do the things that government should (or shouldn't) be doing and for the electorate to determine if that is the best case forward for them.

The challenge is avoiding positions which I would consider to be electorate poison.

While a good leader can sell a strong concept; even a new and controversial concept.
Even the best leaders cannot get Canadians to abandon things they consider to be important to them;

Bernier and Healthcare spring to mind.

In Ontario we watched Tim Hudak with a platform full of great ideas get stuck in the mud over a single issue, the same can be said for John Tory.

No matter how wonderful I think Berniers taxation ideas are the entire election would involve nothing but a non-stop referendum on two tier healthcare.

Bugs wrote:
It's as if the whole Conservative followership is afraid to utter what people really think about femiinism because .. you know ... the wife. They're afraid they'll be sleeping on the couch.


I guess at least for me its not an issue I consider often simply because we are now in a generation where I certainly wouldn't bat an eye at a Female CEO or for a moment consider anything other than what is presented on a resume to me when considering someone for employment.

Sure, there are folks on the extremes who will always be upset about something.
However if I focused all my attention on the minority rather than the majority I would assume the world is crazy.

A vocal minority does not represent the majority;
A lesson learnt very clearly by the 2016 US Election


Bugs wrote:
As far as I can see, none of the candidates understand what is happening on our campuses


You point to millennial;
I think back to my days on a University campus and how I viewed the world from a very narrow textbook perspective or from the opinion of a Professor who had never worked outside the world of academia.

And like clockwork, I graduated, got a job, resented the world for not handing me a million dollars on a platter because I was a University Graduate and therefore amazing and eventually like most realized the difference between how the world "should be" according to a textbook and actually "is" in reality and started voting Conservative (or whatever option was available at the time)

As the old quote goes;
“If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head.’

Those Millennials born in 1980 are skewing Conservative right on schedule and I suspect the ones born in 2000 will follow suit down the line.

Bugs wrote:
I saw a news item where O'Toole diffidently explained -- almost apologetically -- why he had used a parody to criticize O'Leary. He came across as a nice smart reasonable weakling. Sorry.


The biggest difference I see in someone like O'Toole and Sheer (and Chong, Raitt, Alexander) and Bernier and O'Leary is that the former understand that if they win they need to be the leader of all Conservatives, not just those who voted for them.

It may seem like weakness, but its a reality of leadership.
Harper did not bite on Stronach's attacks in 2004, instead he focused on how to beat the Liberals and create a coast to coast coalition in the process.

Bernier and O'Leary are going down the same road as Rae and Ignatieff and are disconnected from the fact that a coalition not only needs to be created nationally but within the party itself.

Bugs wrote:
Full disclosure: my own preferences are Bernier first, and O'Leary second. I don't think Leitch is a pariah because she brought up immigration and Islam, I just think she's narrow. I have little info about any of the others.

But these are just my private opinions, and really, my support is up for grabs.


Bernier I would line up behind if he won;
O'Leary would need to backtrack on some of the non-sense from earlier and make me feel at least somewhat comfortable he wasn't Micheal Ignatieff in blue.

I don't consider Leitch is a Pariah;
She was polling in single digits, found an avenue in which got her traction, and ran with it. It could have been any issue it just happened to be Immigration.

Bugs wrote:
But my larger point is that we are at a point where real change faces us. and we have a idealistic goof in charge. It's vitally important to recognize the kind of changes we are going to be faced with. We should be looking for a leader who can take Trudeau down, as a first requirement, and who is capable of charting a course for the future that recognizes the value we place on things like freedom, prosperity, and independence.


Which is why at least to me;
We need to elect someone who can unify the caucus.

It took Harper four elections to secure a majority, but only one to reduce the Liberals to a Minority.

That is what I am voting for;
Who can win 14 seats away from the Liberals? Who can win 30?

The spending and just general disorganization of this government is reckless and its dangerous and I simply need to look at Ontario as a preview for what happens when you convince yourself you know better than the electorate.

A new leader needs to make Peace in Eastern Canada;
Maintain Quebec, Bring back Rural Ontario into the fold, and appeal to Manitoba.

My expectation is not a Conservative coronation in 2019;
Its a Conservative Government in 2021 and I simply don't think O'Leary as the chops or the interest to put that time in.

My leaning is Scheer and O'Toole;
I may put Raitt at the top of my ballot because she is excellent and has perhaps the most complete platform going but will likely fall off the ballot early.

However I am still largely a free agent
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4373
Reputation: 245.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I mean to use italics to distinguish my response to Cosmo's response, and for no other reason,

Quote:
Bugs wrote:
This discussion (which I call the 'search committee' approach) suggests that the voters know what the times require, and I see no indication of the least awareness of the precariousness of our economic position, let alone have a plan that would steer Canada forward, as a nation. They seem to be looking for 'royal jelly' -- personal attributes -- that would ensure victory.


I don't at all disagree with you;
In some cases its up to those running government to make suggestions on how to better do the things that government should (or shouldn't) be doing and for the electorate to determine if that is the best case forward for them.

The challenge is avoiding positions which I would consider to be electorate poison.

While a good leader can sell a strong concept; even a new and controversial concept.
Even the best leaders cannot get Canadians to abandon things they consider to be important to them;

Bernier and Healthcare spring to mind.

In Ontario we watched Tim Hudak with a platform full of great ideas get stuck in the mud over a single issue, the same can be said for John Tory.

No matter how wonderful I think Berniers taxation ideas are the entire election would involve nothing but a non-stop referendum on two tier healthcare.

This ignores the notion that the electorate throws governments out, rather than elects new ones. Is this your justification for the 'royal jelly' approach? It seems to me to be weak. I take it that you favour the Patrick Brown approach -- wait for the government to totally discredit itself, avoid anything controversial, etc.

I will concede that, in Brown's case, it's probably the smart thing to do, but not always. How often does a government get in as bad shape as the Ontario Liberals? Why assume that stifling unfshionable parts of your support, and laying in the bushes is always the best approach?

What if Hudak had stayed around, making it evident that everything he predicted about this sick government was coming true? My view is that Canadian politics runs as if there is no cumulative effect. In fact, the party seems to be a funding source, but it relinquishes whatever power it has as soon as a leader emerges, and then they do what the leader and his inner circle want. There is no real 'Progressive Conservative position' on anything. The space is filled by stereotypes, the idea that the Conservatives are the party of the rich, while the Liberals and the NDP represent the 'mainstream.'

I remember how we both snickered at Trudeau before he won so decisively. And we were right, intellectually he's a twirp. There's nothing about him that is really commendable apart from his presentation. He has cheesy "niceness" down pat, though the narcissism keeps peeking through. The point is, neither of us recognized 'royal jelly' at the time when it counted. What makes you think you -- or anybody -- can do it this time?

And, trust me, there isn't anyone on that stage that has phoney niceness down as pat as Justin.

I think we need someone who is the opposite of Trudeau in that regard, that is someone who can take a twirp down, and grind his heel (figuratively) in his stupid rhetoric. This is O'Leary's strong suit -- he can focus in on the key issues, and strip away the b.s. and come back to what won the election for the Liberals -- what is required for a more dynamic economy, and JOBS! I only refer to him as an example.

Bugs wrote:
It's as if the whole Conservative followership is afraid to utter what people really think about feminism because .. you know ... the wife. They're afraid they'll be sleeping on the couch.


I guess at least for me its not an issue I consider often simply because we are now in a generation where I certainly wouldn't bat an eye at a Female CEO or for a moment consider anything other than what is presented on a resume to me when considering someone for employment.

Sure, there are folks on the extremes who will always be upset about something.
However if I focused all my attention on the minority rather than the majority I would assume the world is crazy.

A vocal minority does not represent the majority;
A lesson learnt very clearly by the 2016 US Election


Bugs wrote:
As far as I can see, none of the candidates understand what is happening on our campuses


You point to millennial;
I think back to my days on a University campus and how I viewed the world from a very narrow textbook perspective or from the opinion of a Professor who had never worked outside the world of academia.

And like clockwork, I graduated, got a job, resented the world for not handing me a million dollars on a platter because I was a University Graduate and therefore amazing and eventually like most realized the difference between how the world "should be" according to a textbook and actually "is" in reality and started voting Conservative (or whatever option was available at the time)

As the old quote goes;
“If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head.’

Those Millennials born in 1980 are skewing Conservative right on schedule and I suspect the ones born in 2000 will follow suit down the line.

Bugs wrote:
I saw a news item where O'Toole diffidently explained -- almost apologetically -- why he had used a parody to criticize O'Leary. He came across as a nice smart reasonable weakling. Sorry.


The biggest difference I see in someone like O'Toole and Sheer (and Chong, Raitt, Alexander) and Bernier and O'Leary is that the former understand that if they win they need to be the leader of all Conservatives, not just those who voted for them.

It may seem like weakness, but its a reality of leadership.
Harper did not bite on Stronach's attacks in 2004, instead he focused on how to beat the Liberals and create a coast to coast coalition in the process.

Bernier and O'Leary are going down the same road as Rae and Ignatieff and are disconnected from the fact that a coalition not only needs to be created nationally but within the party itself.

Bugs wrote:
Full disclosure: my own preferences are Bernier first, and O'Leary second. I don't think Leitch is a pariah because she brought up immigration and Islam, I just think she's narrow. I have little info about any of the others.

But these are just my private opinions, and really, my support is up for grabs.


Bernier I would line up behind if he won;
O'Leary would need to backtrack on some of the non-sense from earlier and make me feel at least somewhat comfortable he wasn't Micheal Ignatieff in blue.

I don't consider Leitch is a Pariah;
She was polling in single digits, found an avenue in which got her traction, and ran with it. It could have been any issue it just happened to be Immigration.

Bugs wrote:
But my larger point is that we are at a point where real change faces us. and we have a idealistic goof in charge. It's vitally important to recognize the kind of changes we are going to be faced with. We should be looking for a leader who can take Trudeau down, as a first requirement, and who is capable of charting a course for the future that recognizes the value we place on things like freedom, prosperity, and independence.


Which is why at least to me;
We need to elect someone who can unify the caucus.

It took Harper four elections to secure a majority, but only one to reduce the Liberals to a Minority.

That is what I am voting for;
Who can win 14 seats away from the Liberals? Who can win 30?

The spending and just general disorganization of this government is reckless and its dangerous and I simply need to look at Ontario as a preview for what happens when you convince yourself you know better than the electorate.

A new leader needs to make Peace in Eastern Canada;
Maintain Quebec, Bring back Rural Ontario into the fold, and appeal to Manitoba.

My expectation is not a Conservative coronation in 2019;
Its a Conservative Government in 2021 and I simply don't think O'Leary as the chops or the interest to put that time in.

My leaning is Scheer and O'Toole;
I may put Raitt at the top of my ballot because she is excellent and has perhaps the most complete platform going but will likely fall off the ballot early.

However I am still largely a free agent[/quote][/i]
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4373
Reputation: 245.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I mean to use italics to distinguish my response to Cosmo's response, and for no other reason,

Quote:
Bugs wrote:
This discussion (which I call the 'search committee' approach) suggests that the voters know what the times require, and I see no indication of the least awareness of the precariousness of our economic position, let alone have a plan that would steer Canada forward, as a nation. They seem to be looking for 'royal jelly' -- personal attributes -- that would ensure victory.


I don't at all disagree with you;
In some cases its up to those running government to make suggestions on how to better do the things that government should (or shouldn't) be doing and for the electorate to determine if that is the best case forward for them.

The challenge is avoiding positions which I would consider to be electorate poison.

While a good leader can sell a strong concept; even a new and controversial concept.
Even the best leaders cannot get Canadians to abandon things they consider to be important to them;

Bernier and Healthcare spring to mind.

In Ontario we watched Tim Hudak with a platform full of great ideas get stuck in the mud over a single issue, the same can be said for John Tory.

No matter how wonderful I think Berniers taxation ideas are the entire election would involve nothing but a non-stop referendum on two tier healthcare.

This ignores the notion that the electorate throws governments out, rather than elects new ones. Is this your justification for the 'royal jelly' approach? It seems to me to be weak. I take it that you favour the Patrick Brown approach -- wait for the government to totally discredit itself, avoid anything controversial, etc.

I will concede that, in Brown's case, it's probably the smart thing to do, but not always. How often does a government get in as bad shape as the Ontario Liberals? Why assume that stifling unfshionable parts of your support, and laying in the bushes is always the best approach?

What if Hudak had stayed around, making it evident that everything he predicted about this sick government was coming true? My view is that Canadian politics runs as if there is no cumulative effect. In fact, the party seems to be a funding source, but it relinquishes whatever power it has as soon as a leader emerges, and then they do what the leader and his inner circle want. There is no real 'Progressive Conservative position' on anything. The space is filled by stereotypes, the idea that the Conservatives are the party of the rich, while the Liberals and the NDP represent the 'mainstream.'

I remember how we both snickered at Trudeau before he won so decisively. And we were right, intellectually he's a twirp. There's nothing about him that is really commendable apart from his presentation. He has cheesy "niceness" down pat, though the narcissism keeps peeking through. The point is, neither of us recognized 'royal jelly' at the time when it counted. What makes you think you -- or anybody -- can do it this time?

And, trust me, there isn't anyone on that stage that has phoney niceness down as pat as Justin.

I think we need someone who is the opposite of Trudeau in that regard, that is someone who can take a twirp down, and grind his heel (figuratively) in his stupid rhetoric. This is O'Leary's strong suit -- he can focus in on the key issues, and strip away the b.s. and come back to what won the election for the Liberals -- what is required for a more dynamic economy, and JOBS! I only refer to him as an example. Bernier offers an alternative, which is different, but he can win seats in Quebec!

But all of this ignores the role of the media. I don't know why Conservatives are so blind to this, and why that isn't a big part of this discussion. O'Leary is going around the media, avoiding the debates, and he's leading. What does that tell you. Trump won by going around them, too. Harper tried to do the same by cutting off access, but now we have so-called 'social media' to work with. Trump has 26,000,000 followers on twitter --he doesn't need the New York Times. We should be looking at that.


Quote:
Bugs wrote:
It's as if the whole Conservative followership is afraid to utter what people really think about feminism because .. you know ... the wife. They're afraid they'll be sleeping on the couch.


I guess at least for me its not an issue I consider often simply because we are now in a generation where I certainly wouldn't bat an eye at a Female CEO or for a moment consider anything other than what is presented on a resume to me when considering someone for employment.

Sure, there are folks on the extremes who will always be upset about something.
However if I focused all my attention on the minority rather than the majority I would assume the world is crazy.

A vocal minority does not represent the majority;
A lesson learnt very clearly by the 2016 US Election


I hate to say this, but your response illustrates the very point I am making. If you think that feminism is about more female CEOs, you must be sniffing something. It might have been a talking point in the 1970ies, but not now. Look at how it works -- the implicit assumption is that half of the CEOs should be female because half the world is female. But this is naive. To take any managerial position requires a tremendous commitment and the number of women willing to make that commitment is low. They probably have very decent reasons for that, but that plain fact is men and women are different, and women are more oriented to relationships than men. They prefer jobs like social work to engineering, for example.

The result is that the pool of plausible female candidates is lot smaller than the pool of male contenders for those positions. Parliament is an example. Justin the twirp wants to do something purely symbolic to show women he's for 'equality', so he makes his cabinet 50-50. The female Liberal MPs account for 27% of their seats in Parliament, but that 27% gets 50% of the cabinet posts. That's feminist equality. Put more concretely, 50 female MPs will provide 15 of the 30 cabinet posts. That means 30% of the female MPs will be in cabinet, just for being female. The men, by contrast, have a far steeper climb. They have 15 out of a pool of 134 male MPs -- about one seat for every nine male MPs.

The principle applies to CEOs as well.

But this hardly touches the damage that feminism is doing to our society


Quote:
Bugs wrote:
As far as I can see, none of the candidates understand what is happening on our campuses


You point to millennial;
I think back to my days on a University campus and how I viewed the world from a very narrow textbook perspective or from the opinion of a Professor who had never worked outside the world of academia.

And like clockwork, I graduated, got a job, resented the world for not handing me a million dollars on a platter because I was a University Graduate and therefore amazing and eventually like most realized the difference between how the world "should be" according to a textbook and actually "is" in reality and started voting Conservative (or whatever option was available at the time)

As the old quote goes;
“If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head.’

Those Millennials born in 1980 are skewing Conservative right on schedule and I suspect the ones born in 2000 will follow suit down the line.


Talk about waiting for Godot! Jayzuz, all we have to do is wait for the millennials to mature and then we'll have government again? Millennials are those born between 1985-ish and 2005-ish, with the median about 1995 -- which means the median millennials are about 22 years old right now. How long do we wait? As they say, 50 is the new 40, and presumably, 22 is the new 12, which seems about right. But when does the skewing start? Presumably in another decade or so.

Sorry, I don't have enough time for that. And what shape will the country be in if we have to endure two more terms of the twirp?

I look at the millennials as the victims of feminism and progessivism. You should pay a little attention. Universities are the key institution changing society at the moment. They are creating and indoctrinating enough students in gender stuff -- it has moved way beyond equality for women, to equality for the whole alphabet of gearbox sex, the LGBT etc community. Now gender is separate from genitalia, and anyone can 'present' as whatever sex they want. (My personal preference is my inner lesbian, which means I don't have to endure the bullying heterosexual males routinely get, and I can still like women.)

These people are the shock troops of social change. They go out into the labour force ,and start making new demands on men. They have been attuned to 'microaggressions', which include a wide array of demands, from petty annoyances to just clear harrassment. Men can now be chastized for the way they sit -- called "manspreading' -- or for making the most oblique reference to ethnicity, for example. The campuses are producing racists -- not the conventional racists of the burning crosses, but the new racism that attacks cis-gendered white males. People are being expelled from universities for 'rapes' that never took place. Witness Jian Ghomeshi, who had his career destroyed by women who were caught fabricating evidence. Or how about Gregory Alan Elliott, who was accused of a sexual assault while not in the physical presence of the victims! (It occurred on twitter!)

You just don't know about these things, but the so-called Human Rights Code has been amended go make the public liable for 'mis-pronouning' transexuals, who don't want to be either male or female, but equally don't want to be 'it'. As it stands now, you could be dragged before a tribunal and fined significantly for not calling a transgendered by the pronouns they prefer, and which may not even exist at the moment. They are still be invented.

The colder fact is that the prosperity of the pre-millennial generations is based on the exploitation of the millennials. They will end up holding the bag for Justin's overspending. It's not the natural environment that is unsustainable, it's the social one. House prices, for example, may make you feel rich, but it reduces the future generation to poverty. And some of them know it, as they struggle with mountains of student debt in a labour market in which men, otherwise knows as cis-gendered white males, are openly discrimnated against, and in courts that do the same.

These are big issues for youth, and it goes to all the traditional conservative principles, much as you have distaste for such things. You can pick a leader for the party without taking these things into account, but don't pretend that it's bound to be successful.

Charisma comes from saying what the masses are only thinking. That's what Trump did,. He changed the political climate by uttering what is not politically correct. And we
Canadians are deeper in that shit than Americans. Wztch and learn.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7516
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

[i]This ignores the notion that the electorate throws governments out, rather than elects new ones. Is this your justification for the 'royal jelly' approach? It seems to me to be weak. I take it that you favour the Patrick Brown approach -- wait for the government to totally discredit itself, avoid anything controversial, etc.


Not at all;
Innovative platform ideas elect governments;
Bernier has good ideas, however running on two tier healthcare creates a sideshow.

Nothing else will be discussed during the entire campaign.

We need voters from the center in order to govern, that is one thing we always seem to forget when we are selecting leaders.


Bugs wrote:
My view is that Canadian politics runs as if there is no cumulative effect. In fact, the party seems to be a funding source, but it relinquishes whatever power it has as soon as a leader emerges, and then they do what the leader and his inner circle want. There is no real 'Progressive Conservative position' on anything.


I hate to be the negative Nelly here, but isn't that what Governance is?
The Reform Party and CA had grand promises and principals they ran on and in 2011 their former leader was put into a position with a Senate Majority and SCC appointment majority and accomplished how many of them?

He was a great Prime Minister, perhaps the best of my lifetime
But he governed soft center right

Mulroney ran cleaning up government and healing the divide across the nation;
We know how that worked out

Jean Chrétien ran on stopping NAFTA, Repealing the GST, and a National Childcare Plan in 1993,

And on and on

I think the biggest difference between our positions is you seemingly have faith in the people you elect, whereas I am opting for the best of the worst options available to me.

Bugs wrote:
I think we need someone who is the opposite of Trudeau in that regard, that is someone who can take a twirp down, and grind his heel (figuratively) in his stupid rhetoric. This is O'Leary's strong suit -- he can focus in on the key issues, and strip away the b.s. and come back to what won the election for the Liberals -- what is required for a more dynamic economy, and JOBS! I only refer to him as an example. Bernier offers an alternative, which is different, but he can win seats in Quebec!


Call me a skeptic for a moment;
Lets say we elect Mr. Wonderful and he fails to become Prime Minister Wonderful?

He has essentially made it clear if he doesn't win in 2019 he is out.

We do this all again? We go down the road of a new leader, spending the time defining that leader in the face of whatever is thrown at them, putting leadership candidates into debt, putting the parties ability to campaign into question?

What part of what happened to the Liberals from 2006 - 2014 or the Ontario PCs from 2003 to Present is that appealing we are in a rush to copy it?

Run for a seat, buy a house in Toronto, spent three weeks in a row in Canada.
If O'Leary wants to win me over, he just needs to show me he isn't Ignatieff.


Bugs wrote:
But this hardly touches the damage that feminism is doing to our society


Perhaps I am the minority amongst the masses;
But I don't run across many of these issues in my field, which doesn't really give me the perspective to comment perhaps?

If the Liberals want to do something symbolic like have half their cabinet posts be women, good for them.

I tend to vote for the party that put folks into portfolios based on their experience and not their gender.

Bugs wrote:

These people are the shock troops of social change.


Has this not always been the case?
How many times over the last half century have we seen violence on a campus as young folks are trying to bring "attention" to their particular aspect of social change.

I work with a guy who went to attended Woodstock, was arrested at a Protests in the 60s and is voting for Brad Trost in the leadership race for goodness sake.

We get most of em' eventually.

Campus' have always been bastions of socialist ideas;


Bugs wrote:
These are big issues for youth, and it goes to all the traditional conservative principles, much as you have distaste for such things. You can pick a leader for the party without taking these things into account, but don't pretend that it's bound to be successful.


Yeah...
But they don't vote Conservative anyway.

Balancing budgets, cutting spending, repair basic infrastructure (sewage, roadways, bridges) all that unsexy stuff that everyone hated Harper for was ultimately to the benefit of those folks on campus' protesting him as a fascist.

He left the country in a better place than he found it and weathered one of the greatest recessions in our history but the folks under 25 hated him as they hate every Conservative leader as they will always hate every Conservative leader.

I may be misreading this;
But you seem to arguing that we can reason with the 20 something crowd and get them to understand they will be us one day and its best not to screw yourself over.

Whereas I am of the mindset that the path to victory goes through the working 30 - 70 crowd and once we are in there we can do what we need to in order to save the young people from themselves

Bugs wrote:
Charisma comes from saying what the masses are only thinking. That's what Trump did,. He changed the political climate by uttering what is not politically correct. And we Canadians are deeper in that shit than Americans. Wztch and learn.


If O'Leary wins the leadership, which certainly looks possible and he wins a majority in 2019 then I owe you beer and a good cigar.

And I don't say that facetiously, I would be happy to be wrong.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1184
Reputation: 112.3
votes: 1

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm all for Conservatives being bold. This was one of my issues with Harper, although he found success in his incremental change approach. I'd like to see us run on a few bold ideas, or have somewhat of a grand vision platform.

Running on a bold vision requires someone who can articulate that vision properly. While I see Bernier putting out bold policies, I think he struggles to articulate them, particularly in English (and I don't know how well it appeals in Quebec). Like all of us, I've been following this race quite closely as I do with politics in general. I still do not understand Bernier's healthcare proposal, and if I don't understand it from following closely then most of the public won't understand it. His proposal will simply be labeled as wanting to privatize healthcare. I just simply don't know if many of his policies will resonate with much of the electorate that we need to win. He'll win the Conservative seats but can he take back old seats and win new ones?

