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  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4992
Reputation: 262.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think this is less true than you think. Ever since ADSCAM a major part of the population has parked its vote with other parties rather than vote Liberal federally.

That's what kept the Bloc afloat. As soon as Duceppe got personal ambitions, his support dwindled. It toyed with going for Harper, early on, but the 'cultural community' made up a phoney cultural issue and cut that off. So they went for the NDP when the Bloc failed. That was no doubt enabled by the personality of Jack Layton, and his knowledge of Quebec French. But the NDP is certainly an edifice that's ready for demolition. Mulcair is no Layton.

And now Quebec is facing up to voting for the Liberals again. Believe me, there's a lot of older people who still resent the Liberals.

The other thing to remember is that when Quebec moves, it moves much more decisively that most parts of the country. If Conservatives faced up to protecting Quebec's culture in a believable way, their prospects would change.

How do you think you appeal to Quebec after the wells have been so poisoned? By stiff-marming Bernier, the Conservative Party leadership is acting out something that Quebec believes -- that Anglo-Canada has no place at the table for the French-speaking nation. It's a symbolic confirmation.

That's the way I see it.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7755
Reputation: 265.1
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I think this is less true than you think. Ever since ADSCAM a major part of the population has parked its vote with other parties rather than vote Liberal federally.

That's what kept the Bloc afloat. As soon as Duceppe got personal ambitions, his support dwindled. It toyed with going for Harper, early on, but the 'cultural community' made up a phoney cultural issue and cut that off. So they went for the NDP when the Bloc failed. That was no doubt enabled by the personality of Jack Layton, and his knowledge of Quebec French. But the NDP is certainly an edifice that's ready for demolition. Mulcair is no Layton.

And now Quebec is facing up to voting for the Liberals again. Believe me, there's a lot of older people who still resent the Liberals.

The other thing to remember is that when Quebec moves, it moves much more decisively that most parts of the country. If Conservatives faced up to protecting Quebec's culture in a believable way, their prospects would change.

How do you think you appeal to Quebec after the wells have been so poisoned? By stiff-marming Bernier, the Conservative Party leadership is acting out something that Quebec believes -- that Anglo-Canada has no place at the table for the French-speaking nation. It's a symbolic confirmation.

That's the way I see it.



its true the sponsorship scandal had a major affect on federal politics in quebec and the liberals now seem to be recovering from that damage

it also seems unlikely the ndp will be a force in quebec with Jagmeet Singh as leader and the 2011 breakthrough may soon be nothing but a paragraph in a political history book

myself I think the federal conservatives need to take a look at what the CAQ has done to increase its support in quebec , especially if they win or at least gain a lot of new seats next election .
clearly there on the right track and have done something right . they managed to expand there base and are winning seats provincially in areas of the province not normally right of centre
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4992
Reputation: 262.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is wrong with offering Quebec conservatives a better deal than they can get with the Liberals, not in terms of more concessions, but in terms of a guaranteed partnership?

What is wrong with getting Bernier onside, instead of brushing him off?

As long as we send guys with Joe Clark French into Quebec, and try to piece them off with patronage, this will continue. And the winner on the 13th ballot isn't that appealing as retail politics. (I wonder if he's any less narcissistic than Justin sometimes.)

There's no democracy in the party. What do the Conservatives hope to achieve in their next term? We have no clue. Our duty is to follow, and not to ask where we're going. The party is lost, directionless, trying to topple the Liberals with ... nothing!
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4992
Reputation: 262.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Considering where the Conservative Party stands in Quebec, it's hard to think of an argument against that, isn't it?

What have Conservatives got to lose?

The problem is the failure of imagination, as well as the unrealistic vanity of Scheer. He seems to think that all he has to do is, like Prince Charles, wait until the throne passes to him. He has no sense of the real issues that stir the masses.

This is Joe Clark redux ... for him to make it, things will have gotten as bad as they are in Ontario. The country will have to be at their wit's end with Justin.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7755
Reputation: 309.9Reputation: 309.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was having this very discussion over the weekend;
The concept that Quebec is the "way forward".

While I will be the first to admit the sound of the PC party imploding in on itself last time this was attempted still often comes to mind, but I was reminded that that was more than 25 years ago.

So how does the CPC bridge the gap in Quebec?

The easy answer is of course the Bernier Card, the issue is
His book is coming out likely later this year which looks like essentially a platform for a post 2019 era, so as much as I would love Bernier as the face of Quebec its not appearing likely.'

With that off the table;

I am interested in what the better offer to Quebec is?
Very open minded as I have no idea what the approach would be.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4992
Reputation: 262.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's wonderful to know there's some ferment in the party, even if it's at a low-level.

I worked (believe it or not) on the Royal Commission on The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism way back when Lester B was the sitting PM, believe it or not. I was a researcher, studying the language patterns in the civil service. I don't claim to be an expert, but I have some experience.

You have to understand that the question is a matter of trust. Can you face these facts? The old Conservative Party was, at its core, the recent immigrants from England, a feeling that diminished with the generations. But in World War I, these people were outraged because French Canadians didn't want to send their lads off to fight the Kaiser, particularly since the British were just forming the colonials into nice little squares and marching them under the German guns at the time. I think a lot of it goes back to that.

There were incidents, notably the Riel Rebellion, but it was just an incident. Let's just say that Quebec has its reasons to be suspect. They view Canada as a compact between two peoples. We view it as a collection of ten (equal) provinces. We used to want equal opportunity and merit as the way of distributing social rewards, but now we're confused. But Quebec wants to keep its community together. It wants to keep its jobs for its own kids, and favour their own people. Like they do in Europe nnd Asia and South America and Russia ... and on and on and on ...

What's wrong with that? The Liberals made it work because they started from a deal between the party of the Rebels of 1837 in Quebec, les Rouges, and the Clear Grits from Ontario. It wasn't the most natural alliance, so the party itself became an explicitly political organization that formed around an alliance of two groups who were united in wanting their own countries. Mackenzie King took that 'deal' between the two factions and made that organizationally complete. The leadership was rotated from English- to French-speaking. It took us through the Great Depression and World War II, and we came out the other end a proud and respected country with an industrial economy.

That period was also characterized with strong deputy leaders from the other language-group that probably held a near-veto on cabinet decisions. Mackenzie King had Ernest Lapointe, St. Laurent had C.D. Howe, but Pearson's tragedy was that he never found a French-speaking deputy leader. Diefenbaker kept picking them off.

That's what we should be looking at as a model. The Liberals quit doing it because they recruited the wonderful (((Pierre Eliot Trudeau))) and turned the party over to the French-wing of the party. The English-speaking heavyweights left the party when Trudeau won -- except for John Turner, who did later. Trudeau never had an Anglo deputy leader.

It was because Trudeau thought it was only a matter of language and had the dream of making Anglo-Canada bilingual. That lasted about a year. But it is also a matter of patronage, and a matter of an effective voice at the table. For real.

From Trudeau forward, the notion grew that the office of leader was a command-and-control position requiring a field-marshall who's French was as good as their English. Joe Clark became the leader on the basis of his French. It really requires someone who speaks Quebec French, in its variety like Mulroney and Trudeau. I think we've run out of those people, in my mind.

We fooled ourselves that Joe Clark or Stephen Harper French was what it will take, but that misunderstands the problem. The problem is that French-speaking people of Quebec don't trust the Conservative Party, not that they aren't conservative.

We need exactly people like O'Leary and Bernier, people who can hit on different dimensions. We need to get the best leaders we can put forward and have a French-speaking wing that is pretty independent and can produce leaders of the same quality. And then we have to be willing to hammer that out in the caucus, not in the civil service. We concede that we speak French like an Anglo, but we know whats important -- to put a partnership between our peoples into practice.

Conservatives ought to be making their party into the forum that brokers the deals that have to be made to make Canada work again.

To me, it means we have to get in touch with the grassroots in both provinces, and have a more collegial kind of leadership. But that's another topic.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7755
Reputation: 309.9Reputation: 309.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is very interesting,
It was actually quite a fascinating read.

Your above bold sentiment is something I very much agree with,
The right leader can move mountains in Quebec regardless of the leaning.

The Union Nationale, the ADQ, and potentially the CAQ have proven that out.
The right voice speaking to the issues of Quebec can relate to Quebecois voters.

The NDP has abandon Quebec, logic would assume there is a vacuum of potential support.

Having a Quebec Lieutenant would be invaluable;
The challenge is that I don't think Bernier is interested and I am not sure that O'Leary has any further interest in Canadian Politics, however that point is moot. The idea is solid.

In theory the route forward is a voice to Quebec,
I guess the next question is what do we want that voice to say? What is the common-ground that unites the West, Ontario, and Quebec?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7755
Reputation: 265.1
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( it should be concerning to the conservatives that according to the hill times , the liberals plan to target some unheld rural ridings in 2019 , some of these ridings they likely haven't won since 2000 or 2004/06 elections . were basically talking about base or core ndp/conservative ridings in places like Ontario , Quebec , Manitoba and BC .

they have no business being competitive in some of these ridings , the incumbents should easily hold onto them. but we shouldn't underestimate the amount of attention a visit by the PM would generate in some of these ridings , front page news no doubt , not that he'd actually accomplish anything for the riding . but could turn 2019 into a long and painful election if the cpc is forced to spend a lot of time defending seats they should easily hold )



Rural ridings offer potential growth for Liberals in 2019 and PMO’s paying attention, says rookie rural Liberal MP Harvey


But the Atlantic provinces and rural ridings are on the target list for the Conservatives who will win back seats from the Liberals in 2019, says five-term Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski


http://www.hilltimes.com/2018/.....vey/130720
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7755
Reputation: 309.9Reputation: 309.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its like with anything,
The right candidate can shift a riding in nearly any direction.

Thomas Mulcair is recent evidence of that.

The Liberals have been very effective at attracting solid candidates, if you bring in a former mayor or popular counselor its very likely the Liberals could add seats in Rural Ridings.

From the Liberals perspective they need to focus somewhere in terms of growth;
Ridings that the held post merger (2004 onward) are all logical targets.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7755
Reputation: 265.1
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
Its like with anything,
The right candidate can shift a riding in nearly any direction.

Thomas Mulcair is recent evidence of that.

The Liberals have been very effective at attracting solid candidates, if you bring in a former mayor or popular counselor its very likely the Liberals could add seats in Rural Ridings.

From the Liberals perspective they need to focus somewhere in terms of growth;
Ridings that the held post merger (2004 onward) are all logical targets.



still the liberals have over 180 seats and a majority , they don't really need to grow , more hold what they already have , why would it matter to them if there is a few ndp or conservative mp's from rural ridings ?

it just seems the liberals are getting greedy , if this plan is successful we could be talking about a liberal majority of 200 or more seats if they were to gain some in quebec and some rural opposition ridings , but once you have a majority you can already pass any piece of legislation , you don't need the extra mp's ?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7755
Reputation: 309.9Reputation: 309.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
Its like with anything,
The right candidate can shift a riding in nearly any direction.

Thomas Mulcair is recent evidence of that.

The Liberals have been very effective at attracting solid candidates, if you bring in a former mayor or popular counselor its very likely the Liberals could add seats in Rural Ridings.

From the Liberals perspective they need to focus somewhere in terms of growth;
Ridings that the held post merger (2004 onward) are all logical targets.



still the liberals have over 180 seats and a majority , they don't really need to grow , more hold what they already have , why would it matter to them if there is a few ndp or conservative mp's from rural ridings ?

it just seems the liberals are getting greedy , if this plan is successful we could be talking about a liberal majority of 200 or more seats if they were to gain some in quebec and some rural opposition ridings , but once you have a majority you can already pass any piece of legislation , you don't need the extra mp's ?


I don't think its as much a matter of greed as contingency.

The Liberals govern with a 13 seat majority (at the moment) if the NDP and Tories secure even a 2006 level of support in Atlantic Canada it puts them very close to the line.

If NDP support in Rural Quebec largely breaks to the BQ, it would be very easy for them to pick up more than a dozen seats in Quebec from the Liberals.

Heck, if the Tories are able to pick up seats they held since 2006 that they lost by less than 4% in Ontario alone you close that gap in a hurry.

There are also 12 Liberal Seats in Western Canada (not including BC) where even in 2008 there were just 2.

A slight region breeze shifts them to a minority government and those breezes can come fast.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
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


Scheer's approach is failing: Geoff Stevens

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB