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 3 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1178
Reputation: 110.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think many of Bernier's policies - on health care, gun laws, privatization - would prove to be very controversial among the general public. I think his policy regarding supply management could easily be sold to the general public, although the party would still face a lot of backlash from different organizations.

We might not know what the political situation will be like in 2019, but I highly doubt the Canadians who decide elections will suddenly be all for a party promoting two-tier health care, looser gun laws, privatizing numerous government entities etc.

Some of Bernier's ideas should definitely be part of the 2019 platform and others should be included in future platforms. However, I don't think Canadians would be willing to support such a drastic shift in policy in one go.

I can see exactly where Scheer is coming from with his NDP of the right.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

For starters, there are the usual soft-spots around Quebec City, and of course, the rural areas particularly the Beauce.


Essentially the 12 seats in Quebec City and the Eastern Townships we won and lost and won under Harper.

To build a Quebec strategy around a leader I would imagine you need to win 25-30 seats. I would think for starters you want to target the ridings that did well under a Dumont led ADQ as they have voted right of center in the recent past;

However, do you feel that Berniers approach to transfer payments is going to help him in the rural regions of Quebec that leaned ADQ in the past or hinder him there?


Bugs wrote:
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?


At present the cosmopolitan from BC has the majority of seats from Quebec which is the first time that has happened for the Liberals since 1980

Bugs wrote:
You seem to have rejected O'Leary and Bernier, for dubious or at least speculative reasons.


At this point all reasons are speculative reasons are they not?

I wouldn't say dubious but they are generally unappealing because I don't thing either can win,

Let me re-phrase that;
I think O'Leary in the long run can win a majority on an economic heavy platform, I don't think he can win first time out in 2019, given he has no intention of running beyond that it disqualifies him for me.

He makes a commitment beyond a single election;
Its a different story.

Bugs wrote:

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.


Superficial because I don't think he has any commitment to the party he is seeking to lead?

The French is not a huge area of concern;
The CPC held a majority without Quebec MPs hold the balance of seats, however a leader who does not appear to Quebec must appeal to Eastern Canada.


Bugs wrote:
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.


Quote:
Breaking the taboo around private sector involvement in healthcare will bring innovation. That is the right plan.


http://www.maximebernier.com/g....._provinces

If we don't have one tier of healthcare, we have two.

I don't mind the plan, but he clearly hasn't marketed it well and I don't feel like spending the next two years discussing nothing but that final throwaway sentence in his platform.


Bugs wrote:
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.


Scheer perhaps and his star is falling anyway.
However O'Toole spent 12 years in the Air Force then 10 as a Lawyer;
He has been in Government since 2012.

Bugs wrote:
Where do they bring 30 seats to the party? I await your answer.


Scheer is not ideal;
However he has a tremendous infrastructure and fundraising arm in Western Canada.
The fact that he has had no platform and done as well as he has financially shows me he has that old Reform Grassroots system behind him;

Which should give him the nine seats in Sask and Alberta they are currently missing that they have held before and the five in Winnipeg as he has seemingly been spending a tremendous amount of time there.

He breaks the Liberal Majority but his path lays entirely on securing support in BC, Rural Ontario, and Eastern Canada which is an issue currently.

O'Toole on the other hand has done very well at secure support in Rural Ontario;
His membership base and support has largely been derived from those regions. He is hoping to run the table on 80+ Ontario Seats during the leadership

The Tories secured 33 seats in 2015 by contrast they had 40 in Ontario in 2006 w/ 73 in 2011 when they won their majority. There are also 15 more seats in Ontario.

To his credit he has seemingly made an effort to visit them all;
His entire platform seems aimed at rural& northern Canada.

Firearms, Farming, Energy Policy, a North Strategy, Veterans Rights, Property Rights,
http://erinotoole.ca/policy/

He is singing to electorate who voted Conservative from 2006 - 2011 and went Liberal in 2015, he hasn't secured this momentum by accident.

He is seemingly hitting all the cords that Harper did in 2006;

With all that speculation and conversation;
Its going to be very simple to tell who can win where on the first ballot of the leadership;

Granted this all goes out the window on ballot one;
If O'Leary runs the East Coast and secures 50 or 60 seats in Ontario to go with a few dozen out West, maybe there is something to him especially if he can drive turn out.

With that said, it also all goes out the window if Bernier supporters refuse to back O'Leary and vice versa.



[/quote]
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4145
Reputation: 238.6
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two comments, that's all ...

Who do you think can best convince Quebeckers that funding and 'owning' their own public healthcare' gives them more control -- Bernier or O''Toole? I think that a Quebecois can get a far clearer channel into the understanding of Quebeckers than a non-Quebecois.

You mischaracterized the issue in the first place as 'two-tiered healthcare'. It is more a relinquishing of federal government control, in the sense that they set standards. Quebec has shown a willingness to be innovative and has been hampered by the feds on other occasions because ... gasp ... what would happen if someone found ways to increase efficiency and make money while providing the same or better service?

Go to a hospital, and you will see -- they drip labour! I had an ulcerated gash on my leg, and went to the Chatham Ontario hospital last summer. (My medical professionals are in Toronto, and if you want to see two-tiered healthcare, move to the country.) I arrived at emergency at noon, and it despite having three receptionists, it was closed for lunch!

I was in no real emergency, and emergency departments have essentially become walk-in clinics. Some doctors may go where Medicins'Sans Frontieres wants them to go, but most won't practice anywhere there aren't lots of good restaurants, truth be known. So I waited, and was the first to get in when the doors opened. Inside the treatment part of the emergency department there were easily 15 or 20 medical professionals of various ranks milling around. I was asked my date of birth at least five or six times, as different teams of three looked at my wound. Probably a third of the group were writing notes. In the end, they sent down to the burn unit to get a nurse who actually did the prescribing. There were two doctors present, both female, but they were obviously very junior.

To be fair, I was bandaged up and turned over to another female doctor was very experienced, and nurses came to bandage me for a few weeks. It worked out. I don't mean this as a criticism. It's just that there are zillions of efficiencies to be found in hospitals. If you have a colonoscopy, you can go to the clinic on Edward Street, and they are doing them on a mass produced scale. Who cares if it's profitable, it doesn't cost any more.

You can frighten people, but the truth is -- it will ultimately prevail, and there's a lot of virtue in Bernier's thinking. And Bernier stands the best chance to put such reforms over in Quebec. The problem is -- you expect this to be ''marketed' to the public before it gets into politics so that politicians can jump in front of the parade after it has formed. Is that really your version of political the leadership?

Look, Harper lost Quebec because he rearranged some arts funding. It was a nothing-burger, but we lacked the spokesman we needed to make that clear. It's hard when they hae the CBC. The Conservative Party needs spokespeople that ordinary people trust. Don't you think there are people in Quebec who see what a twirp Junior really is?

My second point: The Air Force is a part of the government. It's full of privileged consumption, and money-is-no-object thinking. It operates like the civil service with an officer's club, which is even worse. The point it -- it is in the bubble.

These points you make -- viz: the cosmopolitan from BC has the majority of seats in Quebec may be an observation, but it is not an argument. Trudeau got there by promising to do a small bit of deficit financing to get a lot of economic growth. He promised the world, and was forced into the concession. He was going to build a lot of infrastructure, and city planners with dreams of endless mass transit expansions felt a swelling in their groins. The media jumped with joy. It won't be like that next time.

You have to understand that the future is not just a replay of the recent past.

The people have gotten the McGuinty gang instead. It''s a political machine that preys on the female vote in the most trivial manner possible. Trudeau -- whose 'royal jelly' you never recognized -- is only the hood ornament on that grim, wasteful political machine.

You never recognize that the media has to be won over first. You refuse to see how a civil service in rebellion over the losses to their benefits packages, literally created the Duffy trial, and scheduled it to poison the election campaign, while the media danced along merrily, dedicated to destroying a political figure who wouldn't cater to them. Tbat won't happen this time. Believe me, there never was a reasonable prospect of conviction in the Duffy trial, and a competent prosecution would have recognized it.

This was a different version of Trayvon Martin.

This election will be different You pose as a realist, but you ignore a lot of that reality and that's where a lot of disagreements come from. You can't seem to give me a reason to support O'Toole that isn't just the party pro's approach -- he's "securing support" in good areas ... but he isn't, he's courting party insiders and doing nothing to excite the public. O'Leary is landing body blows on Trudeau and his government, and his videos circulate on the internet. Thats where the excitement is.

I think any objective outsider would see that the best campaigner (by far) would be Kevin O'Leary, and the best future PM could be Bernier. The best option would be a tag-team of the two of them. The rest seem to me to have no fire in their bellies, and are (in a sense) just seeking promotions. Like Iggy.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

Who do you think can best convince Quebeckers that funding and 'owning' their own public healthcare' gives them more control -- Bernier or O''Toole? I think that a Quebecois can get a far clearer channel into the understanding of Quebeckers than a non-Quebecois.


As Bernier is the only one selling the option;
Clearly Bernier.

However I think that control of healthcare at the expense of less equalization money is a balance I am not convinced Quebec is willing to line up behind.

Bugs wrote:
You mischaracterized the issue in the first place as 'two-tiered healthcare'. It is more a relinquishing of federal government control, in the sense that they set standards.


I am simply doing exactly what the Liberals will do.
You and I on this issue are on the exact same page.

However the point you made in several paragraphs while correct was made over several paragraphs whereas mine was simply made with "He is for two tier healthcare"

Was Harper for "Men, In the Streets, With Guns" or simply increased police presence using all branches of available enforcement?

The first one is more snappy, shorter, and simpler to remember.

Its a great issue, but most of Bernier's platform will require him to educate the population en mass on why these changes are a good thing and I don't think he has the skill, time, or resources to do so in two years.

Over six? Maybe.

Bugs wrote:
You can frighten people, but the truth is -- it will ultimately prevail, and there's a lot of virtue in Bernier's thinking. And Bernier stands the best chance to put such reforms over in Quebec.


What I truly admire is that you have some much faith in the electorate to make the best call for their best interests.

I wish I was less jaded and could believe that this was a reality.

Trudeau was elected on "Yeah, I am going to spend money, unbalance the budget, change the way we hold elections, and legalize marijuana"

Harper made the mistake of running on good governance.

Half of Trudeau's promises have fallen flat and he still enjoys rockstar status in Quebec;

While I agree that Bernier will do better in Quebec than Harper's 12 seats;
I just question if he can do much better than 25.

Bugs wrote:
The Conservative Party needs spokespeople that ordinary people trust. Don't you think there are people in Quebec who see what a twirp Junior really is?


I agree with the former;
The CPC lacked a strong voice in Quebec;
Harper was the party and we could have benefited from strength within the Province because goodness knows he had a pretty deep bench.

As for the latter;
I hope so, but what evidence do we have of that?

I know that polling is not your fist choice of supporting documents,
But the LPC just won two by-Elections by massive margins, one in Quebec and one in a very French Speaking riding.

There is no evidence they have "bored" of him.

Perhaps where you and I differ is I think the path of least resistance runs through Ontario, where you feel Quebec is the key?

Bugs wrote:
My second point: The Air Force is a part of the government. It's full of privileged consumption, and money-is-no-object thinking. It operates like the civil service with an officer's club, which is even worse. The point it -- it is in the bubble.


This is one of those agree to disagree scenario;
He was a navigator for nine years before being promoted.

We clearly have a different view of our servicemen, and that is fine.

Bugs wrote:
These points you make -- viz: the cosmopolitan from BC has the majority of seats in Quebec may be an observation, but it is not an argument. Trudeau got there by promising to do a small bit of deficit financing to get a lot of economic growth. He promised the world, and was forced into the concession. He was going to build a lot of infrastructure, and city planners with dreams of endless mass transit expansions felt a swelling in their groins. The media jumped with joy. It won't be like that next time.


I am not sure the argument you are trying to make in this instance;
Quebec voted for him, they voted for him as recently as a few weeks ago.

That may be an observation, but its one grounded in facts.

Whereas your comment of "It won't be like that the next time" is based on what?
He still has rockstar status in Quebec.

What signs of his popularity eroding in Quebec are you seeing that we clearly are missing?

Bugs wrote:
This election will be different You pose as a realist, but you ignore a lot of that reality and that's where a lot of disagreements come from. You can't seem to give me a reason to support O'Toole that isn't just the party pro's approach


I am inclined to be proven wrong;
You disagree with my rational behind leaning toward O'Toole, and that's fine

However simply because O'Leary is getting a lot of views on YouTube when he is traveling back and forth to his primary gig isn't enough reason for me.

He is an interesting man who a year ago was musing about running as a Liberal;
Great campaigner or not, he is here for the wrong reasons.


Bugs wrote:
The best option would be a tag-team of the two of them. The rest seem to me to have no fire in their bellies, and are (in a sense) just seeking promotions. Like Iggy.


In this case I agree;
Bernier is a principled Conservative who can secure his message in French, O'Leary can sell a message elsewhere.

If they created some sort of marriage of Principals;
I could get behind that.

However this current feud is not a good thing if one wins or both lose.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6276
Reputation: 229
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Conservative MPs criticize Gilmore for floating Conservative Party shakeup, take aim at his marriage to Liberal minister


‘It doesn’t matter if I’m married to Fidel Castro or to Bill O’Reilly. What matters are the ideas and the reaction to those ideas,’ Scott Gilmore responds.


'I wrote a column, people reacted. I didn’t choose the timing,' says Maclean's columnist Scott Gilmore, who's touring the country to meet with conservatives who want to talk about a new direction for the party. Photograph courtesy of Scott Gilmore



By PETER MAZEREEUW


PUBLISHED : Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:00 AM



A handful of Conservative MPs are challenging Maclean’s columnist Scott Gilmore’s cross-country discussion tour on the state of the Conservative Party, questioning Mr. Gilmore’s motives and experience with the party.

However, several well-known conservatives say Mr. Gilmore is right to warn that the rhetoric coming out of the party’s leadership race misses the mark for centrist or moderate Tories.

“I think he’s being mischievous,” said Conservative MP David Tilson (Dufferin-Caledon, Ont.) of the columnist and Conservative Party member proposing a national debate on the party’s future.

Mr. Gilmore is planning to host gatherings in restaurants in eight Canadian cities—Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver—to discuss a new direction for the Conservative Party with whoever signs up to attend. He will be accompanied by what he says will be non-partisan guest speakers at the events, some of whom will travel along with him from city to city. The tour is planned to run between April 24 and May 8. The Conservative Party members will select their next leader on May 27.

“The goal will be simple: Let’s talk about whether Canada needs a new conservative party, and if so, how would we build it?” wrote Mr. Gilmore in a March 29 Maclean’s column, in which he identified as a “self-loathing Tory” frustrated with what he saw as a race to the far-right on social issues by the Conservative leadership candidates, to the detriment of the party. Mr. Gilmore is married to Liberal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna (Ottawa Centre, Ont.), who was elected as an MP for the first time in 2015.

As of the end of last week, more than 1,500 people had signed up to attend the dinner events, said Mr. Gilmore. His proposal also provoked a substantial response on Twitter, split between supportive and critical messages.

Mr. Tilson and a few other Conservative MPs, however, dismissed Mr. Gilmore’s tour as an underhanded attempt to divide the Conservative Party, which was formed in 2003 when the centre-right Progressive Conservative Party merged with the further-right Canadian Alliance.

Erin O’Toole (Durham, Ont.), Michael Cooper (St. Albert-Edmonton, Alta.), Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, Que.), Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, Ont.), and Mark Strahl (Chilliwack-Hope, B.C.) all questioned the value or legitimacy of Mr. Gilmore’s new campaign, either publicly or when asked by The Hill Times.


“He’s suggesting that the Conservative Party split into two parties. That was tried once and it didn’t work,” said Mr. Tilson, who said doing so would put those parties “in opposition indefinitely.”

Conservative leadership candidate Brad Trost, right, is running on a platform that courts social conservatives; Steven Blaney, left, has proposed tougher restrictions on illegal immigrants; and Pierre Lemieux, centre, says the party can’t win with ‘Liberal light’ policies. Maclean’s columnist Scott Gilmore says moderate conservatives aren’t being represented well in the race. The Hill Times photograph by Jake Wright

Mr. Poilievre and Mr. O’Toole questioned via Twitter whether Mr. Gilmore had ever been active in the party before, while Mr. Tilson and Mr. Deltell suggested his efforts had something to do with his marriage to Ms. McKenna.

“Maybe he’s taking direction from his wife. She’d love to have the Conservative Party split and be in two parties, so the Liberal Party would be in power forever,” said Mr. Tilson.

“Everybody can say what he wants, especially the spouse of a Liberal cabinet minister,” said Mr. Deltell.

For Mr. Gilmore, those criticisms miss the point.

“It doesn’t matter if I’m married to Fidel Castro or to Bill O’Reilly. What matters are the ideas and the reaction to those ideas,” he said in an interview with The Hill Times.

Mr. Gilmore declined to speak on behalf of Ms. McKenna when he was asked what she thought of his dinner tour, and how it could affect her.

“I’m not going to answer any questions that have to do with my private life. But obviously, I support the Conservative Party, and I’d like to see them in power again,” he said.

Ms. McKenna declined to comment through a spokesperson when her office was contacted by The Hill Times.

While Mr. Tilson and others see Mr. Gilmore’s public campaign as an effort to divide the party and keep it out of power, Mr. Gilmore said he was attempting to prevent the party from marginalizing itself.

Mr. Gilmore said he wrote his column in part because he felt frustrated by what he saw as anti-gay, anti-immigrant, and anti-climate change rhetoric from some of the Conservative leadership candidates, which he felt was alienating moderate conservatives from the party. The response to his column from like-minded conservatives pushed him to plan the dinner events, he said.

“Why the timing? I wrote a column, people reacted. I didn’t choose the timing.”

Conservative candidate Kellie Leitch (Simcoe-Grey, Ont.) has proposed screening all immigrants for “Canadian values,” while the recent surge of asylum seekers crossing into Canada illegally from the United States has prompted a number of Conservative leadership candidates to call for a crackdown at the border to keep them or turf them out. Conservative leadership candidate Brad Trost (Saskatoon-University, Sask.) has come out against gay pride parades, while Michael Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills, Ont.) is the only Conservative leadership candidate to come out loudly in support of a carbon tax.

Mr. Gilmore said he was “agnostic” about whether there should be one or two conservative parties.

“What I want is more moderate conservatives in this country to feel that they have a voice,” he said.

Mr. Gilmore also dismissed those who questioned whether he had ever been active in the party before. He said he had, but wouldn’t say when or how, since “the idea that what I’m proposing is somehow invalidated by my level of participation in one direction or the other is specious.”

“These people should be worried less about me, and worried more about the idea that I’m talking about, which is that a lot of moderate conservatives are unhappy,” he said.

Mr. Gilmore, a former Canadian diplomat, was appointed by the then-Conservative government to serve on an advisory panel for the merger of the CIDA federal foreign aid agency with the foreign ministry in 2013, and to the board of governors of the International Development Research Centre in 2015.

He has donated to the Green Party, Conservative Party, and Ottawa Centre Federal Liberal Association at different times over the last dozen years, with the Conservative and Liberal donations being the most recent.

Mr. Cooper challenged the notion that the Conservative Party wasn’t accommodating moderate points of view.

“We’re a big-tent party. We have people with all kinds of different viewpoints…and they’re all welcome in the Conservative Party,” he said, adding that the party was having a “healthy debate” through the leadership race.



‘Healthy’ for the party

There are some well-known figures in Ottawa who have supported Mr. Gilmore.

Ottawa-based political strategist Rick Anderson tweeted that he would be attending one of the dinners, and congratulated Mr. Gilmore for creating a “useful discussion.”

Mr. Anderson, a Conservative Party member who describes his politics as centre-right, pragmatic, and socially libertarian, told The Hill Times he didn’t favour creating a new party, but thought the discussion Mr. Gilmore had launched was “healthy” for the party.

He said he believed that some of the concerns raised by Mr. Gilmore in his Maclean’s column only applied to“fringe candidates” in the leadership race, but that he also wanted the party to move on from rehashing social issues that had been settled decades ago, such as abortion, to deal with modern problems, such as the best way to deal with environmental issues, or political correctness encroaching on public debate.

Former Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber, who left the party to sit as an independent and was defeated in the last election by Mr. Cooper, wrote in an opinion piece in iPolitics that Mr. Gilmore’s column “was something I could have written myself.”

Mr. Chong also endorsed some of the concerns raised in Mr. Gilmore’s column. Chisholm Pothier, Mr. Chong’s director of communications, told The Hill Times that “Michael shares many of the concerns that Scott expressed in that column.”

“But he does not agree that the answer to those concerns is to start a new party,” said Mr. Pothier. “We saw in the 1990s what happens when the conservative movement splits, and the result of that was three consecutive Liberal majority governments. So that’s not the solution, but the risk to the party is not splitting, the risk to the party is continuing to shrink.”

Guests at the dinner events will be asked to cover the cost of a fixed-price menu arranged with the venue. Maclean’s will be covering some of Mr. Gilmore’s costs for the tour, while he will be footing the bill for the first round of drinks for each guest, as promised in his column. With 1,500-plus guests at $6 a head, that would run close to $10,000.

peter@hilltimes.com

@PJMazereeuw

Scott Gilmore’s ‘Cross Canada dinner tour’

Halifax—April 24

Toronto—April 25

Montreal—April 26

Winnipeg—May 1

Calgary—May 2

Edmonton—May 3

Vancouver—May 4

Ottawa—May 8

http://www.hilltimes.com/2017/.....nds/102627
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6276
Reputation: 229
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

from reading the hill times article a few odd things stand out , first off Scott Gilmore appears to have no caucus support for this tour at all and no current mp's even moderate tories are supportive of the idea


I also find it very odd that Macleans magazine is partially paying for the tour , doesn't it seem a bit odd he doesn't have actual financial backers at this point if he's claiming so many people contacted him . and that a Canadian media outlet that has often been critical of the federal conservatives . is paying for a tour that could lead to a separate conservative party that would almost certainlty diminish the electoral chances of the federal conservatives . rate during the middle of the tory leadership race .


it all seems very odd at this point
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6276
Reputation: 229
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( Scott Gilmores tour appears to be in full swing but its unclear where its all headed )


Changing the future for Canada’s conservatives, one dinner at a time


Columnist Scott Gilmore is hosting events on modernizing—or maybe remaking—the Conservative Party


Meagan Campbell

April 26, 2017


Maclean’s Magazine columnist Scott Gilmore asks the crowd to show hands at the start of Scott Gilmore’s New Conservatives Dinner at Brazen Head Pub in Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, April 25, 2017. (Photograph by Cole Burston)

The pub in Toronto was so densely packed that an elbow bump meant a dramatic spill of Guinness. Tiled by tables of four, with narrow columns for navigating, the venue left just enough room to walk the talk of changing who runs the Conservative Party.

As columnist Scott Gilmore hosts dinners across Canada—rolling think tanks on creating a new conservative party, or modernizing the existing one, anyway—the tour seems to be not just for kicks, but rather for real. In a recent Maclean’s column, Gilmore called for a new conservative party and, to start the conversation, offered himself up for mass blind dates with the body politic. While Gilmore admits to potential boondoggling, the 200 strangers who took up his invitation in Toronto produced solid ideas, which they fluidly scrawled on a whiteboard for Gilmore to send to the Conservative leadership candidates. Register a new party, they might not, but attendees at least reported new motivation to vote for one of the candidates who comes closest to their beliefs, and they’re starting a Slack channel for future talk of re-orienting the party. To the extent that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, this grassroots, no-nonsense night holds potential.


“A lot of people are getting all worked up that I am trying to split the Conservative party,” Gilmore told the crowd. “There’s a lot of people that think this—us getting together—is a bad idea, that it’s going to hurt the party. I think that’s bulls–t.”

Gilmore’s column envisions a fiscally right-wing party that defends LGBTQ rights, welcomes immigrants and nods to the existence of climate change. “Maybe it’s time we considered starting something new: a right-of-centre party that genuinely believes in individual liberty,” he wrote. So come one, come all—Gilmore invited his readers (minus his mother, who he claims hates his work), to unite in their disillusionment, share pints and lay plans.


Andrew Coyne of the National Post speaks to the crowd at Scott Gilmore’s New Conservatives Dinner at Brazen Head Pub in Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, April 25, 2017. (Photograph by Cole Burston)

“You can have conversations about radical ideas when radical ideas are needed,” said journalist Andrew Coyne, who spoke on a panel in the pub. “For all the arrogance and swagger of the Harper government,” he continued, “there is a sense that we can’t possibly talk about what we believe in, that we have to hide our agenda, [that] we have to do things by stealth.” Coyne urged people to own their values and not be ashamed intellectuals, as were many of the Conservative Millennials interviewed by fellow panellist Sarah Boesveld, of Chatelaine.

“What does the Conservative party stand for? I don’t have the first goddamn idea,” offered Matt Gurney, a radio host and the final prepared speaker. He proposed that politicians today should end boutique tax exemptions, stop warehousing white-collar criminals, reinvest in the military, and “don’t be a d-ck.” He was so angry at the candidates in the last election that he spoiled his ballot (Gilmore voted Liberal, he wrote in a 2015 column).

The pin of a guest at Scott Gilmore’s New Conservatives Dinner at Brazen Head Pub in Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, April 25, 2017. (Photograph by Cole Burston)

Gurney complained that Coyne kept stealing his answers to audience questions, but the panelist telepathy didn’t extend through the crowd, which splintered on whether to create a new party or reorient what they’ve got—with or without social conservatives. A pig farmer took the microphone to say politics must “marry” rural and urban concerns, while another in the audience suggested they start a financial-transparency database like the $10 million initiative by America’s Steven Ballmer, former chief executive of Microsoft. “Good idea,” confirmed Gilmore.


Hypothetically, the crowd could register a new party. They would need to submit an application to Elections Canada with the name of a leader and at least one candidate endorsed in a general election or by-election. They’d also have to find a new name: the “Progressive Conservative Party” is the only Canadian party registered as a trademark.

Conservatives have a tradition of dividing. Offshoots have been the Reconstruction Party, Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance and parts of the Bloc Québécois, and they’ve had progressive prime ministers over time—most notably John Diefenbaker, who supported social insurance and pensions. He also prevented Canada from investing in nuclear weapons, even after John F. Kennedy came to Ottawa to pressure him (Kennedy’s staff left behind a memo in the meeting room, reading “what we want from the Ottawa trip” was “to push” Canada toward the American position.)

A man shares his thoughts on a whiteboard at Scott Gilmore’s New Conservatives Dinner at Brazen Head Pub in Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, April 25, 2017. (Photo by Cole Burston)

What Gilmore wants from his own cross-Canada trip is discussion, and the Toronto crew delivered—if only their Fitbits tracked their jaws. Attendees included a risk consultant for diamond mines and a former provost of Queen’s University; the bartender said of the tips, “They took care of us.” But for each neck wearing pearls, another hung with headphones. There was Odane Finnegan, who is a charity fundraiser and self-described “six-foot-six black guy,” as well as a woman named Casey with tattoos across her feet that symbolize the story of her last week with her dying dog.

“I’m a conservative because I’m an optimist,” Gurney said during the night’s panel. “I think if you leave me alone and leave most people alone, we’ll figure it out. I trust you. I don’t think you’re out to screw me.” The audience agreed with calls of “Hear, hear.” Next to Gurney, Coyne crunched on ice cubes, his brow in a permanent furrow.

Winnipeg is next on the champagne trail, and Gilmore asked what message he should deliver. “Jets suck,” piped up an audience member, and Gilmore replied, “This trip across Canada may be a boondoggle, but it’s not a suicide mission.”

The Toronto mission was supposed to end long before midnight, but stragglers kept debating supply management and objective truth after the waiters had cleared the tables, after all the salt and pepper shakers had been put to bed in a kitchenette. Still under a banner of, “Guinness, est. 1759,” they talked of something new and reluctantly bold, to be established now.


Clarification: This article previously identified Matt Gurney as a Conservative with a capital “C.” He identifies as a non-partisan, small-c conservative.

http://www.macleans.ca/politic.....at-a-time/
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4145
Reputation: 238.6
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, he has a point -- what does the Conservative Party stand for?

I don't know myself. I have ideas, and I know what North American conservatism has evolved into, but I hear Cosmo sneer at libertarian values, for example, as a reason Bernier can't be elected ... What's wrong with limited government, and all that implies? Others think Danny Williams is the cat's pyjamas. I don't mean to pick on these two stalwarts, and I know it's just 'practical politics' from a certain point of view ... but what is conservatism in an advanced welfare state that pays for its benefits with the credit card?

Why am I the only one who sees anything wrong with that? What about the social bulldozer that's redesigning our children to the point that they are now being offered any gender they like? Or the social justice juggernaut that effectively is building a new criminal code outside of Parliament, based on racial grievances?

That doesn't mean that I think these bozos are busily putting principles to work. It seems more like a socially liberal pep rally. But it seems besides the point.

LGBGTQ rights are not what the Department of Education has on its agenda -- it's making gender optional altogether!

And what was unwelcoming about the Harper government's immigration policy?

As for 'climate change' -- phew, what do you say about that canard? (It's indicative when the critics of something know more about it than the exponents, isn't it?)

Maybe we should have a party that's more friendly to vegans as well?

It isn't the Harper government that is muzzling people. Coyne is an editor of a major Canadian magazine. There's a filter, if there ever was one. Matt Gurney has a radio talk show. Duh! These are the filters speaking out!

This article is a promotion by a MacLeans writer. The whole effort seems to be being led and created by media people. We have a leadership campaign going on where the big brains seem to want to limit the effect of the population on the choice through a weird voting system. Ideas are met with snark and the conviction that they would never fly. And now these creeps are coming out of the woodwork to lead the Conservatives to the same big tent the Liberals occupy.

I dunno.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1178
Reputation: 110.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I consider myself a libertarian on many issues, particularly social issues.

I would like to see the Conservatives move in the direction whereby that do care more about freedoms and liberty and let people run their own lives. If someone wants to decide if they're male or female or no gender at all why should I care? Live and let live.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4145
Reputation: 238.6
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with you, PT. But that isn't what is happening in our schools. Instead, they are encouraging people to declare themselves as homosexuals or -- even worse -- transsexuals before they really know what their actual sexual identity is. When people mature, they often go into a period of rebellion against the roles that are being prescribed for them. A lot of girls, particularly, go through a tomboy stage. Some of them can be persuaded -- often by the pop culture -- that its better to be gay or trans ... and the school encourages this behaviour. That's what the anti-bullying stuff is all about -- giving boys the social space and protection they need to 'come out' as gay at 14.

This goes along with changes in the sex education offered by the schools.

Anyway, sure people ought to be able to do whatever they want, if it doesn't harm others. But this is a little more than that. It isn't a non-judgemental situation. Its a school full of adolescents, many of whom are vulnerable to considering themselves outside of the normal genders, which have been described as oppressive, unjust, etc.

Previously, people learned they were gay by trying to be heterosexual, and not having the appropriate reactions. They would try out homosexuality later, after high-school, and decide then. I don't have any issue with that. I have no desire to make their lives tougher.

It's the state that is encouraging this, to the point that the trans issue is essentially an affair of university campuses. Most of the people that are not in the school system don't have much of a problem with the sexual status quo. In fact, I use the trans issue as an example of government overreach.

You should bear in mind -- they are not encouraging people into a healthy choice. For example, medical people are finding that as much as 40% of the people who try to change their gender through surgery commit suicide. This research is flawed, but all the practitioners of sex-reassignment surgery know that a lot of their patients kill themselves, to the point that Johns Hopkins Hospital, a pioneer in the field, has quit doing these surgeries.

Beyond that, there are significant health risks for homosexuals, and this information is being suppressed in the schools.

The point is that the schools is involved in social engineering in ways that most parents, if they understood what is happening, would not approve of. The Libertarian ;osition should be a tolerant one, to the individual, but it should recognize that a lot of this gender stuff is promulgated by the schools, and we don't know why.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1178
Reputation: 110.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

High schools aren't turning people gay.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4145
Reputation: 238.6
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And you know that ... how?

If it isn't being created there, it is being nurtured there, and at universities. It is celebrated in the pop culture. And it has legal force behind it, through the so-called Human Rights Commissions. You just don't want to believe it, it seems unbelievable. Maybe you should actually look and see.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1178
Reputation: 110.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
And you know that ... how?

If it isn't being created there, it is being nurtured there, and at universities. It is celebrated in the pop culture. And it has legal force behind it, through the so-called Human Rights Commissions. You just don't want to believe it, it seems unbelievable. Maybe you should actually look and see.


No, it's being accepted at more places now, for the most part.

And what difference does it make if they are "turning" people gay?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4145
Reputation: 238.6
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is obviously being accepted because it is a policy of the state to accept it. It is part of the compulsory curriculum in schools. As early as Grade 5, a public health nurse will come into the school and make a presentation that is nominally aimed at preventing the spread of AIDS. She will put a condom on a banana, while being sure to let the kids know that anything they do, sexually, is OK, so long as both parties consent and so long as they use a condom. That simple. And she might very well give out free condoms, but in any case, they're available in the principle's office.

From a strict point of view of epidemiology, it makes no sense to draw the line at Grade 5 students. It seems unlikely that they will contract AIDS any time soon. They're about 11 years old. There isn't a lot of AIDS in the playground. No, its a socializing experience. They are being given permission to get involved with sex, and sex means any kind of sex whatever.

Meanwhile, the pop culture and the school encourages homosexuality by characterizing the revulsion that kids naturally feel for same sex sex as homophobia, as mere bigotry taken to the depths of a mental disease!

We humans are highly imitative creatures. Schools provide what we might call a 'cultural road map' for how to live and prosper in society -- at least that's what we think they are doing. But the schools are actively destroying hte old cultural maps. And that is the point. Why would the schools be teaching this stuff at all? What is the goal of such training? You might ask yourself that question.

A society doesn't go from a point where 2 or 3% of its male population is homosexual to where it is probably 20% or more because they were born that way ... not over two generations. To think that this is just some free-floating social trend is wrong.

What difference does it make? Well, it affects family formation very dramatically, with the results that our population is declining, and we require immigrants from different civilizations (Moslems) to support our welfare system. It creates and spreads a wide variety of sexually transmitted diseases, of which AIDS is only one. And it predicts a decline of our civilization culturally. If you think smoking a little reefer is something that should be regulated, and think that homosexuality is just another choice and everyone should do as they wish, you are confused.

We are now at a point where young people -- particularly the young men -- feel that the world has no place in it for them, and they don't know how to make their way in the world. They even feel guilt for being male. On campuses, they are ritually humiliated regularly. But the worst cases are the ones who aren't even in school.

You can sneer, and attribute that to individual failings if you like, but when it happens at this scale, it isnt just that all the young men became feckless all at once. It's that their cultural road map has been ripped up. They commonly feel that there is no place in the world and they don't know what to do about it. Some of them are waking up to the fact that they will be left holding the bag for the costs of the welfare state, and feel an impotent anger. They escape into video games and drugs at an unprecedented rate.

This isn't a matter of simple tolerance for what was once seen to be deviant. This is a matter of social engineering on such a massive scale most people can't believe it. But the social engineeers are disposing of gender, probably the oldest and most biological of the social divisions in human society.

Where you and others make your mistake is in the assumption that the switch to homosexuality that is undeerway throughout our society is a matter of individual choice, and it should be tolerated and encouraged. But it is part of a new cultural order being imposed on those too young to have any experience upon which to judge.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1178
Reputation: 110.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

*shakes head*
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 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