St. John's East was very much a conservative stronghold forever but in the last election the CPC candidate won just 6.5%. Despite this, I could see it being a target seat for the Conservatives in the next election. The current Liberal MP has been quite weak and seems to put his foot in his mouth everytime he speaks publicly, his win was a huge shock. Jack Harris - who was the NDP MP from 2008-2015 - had support right across the political spectrum, and many upset PCs supported him. With him gone it is a huge opening for the Conservatives to make a comeback. Despite the provincial party having it's worst showing in like 50 years, their support was good in many of the provincial districts that make up St. John's East, and historically have been. Cape St. Francis is just one of six districts that make up St. John's East, just weeks after the federal election he won more votes in his district than the CPC candidate won in the whole federal riding. I want the CPC to win in 2019 but I don't think running on a platform that proposes the federal government getting out of health care, eliminating equalization etc. will work. Might appeal to us Conservatives but it won't appeal to the general public.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7516
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
I'm all for Conservatives being bold. This was one of my issues with Harper, although he found success in his incremental change approach. I'd like to see us run on a few bold ideas, or have somewhat of a grand vision platform.


I agree.
However it depends on the bold ideas.

There are some pretty interesting ideas being kicked around amongst the leadership candidates, if they could amalgamated we would have a pretty good platform if we could sell it

Progressive Tory wrote:
Running on a bold vision requires someone who can articulate that vision properly. While I see Bernier putting out bold policies, I think he struggles to articulate them, particularly in English (and I don't know how well it appeals in Quebec). Like all of us, I've been following this race quite closely as I do with politics in general. I still do not understand Bernier's healthcare proposal, and if I don't understand it from following closely then most of the public won't understand it. His proposal will simply be labeled as wanting to privatize healthcare. I just simply don't know if many of his policies will resonate with much of the electorate that we need to win. He'll win the Conservative seats but can he take back old seats and win new ones?


This is exactly my concern.

Even moving to a UK system where you could dicate to private entities that if they want to work within this market their facilities need to made available to the public system at the public rate for X hours a week;

The headline will simply be "Rich to the front of the line"

There are not many who can sell that and the benefits to the public system in both English and French, if at all.

Progressive Tory wrote:
St. John's East was very much a conservative stronghold forever but in the last election the CPC candidate won just 6.5%. Despite this, I could see it being a target seat for the Conservatives in the next election. The current Liberal MP has been quite weak and seems to put his foot in his mouth everytime he speaks publicly, his win was a huge shock. Jack Harris - who was the NDP MP from 2008-2015 - had support right across the political spectrum, and many upset PCs supported him. With him gone it is a huge opening for the Conservatives to make a comeback. Despite the provincial party having it's worst showing in like 50 years, their support was good in many of the provincial districts that make up St. John's East, and historically have been. Cape St. Francis is just one of six districts that make up St. John's East, just weeks after the federal election he won more votes in his district than the CPC candidate won in the whole federal riding. I want the CPC to win in 2019 but I don't think running on a platform that proposes the federal government getting out of health care, eliminating equalization etc. will work.


This speaks to a greater overall issue with the CPC;
They need to find a way to connect with Eastern Canada again.

The Tories didn't just lose in Eastern Canada;
They were destroyed. Former Cabinet Ministers lost by 20% +

I think far too often in our lust for seat rich Ontario and Western Canada and the fascination with Quebec we forget that from 2004 to 2015 Eastern Canada provided more if not a similar amount of MPs to the caucus than Quebec did.

The next leader needs to do better as it pertains to Eastern Canada.

Progressive Tory wrote:
Might appeal to us Conservatives but it won't appeal to the general public.


That is the balancing act.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6707
Reputation: 239.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( ezra says its just a scheme to split the right and odd scott Gilmore is the husband of a liberal cabinet minister )

April 09, 2017

Failing “Maclean’s” backs columnist’s plan to start new “conservative” party

Ezra Levant
Rebel Commander


Last week, I told you about Scott Gilmore's campaign to start a new Canadian conservative party. Isn't it weird that Gilmore gets to write about federal politics in a national magazine, when his wife is a Liberal cabinet minister...?

https://www.therebel.media/failing_maclean_s_pushes_columnist_s_plan_to_start_new_conservative_party
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4373
Reputation: 245.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am clearly not getting through to you folks. You actually think feminism is about equality? In what way are women not equal? If anything, they are more than equal. They want to have half of what used to be the men's work -- if it is clean, safe, well paid, and not so demanding that it causes them to change the focus of their lives. They don't want half of the jobs picking up garbage, at the tail end of a truck.

And they expect to retain all the traditional benefits of womanhood, their half of the traditional division of labour. They don't want to have to earn respect, they feel they can demand it.

You don't get it. You say you don't run into in in your everyday life, so it doesn't exist. Talking to you is a waste of time. But O'Leary knows the Millennials are the ones who are going to be left holding the bag for our social benefits. So does Bernier. Both have a sense of emergency that the others lack.

You do this 'search committee' thing ... amongst what is largely a pool of unknowns. You seem to think that you can make up a platform -- in consultation with pollsters and marketing professionals -- which you will drop as soon as you lose the election, and start the whole procedure over again. Hillary Clinton politics. You talk as if Canada exists in a vacuum, insulated from world economics and politics -- even as the election of Trump is causing a change of course even amongst the present government. Uncertainty swirls around us, do you not even know?

As I see it, there are really only two choices. One is a formidable critic, media-savvy and able to say mean-spirited things in an acceptably pleasant way; the other has a chance of taking a sizeable number of seats in Quebec, and is probably the most classic conservative -- in the North American sense of the word -- in the field. (I don't care what you say, when in our lifetimes has Quebec rejected someone who best spoke French with their accents, with their slang, and with their tempo?) Stephen Harper's French works only to the extent that it does when there is no Quebecois in the race. They appreciate the effortm but they want one of their own.

But no, Bernier made what you judge to be a misstep on medical funding. (That's about all the feds do -- transfer funds.) The other contender will pass up the job if he loses, and that's disbars him? What makes these bland creatures so attractive to people who couldn't give a rat's ass if the Conservatives remain united in opposition?

Btw, Iggy was 'just visiting', just fattening his resume. He left Canada right out of university, as soon as he could, to swan around the BBC. He never even when to school in Tim Horton's Canada. He was a creature of Upper Canada College and Trinity College, and then he left to exploit the family's connections elsewhere.

O'Leary is a lot more involved in Canada than that, and a lot more Canadian than that. His real problem is he can't speak French. It's an important limitation. Believe me, Quebec will always go for the leader whose French most resembles theirs. They prefer one of their own. I do too -- I don't blame them for that. And Bernier is more Quebecois than Justin Sinclair Trudeau.

It isn't that there aren't other good and decent people in the field, but which of the rest can actually change things?

Which of them can win 30 seats, as opposed to sitting around waiting for the public to get disgusted enough to throw Trudeau's crowd out, over the din of media disinformation? Do we want the federal government to take the whole country down to the state that the Wynne government will leave Ontario in?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7516
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
As I see it, there are really only two choices. One is a formidable critic, media-savvy and able to say mean-spirited things in an acceptably pleasant way; the other has a chance of taking a sizeable number of seats in Quebec?


So make the argument,
Which seats in Quebec swing because of Bernier?

Which Quebec ridings opt for our Quebecois over theirs?
The Eastern Townships? Northern Quebec? Côte-Nord?

As I said, I am not committed to anyone other than someone who can win.
If you feel your guy can win in Quebec walk me through how he strips away enough support from the BQ and NDP in winnable regions?

Montreal isn't going CPC, so your options are limited.

But I am open to the path forward if you can show it to me;
You seem confident I am open to the idea, I just need to understand where.

Bugs wrote:
When in our lifetimes has Quebec rejected someone who best spoke French with their accents, with their slang, and with their tempo?) Stephen Harper's French works only to the extent that it does when there is no Quebecois in the race. They appreciate the effortm but they want one of their own.


When their is a lone Quebecois?
Rarely.

However what makes you feel that the voters of Quebec faced with a minimum of three leaders based in Quebec (Trudeau, Bernier, and Ouellet) vote for Bernier or the CPC?

You stated they want one of their own;
They have no shortage of options.

Bugs wrote:
Bernier made what you judge to be a misstep on medical funding. (That's about all the feds do -- transfer funds.)


A misstep is what happened to Micheal Chong;
This is an election killer.

What is the current level of support for Public Healthcare in Canada?
A series of studies and polls from 2011 and 2012 pegged it in between 80 - 90%, even if you throw a +/- 20 on that its staggering.

Generally speaking given our system you just need to have 40% on your side;
In this case we have less than half that.

Bugs wrote:
The other contender will pass up the job if he loses, and that's disbars him? What makes these bland creatures so attractive to people who couldn't give a rat's ass if the Conservatives remain united in opposition?


It does;
Quite quickly actually.

In terms of united in opposition;
I would like to win in 2023 if we don't win in 2019, having a divided caucus gives me the same non-sense we experience from 1993 - 2004, I am not a rush to repeat that.

We have a Prime Minister that we can at a minimum agree is not our first choice for the job, the problem is that the general public disagrees with our shared sentiment by a wide margin and any leader needs to swing a huge portion of the populous their way.

You may be confident that whomever you are voting for wins a first ballot majority in 2019 whereas I am hoping to swing 30 seats, then another 30.

Harper kept the CPC united for five elections and two Parliamentary sittings in Opposition and three in government

All this during a period of time in which the LPC had five different leaders and were at each other constantly over leadership.

While you may not rank unity high on your list;
I do.

Bugs wrote:
O'Leary is a lot more involved in Canada than that, and a lot more Canadian than that.


Being more Canadian than Ignatieff is a low bar to set.
If he is more involved in Canada, then he has done a poor job marketing it.

Bugs wrote:
Bernier is more Quebecois than Justin Sinclair Trudeau.


Based on?

Bugs wrote:
It isn't that there aren't other good and decent people in the field, but which of the rest can actually change things?

Which of them can win 30 seats,


Which 30 seats would you like to discuss and which candidate specifically?
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1184
Reputation: 112.3
votes: 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Being born in Montreal was enough for Layton to win Quebec so why couldn't the same happen to O'Toole anymore than Bernier?

Andrew Scheer - referring to Bernier - has said we can't turn into the NDP of the right. It really does appear that that is what could happen under Bernier. He has all these great conservative ideas, but ideas are useless if you can never implement them.

Bernier remains high on my ballot but has been trending down.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4373
Reputation: 245.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dunno ... just responding with this layout seems to be too complex. You want me to get into the weeds, identifying ridings, and all of that.

For starters, there are the usual soft-spots around Quebec City, and of course, the rural areas particularly the Beauce. You mistake Junior Trudeau for a Quebecois, but he's really a cosmopolitan, as much a British Columbian as a Quebecker. And they are not the same thing. Who's the real home boy?

But who knows what will happen in an election? It's a bet we make with fate. Everybody knows the dice are loaded, but we cross our fingers and roll them anyway. What choice do we have?

You seem to have rejected O'Leary and Bernier, for dubious or at least speculative reasons. Who, then, do you suggest? Who has no flaw as a candidate?

Which 30 seats will Scheer get? O'toole?

My criteria: To me, the new leader should be friendly to immigrants, but not to the point of sacrificing security or treating them better than Canadian-born citizens. And if (s)he expects immigration to be the motor of economic growth, (s)he eliminates him/herself as far as I am concerned.

The new leader can be a social conservative, but should not tilt at the windmills of abortion or same sex marriage. The issues have moved beyond that, to transsexual rights. Anyone who can't stand up for common sense on this one isn't worthy of the job.

They should be fiscal conservatives, and know how to create prosperity through lower taxes and removing regulations appropriately. And have a plan to balance the budget after the Liberals excesses.

And they should be able to win.

I like Lisa Raitt, for example -- but she can't win. She can't even distinguish herself as a leadership candidate, as excellent as she may be as an administrator. It's too bad.

Your reasons for rejecting O'Leary are superficial, imho. He would normally be a tremendous recruit for the party, at least as starry as Fantino was, for example. As the leader, it raises questions, I concede, but his biggest demerit would be that his French is so abysmal. But he can take it to Trudeau like no other. That has to count for something.

From my point of view, Bernier is the better candidate. Your criticism' about two-tier health care is unjust. It's a swap of tax points for transfers, that's all. It's a distortion to say he doesn't support public healthcare. But it will allow the electorate to locate responsbility and hold politicians accountable in a way they can't now, and the provinces can experiment with hospital financing, etc. That may be a new idea in Canada, but it's a good one nonetheless. His plans for supply management will take the handcuffs off entrepreneurial farmers. He has the boldest ideas, and he is from Quebec. There are a lot of conservatives in Quebec, but not so many Conservatives, if you get my meaning. He has the best potential of bringing the old 'bleus' to the party.

So let's turn the tables, and examine the two contenders that you mention most often -- Andrew Scheer and Erin O'Toole. What bothers me about them is they have both spent almost all of their adult lives in government. They seem to be campaigning on the hope that they'll be everybody's third choice. Is the party really in danger of splitting? Are they the glue that holds it together? I dunno, but there's always patronage. And can they win? Where do they bring 30 seats to the party? I await your answer.

On another point ... it seems like the Liberals know how important feminsm is to their support. It's too bad that Conservatives also pander. In today's news, but it's there all the time. McGoof had the same approach.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3367.....-feminism/

Here we are, in what may be the most favorable nation on earth to women (outside of Scandanavia) and we aren't doing enough. And you don't think it's an issue!
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4373
Reputation: 245.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
Being born in Montreal was enough for Layton to win Quebec so why couldn't the same happen to O'Toole anymore than Bernier?

Andrew Scheer - referring to Bernier - has said we can't turn into the NDP of the right. It really does appear that that is what could happen under Bernier. He has all these great conservative ideas, but ideas are useless if you can never implement them.

Bernier remains high on my ballot but has been trending down.


Layton was not only born in Quebec but spoke French as a child. He didn't learn it in school, that's the difference. He also played footsies with the nationalists. And what makes you think that O'Toole has the same charm?

I don't even know what Scheer means by the 'NDP of the right'. How do you know that Bernier's ideas are an impediment? It may take some education, and farmers will have to be compensated, of course, and that may be expensive, which is a valid argument -- but if this is the price of continuing in NAFTA, why not? There's lots of opportunity for our farmers, and it will lower food costs for Canadians.

Anyway we are all just blowing hot air. None of us know what the world will be like in October, 2019? Is it better to not have any new policies on offer? It's certainly safer.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Scott Gilmore proposes to create a new party

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB