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
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swan Song wrote:
Quote:
Mulroney was alwas in the middle on policy, because of this it allowed supporters to break of to the left and right. Harpers government is a centre right coalition, this makes it only vulnerable to the left and right now the left is very crowded.


That is fine as long as you acknowledge that Harper's coalition is a MINORITY coalition, and Mulroney's was a MAJORITY coalition. If you are happy with taking home less rather than more money at the end of the year, I would be happy to hire you to work for me. That must be the "new math" they teach out West!

My memory is foggy. I cannot recall what happened the last time the Western base of the old PC party split off and formed its own party? Since all anybody needs to form a majority, is apparently Toronto, it must not have been such a big deal. For some reason, the name "Preston Manning" is floating around my head, but he must have been a minor player in the Kim Campbell and Jean Charest majority Parliaments formed by the "majority coalition" that Swan Song talks about. As notted, we are all just ignorant bango pickin' yokels out West here...
mltoryblue





Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 109
Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swan Song wrote:
Quote:
Mulroney was alwas in the middle on policy, because of this it allowed supporters to break of to the left and right. Harpers government is a centre right coalition, this makes it only vulnerable to the left and right now the left is very crowded.


That is fine as long as you acknowledge that Harper's coalition is a MINORITY coalition, and Mulroney's was a MAJORITY coalition. If you are happy with taking home less rather than more money at the end of the year, I would be happy to hire you to work for me. That must be the "new math" they teach out West!


I'd glady take a minority government that is governing the country like they had majority and putting forward conservative ideas as well as steering the country to the right.

And if I have to live with a minority for a few years as opposed to selling out my beliefs and principles just to get a quick majority right now than so be it!
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What Swan Song doesn't get is Minority or Majority, the Conservatives are still in power. They have the PMO, they have the administrative power. That's huge. Even if we weren't able to rule like we had a majority right now, having the administrative power is a big thing. Could you imagine if Stephie had the administrative power? We certainly wouldn't have an elected senator in the senate right now, and that's the least of it.
mltoryblue





Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 109
Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the biggest difference between Harper and Mulroney is that Harper is building a solid foundation that we conservatives can continue to build on for years.

It may take an incremental approach and many years, but in the end I think we will be much better off and owe a great debt of gratitude for what Harper has done.
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
I was too young to really know so please enlighten me. How was Mulroney conservative? I googled "tax cuts, mulroney" and found nothing. Did he put a lid on government spending? Did he put forward tough law and order measures? Did he fight for unborn children?


Though not a "conservative", I would not say that Mulroney was a flaming Liberal either. Free Trade, cancelling Trudeau's National Energy Program, and suporting Gulf War I are just three things that come to mind right off the top my head.
scarborough_tory





Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 23

Location: Scarborough, Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mltoryblue wrote:
Swan Song wrote:
Quote:
Mulroney was alwas in the middle on policy, because of this it allowed supporters to break of to the left and right. Harpers government is a centre right coalition, this makes it only vulnerable to the left and right now the left is very crowded.


That is fine as long as you acknowledge that Harper's coalition is a MINORITY coalition, and Mulroney's was a MAJORITY coalition. If you are happy with taking home less rather than more money at the end of the year, I would be happy to hire you to work for me. That must be the "new math" they teach out West!


I'd glady take a minority government that is governing the country like they had majority and putting forward conservative ideas as well as steering the country to the right.

And if I have to live with a minority for a few years as opposed to selling out my beliefs and principles just to get a quick majority right now than so be it!


Given the situation we're in, the 308-seat HoC is effectively operating as one with 212 seats, at least when it comes to confidence votes. The next election is all but guaranteed to give us our majority, so IMO, whether Dion forces an election now, or allows this Parliament to run its natural course to Oct 2009, does not really matter. What I'm more interested in is the 41st general election and onwards, whether we'll win and continue to win beyond the next election, in a post-Dion world. And the best way to do that is to keep on doing exactly what we're doing. Sticking to our principles.
Swan Song





Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 133
Reputation: 26.7Reputation: 26.7Reputation: 26.7
votes: 1

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The anti-Western sentiment you put on display every other post is, within the context of the OP, exactly what needs to end to keep us united. There will be no chance of any conservative government, minority or majority, if East, West, and Atlantic cannot accept each other as equal partners in a coalition.


Forgive me, if I don't see my economic conservative values reflected by this increasingly Clampett-like Harper governmement. Terrance Corcoran gets it:

Farm boyz rule Ottawa
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post
Published: Tuesday, December 04, 2007
http://www.financialpost.com/a.....mp;k=34709

The fourth annual Canadian Renewable Fuel Subsidies Association Summit, where corn and biofuels are a religion, opened yesterday morning. I couldn't make it to Quebec City for the two-day event, but I had no trouble finding out what the summit is all about. Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, a Saskatchewan boy, opened the event with a promise that Ottawa would keep the subsidies coming. As Mr. Ritz said in his speech, "in making every decision on every policy, I'm fully committed to putting farmers first." We all know what that means: Make cities pay.

Consistent with that bias, Mr. Ritz promised new regulations to force city dwellers to use biofuels produced by farm people. By 2010, by regulation under new "clean air" leglislation introduced yesterday, a total of 5% of all gasoline consumed in Canada must come from corn or other feedstock. Just as Canadians must buy all their milk and cheese under government-distorted markets, they will soon also bear the financial burden of carrying corn growers. Quoting again from Mr. Ritz, transportations costs are a big expense on the farm, but "when a biofuels plant opens in a farmer's backyard, those transportation costs disappear."

How that happens isn't clear, but maybe it's best we don't know. Like other things that take place on farms, you don't always want to be there when they happen.

Immediately after delivery of his inspiring subsidy-laden "opening keynote address" at the fuel summit, Mr. Ritz was followed by Karen Coshof, producer of a climate disaster "documentary" called The Great Warming. Ms. Coshof's function, it appears, was to assuage the consciences of fuel association members who might be feeling a little guilty about taking billions in subsidies and enjoying the benefits of regulation that forces other people to buy their products.

As Ms. Coshof's film suggests, climate change is a "spiritual and moral issue," not just a science and business issue. The Great Warming, financed in part by the federal government and narrated by Alanis Morissette and Keanu Reeves, has become something of a phenon across the religious right in America. There is a "DVD Faith Version," and a version for churches and synagogues complete with a 60-page sermon preparation guide.

Is climate change a new item on the social conservative agenda? The Web site for The Great Warming comes with endorsements from numereous religious and evangelical groups. Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals, commenting on the movie, said climate change calls for action soon, "action based upon a Biblical view of the world as God's world." Another minister, Gerald R. Durley of Atlanta, wants to "save our world ... from us."

The Biblical view, apparently, means paying farmers to grow corn and other products, subsidizing the construction of biofuel plants all over Canada and the world, and then forcing consumers to buy the products. That the Conservatives have adopted ethanol and biofuels as a national crusade comes as something of a surprise, given the party's occasional history as an opponent of market-distorting government intervention.
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 can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


What will it take to finally unite the right?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB