# The Next Conservative Leader



## larry Strong (4 Nov 2010)

Posted with the usual caveats....


http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101104/jim-prentice-leaving-office-101104/

According to the talking heads he is "unhappy"


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2012)

My own recent post in the Liberal Leadership thread got me to thinking about the next Conservative leader. The recent vote on a proposal to debate "when does life begin?" saw both Rona Ambrose and Jason Kenney voting to reopen the debate and, therefore, against the prime minister and the rest of cabinet. The speculation is that both are positioning themselves to capture the _social conservatives_ when, inevitably, the leadership race opens (2017? 2018?).

Who else might be a leadership candidate?

My guesses:







   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Rona Ambrose                                    Jason Kenney                                                                    Peter MacKay                                Jim Prentice
Alberta, DOB: 15 March 69                 Saskatchewan, DOB: 30 May 68                                        Nova Scotia, 27 Sep 65                Alberta, DOB: 20 Jul 56                                              
Career Politician                                 Career Politician                                                                 Lawyer before entering politics    Lawyer, Politician and Business Executive


I think Prentice, who, at 56 is the oldest of the four, has the best résumé but he is, I also think the least bilingual. Ambrose describes herself as a _libertarian_, Kenney really is an established social conservative just as MacKay is a social liberal.


Edit: spelling   :-[


----------



## dapaterson (27 Sep 2012)

I wouldn't count out John Baird, either, another career politician.


----------



## GAP (27 Sep 2012)

Ambrose doesn't turn any cranks in leadership mode....the others are all viable, but low profile. McKay, I think, has been written off by most. Kenny and Baird are maybe's, but Prentiss has always had an aura of compentantcy the others don't have....He also walked away at the height of his time in, so he kinda retains that....


----------



## gcclarke (27 Sep 2012)

I know Mr. Prentice, having volunteered with his campaigns both when he was gunning for the leadership of the old PC Party, and then again for his election campaign as an MP candidate in 2004. He's really a great guy, and I was saddened to see him decide to leave politics. I certainly would welcome a return. 

Can't speak to his French proficiency though. 

Edit: Other than him, I'd probably prefer Kenney (despite and not because of his social conservative ways), Baird, and Ambrose.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My own recent post in the Liberal Leadership thread got me to thinking about the next Conservative leader. The recent vote on a proposal to debate "when does life begin?" saw both Rona Ambrose and Jason Kenney voting to reopen the debate and, therefore, against the prime minister and the rest of cabinet. The speculation is that both are positioning themselves to capture the _social conservatives_ when, inevitably, the leadership race opens (2017? 2018?).
> 
> Who else might be a leadership candidate?
> 
> ...




Edited to add John Baird. Baird is a social liberal, like MacKay.

My, personal preferences:

First choice: Jim Prentice
Second:       John Baird
Third:           any of Rona Ambrose, Jason Kenney or Peter MacKay


If it is two Quebec _native sons_ (Mulcair and either Garneau or Trudeau) then I suspect that Prentice's less than perfect French will not do him too much harm. He is ten years older than his colleagues, two years younger than Mulcair, but he has much more _gravitas_. I don't think he has much _baggage_ on the _social_ issues.


----------



## larry Strong (27 Sep 2012)

I wonder if there would be any resistance to another leader from "Alberta"......


----------



## JorgSlice (27 Sep 2012)

Jason Kenney is an outstanding politician in my opinion. I'd vote for him as CPC Leader.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> I wonder if there would be any resistance to another leader from "Alberta"......




I've often discussed the _Old Canada/New Canada_ theory - it's not mine but I can't remember where I first read it - which says that power is shifting from Old Canada, East of the Ottawa River, to New Canada which is  BC <=> ON. Thus it will be natural for the Conservatives to have a New Canada leader, with ON and AB being the places in which they elect the most people.


Edit: 2 X typos


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2012)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is an interesting analysis of (Conservative) political leadership. I'm not certain I believe it, not completely, anyway, and the parts that I do believe are applicable, I think, to all political movements throughout the Western world:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/02/john-ivison-conservative-backbench-has-lost-its-fear-of-stephen-harper/


> Conservative backbench has lost its fear of Stephen Harper
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...




Some points of departure:

1. Prime Minister Harper's _"Orwellian" and centralized_ style of government is nothing new in Canada ~ Trudeau and his Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Pitfield, were far, far more "Orwellian" and power was more, even, in my opinion, dangerously concentrated at the centre;

     _(The Clerk should be non partisan and should act as a policy "check" on the PM's political instincts, Pitfield was inside the PMO, in fact the PCO and PMO were, nearly, indistinguishable.
     It was a dangerous time for our Westminster system, we got very close to a US style "spoils" system without the Constitutional framework to check and balance it.) _

2. Backbenchers have, traditionally, been "nobodies" when they are off the Hill, and backbench revolts are regular features of all Westminster style governments, in Australia, Britain and here, in Canada; and

3. My, personal, sense is that Harper is less "feared" than he is simply "remote." I think that Stephen Harper is the least "liked" PM since Mackenzie King ~ even men that many despise were noted for being good at managing their own team; not so Stephen Harper: he appears indifferent to the personal wants and needs of his team.

But: it, caucus leadership, is an issue and will be after the 2015 election when the Conservative leadership/succession can be discussed openly.


----------



## Remius (3 Oct 2012)

I think the discontent may stem more from PM Stephen Harper's control of who can say what, when and where with scripted talking points and party lines.  Only a select few are allowed to openly express themselves without being.  This may be a hold over when this was necessary as a minority government. 

The problem is that the Conservative party has several people who have made scary and frankly dumb comments and have been more or less muzzled for their, and the party's, own good.  Anders, Gallant, Polievre etc are just a few examples of this.  

The conservatives are trying to appeal to Canadians by moving towards (staking a claim is a better description) the social center, which likely does not appeal to the old reform party originals that want to talk about things like abortion, gay rights etc, but not the way Stephen Harper wants to. In the end I think it might likely be a smaller handful making more noise than its actual size and making it sound like there is more discontent than there really is.

However after the next election, it will be interesting to see how vocal, if not divisive these backbenchers might become.


----------



## Haletown (3 Oct 2012)

Who knew  Ivison could write comedy 

Have to add James Moore to the list.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/ProfileMP.aspx?Key=170424&Language=E

I don't think Ambrose has a chance.

Kenney has worked very hard, has strong base and knows how to do politics.

Baird has a lot of the same strengths as Kenney plus he has the gay cred.

It will be an interesting race . . .  when it happens.

Will Harper go one more round?    Will the party transition power without spilling blood or will they go the way of the LPC?


Much entertainment to be had for sure.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2012)

Major edit because my Alzheimer's clicked in and I forgot John Baird!  :-[

Let me redo the list:






     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Rona Ambrose                  John Baird                         Jason Kenney                  James Moore                     Peter MacKay                   Jim Prentice
Alberta, Age: 43               Ontario, Age: 43               Saskatchewan, Age: 44   BC, Age: 36                       Nova Scotia, Age: 47       Alberta, Age: 56
Libertarian                        Moderate                         Social Conservative          Libertarian                        Moderate                         Moderate

All lily white, no _Francophones_, one woman, all under 60, one under 40.

I remain convinced that Prentice is the best candidate ~ but I tend to overrate _gravitas_ and underate the _value_ of social conservatism. I agree with others that Ambrose is the least likely to lead the party. I also think that, on balance, MacKay loses to Prentice and Ambrose loses to Moore, so my choices are:

First:                    Jim Prentice
Tied for Second:  John Baird or Jason Kenney
Fourth:                James Moore
Tied for Fifth:       Rona Ambrose or Peter MacKay


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Let me redo the list:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Curious, why no more John Baird on this round?


----------



## brihard (3 Oct 2012)

I could support Prentice.  He also will have been able to say that he's been absent from federal politics during a few very contentious years and so can't really be tarred with anything. He also has serious credibility in the 'real world' in part due to his most recent work with CIBC.

Besides that, a fairly moderate Conservative candidate would also stand the best chance of pulling in voters from the Centre who won't vote NDP and won't want to vote for Justin Trudeau to run the country.


----------



## bridges (3 Oct 2012)

Career politician, career politician, career politician, lawyer, lawyer.   ....Sigh....


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Curious, why no more John Baird on this round?




Because I'm old and stupid!  :-[   :'(    ???


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Career politician, career politician, career politician, lawyer, lawyer.   ....Sigh....




In this day and age there's not much else. Justin Trudeau took a little side trip into teaching, but not for long.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Because I'm old and stupid!  :-[   :'(    ???


Not even close!  :nod:

Have to agree with the Prentice/gravitas assessment, but I don't know how good his chances have to be to drag him back into the fray from this gig with CIBC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2012)

From the F-35 thread, reagrding questions in the House for Peter MacKay:



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> kinda makes me wonder if PM Harper is allowing a potential rival to rotate on the spit a bit here to get some visible political scars he can point to if his leadership is challenged.
> 
> Mackay looks bad.
> 
> Ambrose looks solid and competent  . . .   future Party leader when Harper is ready to go for his walk in the snow?




MacKay has, I think, a pretty strong and loyal following in the CPC. He is admired for bringing the PCs into the new party with few problems.

Rona Ambrose is a strong candidate but she may face a stiff challenge from the big, seat rich Ontario caucus. Jim Prentice can claim Ontario roots and can also suggest that he has _transplanted_ himself back there. But my list is still this:

First:                    Jim Prentice
Tied for Second:  John Baird or Jason Kenney
Fourth:                James Moore
Tied for Fifth:       Rona Ambrose or Peter MacKay


----------



## The_Falcon (7 Dec 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Career politician, career politician, career politician, lawyer, lawyer.   ....Sigh....



Well the the last liberal leader wasn't a career politician or lawyer, and look how well that turned out for him and his party.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Dec 2012)

Peter McKay plays rugby; he's got my vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Apr 2013)

Lawrence Martin, a commentator with whom I routinely disagree, makes an insightful contribution in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/stay-or-go-harpers-party-has-to-know/article10869396/


> Stay or go? Harper’s party has to know
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




The _progressives_, a group within which Lawrence Martin is numbered, are putting a HUGE load of faith and hope on M. Trudeau's shoulders.

But, Mr. Martin is right: Prime Minister Harper must, eventually, step down and he needs to manage his departure better than most of his predecessors (in all parties).

My sense remains that the 2015 election is still Mr. Harper's to lose ~ and he can manage to do that. But 2019 is a different story. By then I am sure that Harper government will be stale and bereft of good ideas, sustaining a Conservative government will require new, fresh leader with new, fresh ideas. Although I would favour Mr. Prentice for 2015 I suspect that by 2019 he will be seen as "over the hill" and one of the younger contenders will be more likely to win the leadership and, potentially, the country.


----------



## ARMY_101 (9 Apr 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My sense remains that the 2015 election is still Mr. Harper's to lose ~ and he can manage to do that. But 2019 is a different story. By then I am sure that Harper government will be stale and bereft of good ideas, sustaining a Conservative government will require new, fresh leader with new, fresh ideas. Although I would favour Mr. Prentice for 2015 I suspect that by 2019 he will be seen as "over the hill" and one of the younger contenders will be more likely to win the leadership and, potentially, the country.



Harper will stay the course for 2015 and beyond.  If he leaves at the peak after 10 years in office (i.e. 2016ish), balancing the budget, and with many positive achievements under his decade in office, he'll be leaving as one of Canada's greatest prime ministers.

Then again, Harper will (only) be 60 in 2019, and could very well remain leader if enough fresh ideas continue to be brought up and be implemented. (The party's policy declaration is far from fulfilled.)

As for my insights into the next leader, as someone involved in the party:

1. Jason Kenney (con: single male)

2. Peter MacKay (con: new son)

3. Tony Clement (con: he's Tony Clement)

4. Rona Ambrose (pro: she's female and is seen as the government spending savior when it comes to Public Works and the F35 project)

As someone who knows him and who has spoken to him, I don't see *John Baird* wanting or lusting for the PM job.


----------



## CougarKing (29 Apr 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> 1. Jason Kenney (con: single male)
> 
> 2. Peter MacKay (con: new son)



  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





There was a recent Maclean's article about Kenney's role as the immigration minister, that hinted that Kenney may just be the next pick for PM, given his role in reaching out to immigrant communities and getting them to vote Conservative. The said article also stated that his outreach work was behind the Tories winning around seven majority immigrant ridings (some of which were traditional Liberal strongholds) in the past Federal election, if I can recall correctly.  I doubt being single or unmarried is a "con" that would prevent him from being a PM; there are other heads of government who are unmarried. 


_Maclean's excerpt:_



> Once charmed, the document added, ethnic communities could stay loyal for a very long time. *Ten “very ethnic” ridings—where immigrants represent more than 20 per cent of the population—were targeted in pre-election Conservative advertising: four in Ontario, four in B.C., one in Quebec and one in Manitoba. On election day, May 2, the Conservative party won seven of them*.




The aforementioned article even began with anecdote of how Jason Kenney abruptly left a rally for the Sikh since he didn't want to be seen as endorsing a group that favoured that the Sikhs carve out their own "Khalistan" homeland in India. This is one instance which shows he exercises good judgement, especially with regard to public perception.


_Maclean's excerpt:_


> Jason Kenney scans the dense crowd of roughly 20,000 Sikh Canadians in traditional dress and multicoloured turbans here to mark Vaisakhi—the annual celebration commemorating the foundation of this community originally from India’s northeast. Sitting cross-legged on the thin grey carpeting covering the enormous stage, the minister is inwardly cringing.
> 
> He doesn’t like what he sees. In front of him, a dozen yellow and blue Khalistan flags are splitting the crowd near the podium, held by men fighting the hot early May sun in T-shirts. The man at the mic, speaking Punjabi, suddenly speeds up and radicalizes his tone. He speaks of genocide, of violent clashes and of the independence of Khalistan—a country that a faction of Sikh nationalists would like to carve from India. It’s too much. Kenney, who’s picked up some Punjabi since becoming minister of citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism in 2008, stands mid-sentence, crosses the room and exits as three baffled Conservative MPs look on, unsure whether or not they should follow.
> 
> ...




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving on, here's another article which explores other rising Tories who may be headed for the cabinet...

National Post link



> *John Ivison: Ambitious young Tories hoping for Cabinet posts are mere pawns in Harper’s game*
> 
> Watching *Michelle Rempel* in the House of Commons Thursday, it was obvious why so many people think she’s a lock for a job in Cabinet when Stephen Harper shuffles his deck this summer.
> 
> ...


----------



## ARMY_101 (29 Apr 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> I doubt being single or unmarried is a "con" that would prevent him from being a PM; there are other heads of government who are unmarried.



Very few Prime Ministers of Canada and no President of the United States  has ever held office while _not_ being married. Most PMs and Presidents have been married, or at least widowed, while they held office.

The reason, to me at least, is simple: getting married and having children is the purpose humans are on this Earth.  What Canadian would view a Prime Minister as 'normal' when he has no wife and no children?  Kenney is a tireless worker no doubt, but that strong work ethic may work against him should he intend to seek the leadership: what does it say about a man who prioritizes his work above getting married and starting a family?

Even sterile women are publicly called out and humiliated when seeking top office. Why? Because they're not seen as normal.

(One purpose of) government is to allow families to grow and prosper - who wants a single guy making policies when he has no real experience in dealing with the demands of a family?


----------



## Monsoon (29 Apr 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Very few Prime Ministers of Canada and no President of the United States  has ever held office while _not_ being married. Most PMs and Presidents have been married, or at least widowed, while they held office.


Unmarried Prime Ministers governed Canada for almost third of the last century. I would suggest that in Canada, at least, the image problems you highlighted exist more in theory than in fact.


----------



## Bass ackwards (29 Apr 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Very few Prime Ministers of Canada and no President of the United States  has ever held office while _not_ being married. Most PMs and Presidents have been married, or at least widowed, while they held office.
> 
> The reason, to me at least, is simple: getting married and having children is the purpose humans are on this Earth.  What Canadian would view a Prime Minister as 'normal' when he has no wife and no children?  Kenney is a tireless worker no doubt, but that strong work ethic may work against him should he intend to seek the leadership: what does it say about a man who prioritizes his work above getting married and starting a family?
> 
> ...



101, do you think that would apply as much today after a half century or so of social engineering has made the traditional family almost...passe'?
It seems to me that being a "first (insert your new and improved demographic of choice here)" is all the rage these days.
And the major voting bloc that ordinarily would lean towards the stable, traditional family man (or woman); the older generation - is now filling up with people who grew up in the sixties and seventies and who _started_ all this crap.


----------



## ARMY_101 (29 Apr 2013)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Unmarried Prime Ministers governed Canada for almost third of the last century. I would suggest that in Canada, at least, the image problems you highlighted exist more in theory than in fact.



Besides Pierre Trudeau, the unmarried PMs were in the 1920s-1940s (King and Bennett). I would suggest during those times the Canadian public was more concerned with crisis and war than whether their PM had the right values.


----------



## ARMY_101 (29 Apr 2013)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> 101, do you think that would apply as much today after a half century or so of social engineering has made the traditional family almost...passe'?
> It seems to me that being a "first (insert your new and improved demographic of choice here)" is all the rage these days.
> And the major voting bloc that ordinarily would lean towards the stable, traditional family man (or woman); the older generation - is now filling up with people who grew up in the sixties and seventies and who _started_ all this crap.



The major voting bloc IS the people who grew up in the 1960s and 70s. The highest turnout rates are seen in men between the ages of 55 and 74. This is also, not coincidentally, the bloc most likely to vote conservative: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/estim/41ge&document=report41&lang=e.

Besides that, the Canadian public doesn't elect the Conservative leader,  the Conservative Party of Canada does.  Do you think the party standing for family values and marriage would elect a leader who has neither?


----------



## dapaterson (29 Apr 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Besides that, the Canadian public doesn't elect the Conservative leader,  the Conservative Party of Canada does.  Do you think the party standing for family values and marriage would elect a leader who has neither?



They would elect a single, bald, bearded, one-legged, one-eyed pervert in a thong if they thought he would get elected.  As would any party - ideological purity is for the Ed Broadbent NDP; political parties are all about power.


----------



## Bass ackwards (29 Apr 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> The major voting bloc IS the people who grew up in the 1960s and 70s. The highest turnout rates are seen in men between the ages of 55 and 74. This is also, not coincidentally, the bloc most likely to vote conservative: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/estim/41ge&document=report41&lang=e.
> 
> Besides that, the Canadian public doesn't elect the Conservative leader,  the Conservative Party of Canada does.  Do you think the party standing for family values and marriage would elect a leader who has neither?



That's what I was getting with regards to the largest voting bloc. It is my belief (and I hope I'm wrong) that we will see more and more of a trend towards the left in older voters as time progresses.

You have a good point about the CPC not electing a single or childless man or woman although I would argue that the absence of a family is by no means proof of the absence of conservative values. 
I want my leader to have those values but I also want them to be capable and most of all -I want them to be someone that a majority of Canadians will be happy to see in office.
Ozzie Nelson's no good to me as the head of the CPC if his job consists solely of badgering Prime Minister Trudeau (or Mulcair or -shudder- May) from the opposition bench.


----------



## Bass ackwards (29 Apr 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> They would elect a single, bald, bearded, one-legged, one-eyed pervert in a thong if they thought he would get elected.



Great! When do I start?


----------



## Monsoon (29 Apr 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Besides Pierre Trudeau, the unmarried PMs were in the 1920s-1940s (King and Bennett). I would suggest during those times the Canadian public was more concerned with crisis and war than whether their PM had the right values.


To believe that, I would have to accept that the voters of the 1920s (King's first election) were primarily concerned with "crisis and war" (which?), and that Pierre Trudeau was for some reason unique enough for the normal rules you assert to not matter. That's an awful lot of hand-waving.

And then there's Bowell (1894-1896)... I'm not saying that being single couldn't be used against a candidate for PM, I'm just saying that in Canada there's a pretty long history of that line of attack not succeeding.


----------



## cupper (29 Apr 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Very few Prime Ministers of Canada and no President of the United States  has ever held office while _not_ being married. Most PMs and Presidents have been married, or at least widowed, while they held office.



Go back and recheck your reference. James Buchanan was a bachelor during his presidency.


----------



## CougarKing (27 Jun 2013)

Is this Andy Radia just pulling things out of his a** with his usual commentary or does he have a point this time? I disagree with Radia's assessment that Mackay should leave.

link



> *No more jets or tanks: it’s time for Defence Minister Peter MacKay to retire from politics*
> By Andy Radia
> 
> It's time for Peter MacKay to call it quits.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jun 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Is this Andy Radia just pulling things out of his a** with his usual commentary or does he have a point this time? I disagree with Radia's assessment that Mackay should leave.
> 
> link




See, also, this.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jul 2013)

Just because it's a slow news day week season, Liberal insider Warren Kinsella pours a little gasoline on the CPC leadership fire with this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_, about why Prime Minister Harper should resign before the 2015 general election:

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/28/why-harper-will-quit-while-hes-ahead


> Why Harper will quit while he’s ahead
> 
> BY WARREN KINSELLA, QMI AGENCY
> 
> ...




Most of them are not bad reasons. Numbers 5 and 6 are good, practical reasons to call it a day. Numbers 1, 4 and 9 are good political reasons to go, too. Numbers 7 and 10 are personal reasons but they could be compelling.

Numbers 2, 3 and 8 are nonsense, but, even so, there are seven good valid reasons to go.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jul 2013)

Although I never factored him into the _leadership sweepstakes_, it is still a bit of a surprise, to me, to learn that Ted Menzies will not run again in 2015.

Ted Menzies is Minister of State for Finance and _might_, in my mind, have been in line for the Finance job IF Jim Flaherty moves on. Maybe his resignation signals that Flaherty will not move.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jul 2013)

I think Kinsella may be right on the (7) reasons for Prime Minister Harper to retire, but he has the date wrong: Harper will leave office with the Young Dauphin's scalp on his belt.

The leadership race will begin after the 2015 election so the new leader is in place and has time to reshape the party for 2019.


----------



## MAJONES (2 Jul 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Harper will leave office with the Young Dauphin's scalp on his belt.



As much as I hope you're right, I'm not so sure who's scalp is going to be on who's belt.


----------



## The_Falcon (2 Jul 2013)

MAJONES said:
			
		

> As much as I hope you're right, I'm not so sure who's scalp is going to be on who's belt.



Considering the dauphin did run for leadership so much as he was acclaimed, and has presented much in the way of a platform (yet), I will put money down, he gets his butt handed to him. Harper and his government maybe long in the tooth, but they haven't had any HRDC boondogles, or Shawingate or Adscam.  Yeah they have had problems, but they pale in comparison to those shenanigans.  For all the sky is falling stuff flung at Harper, none of it has come to fruition.


----------



## Ostrozac (2 Jul 2013)

Regardless of whether Steven Harper wins or loses the next election, after that election would be the logical time to step down, wouldn't it? If he gets defeated by young Trudeau, then he would certainly be expected to resign. And if he wins a fourth consecutive term, that would seem to be the perfect time for him to step aside and let the next leader run the shop for a while until another election in the 2019ish timeframe.

I can't see Steven Harper resigning soon, putting his party through a leadership race in 2014, only to then have an election in 2015. Too many things can go wrong in that scenario. I think if that was his plan, he would have announced his intention to resign by now.


----------



## jpjohnsn (2 Jul 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Considering the dauphin did run for leadership so much as he was acclaimed, and has presented much in the way of a platform (yet), I will put money down, he gets his butt handed to him. Harper and his government maybe long in the tooth, but they haven't had any HRDC boondogles, or Shawingate or Adscam.  Yeah they have had problems, but they pale in comparison to those shenanigans.  For all the sky is falling stuff flung at Harper, none of it has come to fruition.


It would be far better to take JT and his Liberals on their current policies (or lack thereof) and record. Trying to evoke scandals of the past is just as likely to backfire badly as succeed.   Whatever Justin's faults (and they are legion), he has a charisma that Ignatieff, Dion or even Martin did not.  The backlash and mocking that came with the first "In over his head" spot should act as a warning.  The Barrie Advance PMO leak debacle should have rung some major alarm bells as to trying to pin things on him that aren't relevant (i.e. trying to concoct a scandal about something that happened before he was even an MP). Doubling down would be stupid.  Let him do their work for them.  Unfortunately, that would require some subtlety  in handling that hasn't been in evidence much lately.

For example, it has gone largely unnoticed that Justin rushed to Edmonton to do whatever it takes to lend a hand yet still made it to the Pride Parade in Toronto before the job was finished.  

If an adversary is running headlong towards a cliff, don't try and give him a push.  If you misjudge it, you could prevent him from going over or end up going over yourself. instead  Just step aside and watch.


----------



## The_Falcon (2 Jul 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> It would be far better to take JT and his Liberals on their current policies (or lack thereof) and record. Trying to evoke scandals of the past is just as likely to backfire badly as succeed.   Whatever Justin's faults (and they are legion), he has a charisma that Ignatieff, Dion or even Martin did not.  The backlash and mocking that came with the first "In over his head" spot should act as a warning.  The Barrie Advance PMO leak debacle should have rung some major alarm bells as to trying to pin things on him that aren't relevant (i.e. trying to concoct a scandal about something that happened before he was even an MP). Doubling down would be stupid.  Let him do their work for them.  Unfortunately, that would require some subtlety  in handling that hasn't been in evidence much lately.
> 
> For example, it has gone largely unnoticed that Justin rushed to Edmonton to do whatever it takes to lend a hand yet still made it to the Pride Parade in Toronto before the job was finished.
> 
> If an adversary is running headlong towards a cliff, don't try and give him a push.  If you misjudge it, you could prevent him from going over or end up going over yourself. instead  Just step aside and watch.



You misinterpreted me.  I didn't say, Harper and the gang should talk about the scandals of Chretien/Martin, I was merely highlighting that the "scandals" in and around Harper are small potatoes compared to Chretien/Martin, and despite the constant soundtrack that Harper and his government will destroy Canada etc. none of the dire prophecies and edicts from various parties and partisans came true.  While I don't think they misfired per se launching right into Trudeau, (since the same tactic of branding your opponent before he can brand himself, worked to great effect before).  I think they are now going to let JT do the work for them (senate comments, these speaking fees).  When it comes to the election he is going to get eviscerated, since there are now only 3 major parties, and the other 2 leaders sure as hell won't be inclined to let the liberals make a come back.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Jul 2013)

Those who think the Torries are going to savage Mr Trudeau come election time are ignoring just how nasty the NDP will become as it tries to hold onto opposition status. The real battle is not going to be Con vs Lib, rather Lib vs NDP. The Torries have to let them chew on each other while avoiding shooting themselves in the foot.


----------



## The_Falcon (2 Jul 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Those who think the Torries are going to savage Mr Trudeau come election time are ignoring just how nasty the NDP will become as it tries to hold onto opposition status. The real battle is not going to be Con vs Lib, rather Lib vs NDP. The Torries have to let them chew on each other while avoiding shooting themselves in the foot.



I agree particularly in Quebec, where the Tories never have a realistic chance anyways.  Unless the BQ makes a miraculous reappearance, it will be Mulcair ripping into JT.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jul 2013)

>Liberal insider Warren Kinsella pours a little gasoline on the CPC leadership fire

More briar patch journalism.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jul 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> For example, it has gone largely unnoticed that Justin rushed to Edmonton to do whatever it takes to lend a hand yet still made it to the Pride Parade in Toronto before the job was finished.



Yup, just burned up carbon credits in jet fuel to get a photo op. "I was in Alberta during those devastating times, where was Mr. Harper?"

Did he even go to the areas hard hit, fill a sandbag or roll up his shirt sleeves?

Posturing ponce.

The term 'social butterfly' comes to mind.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jul 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yup, just burned up carbon credits in jet fuel to get a photo op. "I was in Alberta during those devastating times, where was Mr. Harper?"
> 
> Did he even go to the areas hard hit, fill a sandbag or roll up his shirt sleeves?
> 
> ...




I didn't see any pictures of that, but then again I didn't see many pictures of a dirty, sweat soaked Laureen Harper, either, but there were some:






Mrs Harper, some PMO staff and some CPC MPs pitch in in Calgary's cleanup
Source: Windsor Star

In fairness there were more compelling images than the PM's wife helping her neighbours and, of course, the Nenshi/Redford/Smith PR machines were out in full force.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Although I never factored him into the _leadership sweepstakes_, it is still a bit of a surprise, to me, to learn that Ted Menzies will not run again in 2015.
> 
> Ted Menzies is Minister of State for Finance and _might_, in my mind, have been in line for the Finance job IF Jim Flaherty moves on. Maybe his resignation signals that Flaherty will not move.




And now CTV's Bob Fife is reporting that Diane Ablonczy, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs) will also not run again in 2015. Once again, while I did not factor into to my leadership equation she has been far more asset than liability to the CPC and to Prime Minister Harper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2013)

In the _National Post_, John Ivison speculates that, despite her poor French, he calls it a "work in progress," Lisa Raitt should be considered as a contender.





Federal transport minister Lisa Raitt, speaks to members of the media in Lac-Megantic, Quebec,
July 17, 2013.                                                                                   Tyler Anderson/National Post

John Ivison also says that, "the front-runners are already well-established in that race — James Moore and Jason Kenney are said to have nascent organizations that could be fired up at moment’s notice. Former minister Jim Prentice keeps a watchful eye on Ottawa from his perch on Bay Street, while Peter MacKay may yet re-ignite an interest in leadership that appears to have cooled as he embraces marriage and fatherhood."


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Jul 2013)

And who ever wins next will be replaced by Chris Alexander........


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> And who ever wins next will be replaced by Chris Alexander........




Mr Alexander has to "earn his spurs" first by holding on to and, preferably, increasing the CPC's edge in the 905 belt. If he can manage that then his political stock will be HUGE.

Under redistribution BC will have 42 seats, AB will have 34 (combined they almost equal QC) but the 905 belt, alone, has 35+/- (depending on how you define the "belt") ~ it's like AB, all on its own.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> Let me redo the list:
> 
> 
> ...




I'm bumping this because I think that the _Senate Scandal_® has stained the Prime Minister's reputation for personal integrity.

It's easy enough for me to explain the fact (and it *is* a fact) that the centralizatin of too much power in the PMO began 45 years ago, under Pierre Trudeau, but the other _fact_ is that Stephen Harper's PMO crossed an important _ethical_ line. So, Justice Gomery concluded, did Jean Chrétien's ... but M. Chrétien and the Liberal Party paid a political price for that. I doubt Prime Minister Harper is immune to that.

I can, without straining my imagination too much, construct a scenario in which Prime Minister Harper decides, next year, 2014, that he cannot, under existing circumstances, lead the Conservatives to another victory, not even a minority, and decides that the "Hail Mary" play ~ a new, fresh, leader ~ is the CPC's best (only?) hope.

I _might_, however rejig, my prediction:

Tied for First after five ballots: Jason Kenney and Jim Prentice;
Third:                                       John Baird;
Also Rans:                                Rona Ambrose, Peter MacKay and James Moore.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Nov 2013)

He's a pretty good man, but do you think Jim Prentice'll get back into the saddle to 1)  rewin a seat, and 2)  go for the leadership, especially from a gig like this?  I have *zero* insider knowledge about such things, so I'd love to hear from those who may hear things in his old riding/stomping grounds.


----------



## pbi (21 Nov 2013)

> It's easy enough for me to explain the fact (and it is a fact) that the centralizatin of too much power in the PMO began 45 years ago, under Pierre Trudeau, but the other fact is that Stephen Harper's PMO crossed an important ethical line. So, Justice Gomery concluded, did Jean Chrétien's ... but M. Chrétien and the Liberal Party paid a political price for that. I doubt Prime Minister Harper is immune to that.



Two points: 

-as part of any reform of our political system to make it more accountable, transparent, and democratic, I believe that the PMO has got to be pushed back into its box. You are right to say that its insidious growth has not respected any particular party lines: people like power, etc, etc.; but IMHO it has become almost a mini-GoC on its own. I don't expect anything to happen right now, but maybe an election might bring changes; and

-although things are beginning to look worse every morning for the PM, I still cling to the idea that he is not a fundamentally dishonest nor corrupt individual. I don't love everything about him and his version of Toryism, but I have never seen him in the same light as say, TMWNSNBM*.

* The Mayor Whose Name Shall Not Be Mentioned


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Nov 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> He's a pretty good man, but do you think Jim Prentice'll get back into the saddle to 1)  rewin a seat, and 2)  go for the leadership, especially from a gig like this?  I have *zero* insider knowledge about such things, so I'd love to hear from those who may hear things in his old riding/stomping grounds.




I wouldn't if I were him, but ... he retains immense levels of 'popularity' in some conservative circles. He's got more _gravitas_ than all the rest combined. Being away from parliament over the past few years might be a HUGE political advantage and, I believe, he has an agenda, for Canada, which he can implement, best, from the PM's seat.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Two points:
> 
> -as part of any reform of our political system to make it more accountable, transparent, and democratic, I believe that the PMO has got to be pushed back into its box. You are right to say that its insidious growth has not respected any particular party lines: people like power, etc, etc.; but IMHO it has become almost a mini-GoC on its own. I don't expect anything to happen right now, but maybe an election might bring changes; and
> 
> ...




But actually _being _ honest will not help. The media is is full, rabid, pursuit, howling and screaming ... it's not about _media bias_, not at all, it is all about _Gotcha! journalism__, about which the late George Bain reminded us back in 1994. Every reporter in Ottawa wants to be the one who brought down a prime minister ... for some this prime minister would be the best prize of all._


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... He's got more gravitas than all the rest combined .... Being away from parliament over the past few years might be a HUGE political advantage ....


True, and good point/agreed, respectively.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Nov 2013)

In the immortal words of Doonesbury, confirmed bachelors are just so fascinating.


Also interesting is Jason Kenney's decision to start drawing a line where the mayor of Toronto is concerned; I'm curious as to whether that's a party ploy to test the waters, or an individual ploy to get out in front of the rest of the pack for the inevitable Next Leader competition.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the immortal words of Doonesbury, confirmed bachelors are just so fascinating.
> 
> 
> Also interesting is Jason Kenney's decision to start drawing a line where the mayor of Toronto is concerned; I'm curious as to whether that's a party ploy to test the waters, or an individual ploy to get out in front of the rest of the pack for the inevitable Next Leader competition.




My guess is: both. Even more guesswork: Kenney _freelanced_ that in order to both (again) spare the prime minister any embarrassing need to do so (thereby earning even more brownie points) and to establish himself as an independent _leader_ in the eyes of the grassroots. Jason Kenney is an impressive politician. Even though I do not share, I don't even approve of, his social views I would be happy to see him in 24 Sussex Drive ... especially when the alternative is Justin Trudeau. My first choice is still Jim Prentice, who, I think, is best for me and for Canada, but I have few problems with Kenney, none of them "show stoppers."


----------



## Remius (21 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Also interesting is Jason Kenney's decision to start drawing a line where the mayor of Toronto is concerned; I'm curious as to whether that's a party ploy to test the waters, or an individual ploy to get out in front of the rest of the pack for the inevitable Next Leader competition.



I doubt that it was a party ploy to test the waters, the CPC usually relies on smaller fish to do that not senior cabinet members.  I think it's likely the latter.  And it is a smart move.  Not commenting is likely worse since it implies collusion, or at least tacit support (not that it is the case but the media and critic will try anything to link the PM or any conservative to the Mayor of Toronto) and Minister Kenney drew a clear line without any real damage.  The media asks, question answered, anything else?  No, story ends as far he's involved and likely the media are not going to ask him anymore questions about it.  He also has no links to this going into a potential leadership race.

Minister Flaherty went a different but also very effective route.  "Yes I am close to the family."  Making this a personal issue and not necessarily a political one.  His emotional response (I believe it was genuine) also helped show that.

And finally I think the Ford brothers did the CPC a favour by stating outright that no one but Flaherty (a family friend) has ever helped them or supported them.  Whether this is true or not is another thing but it signals to critics that they are on their own.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the immortal words of Doonesbury, confirmed bachelors are just so fascinating.



You leave John Baird alone!


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Nov 2013)

I'm posting this here because the two articles suggest that prime Minister Harper cannot survive until 2015 because the _Senate Scandal_® is so toxic that it overwhelms everything else.

Stephen Mahar, writing a widely syndicated column, says that "the RCMP dumped an 81-page bag of burning refuse on the steps of the Prime Minister’s Office, journalists and opposition MPs have sensibly focused on a question that could undo the prime minister: What did he know about the secret $90,000 payment from his chief of staff to Sen. Mike Duffy?" and "The burning bag of refuse will not be disposed of easily." It shows, he suggests that Prime Minister Harper's PMO and, indeed, many of his legislators were, at the very least, unethical.

Thomas Walcom, writing in the _Toronto Star_ suggests, not surprisingly, given that he is a star _Star_ columnist, that Prime Minister Harper should step down, soon, and make way for e.g. Jason Kenney.

I know I'm repeating myself, but Harold Wilson's old adage that a week is a long time in politics is valid, and on that basis we have nearly 100 "long times," i.e. something akin to an eternity, until an election in October 2015.

But if the Tories manage to lose Brandon-Souris on Monday it will be, likely, because of the _Senate Scandal_® and, especially because of the prime minister's heavy handed, indeed, in my opinion inept handing of the affair. We have discussed, before, that Prime Minister Harper seems unable to ever admit anything, much less apologize ... maybe because history suggests that Canadians don't react well, at the polls, to a bit of contrition. St Laurent apologized for invoking closure in the _Pipeline Debate_ ... Diefenbaker won the election. Diefenbaker apologized for dithering on nukes ... Pearson won the election. Clark apologized for a 18¢/gallon gas tax ... Trudeau won the election. Martin apologized, profusely, for _AdScan_ ... Harper won the election. In any event, if Brandon-Souris goes Liberals, which some polls suggest it might, then his leadership will be weakened and the ambitions of possible contenders will be strengthened.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Dec 2013)

Haven't seen this here. Was wondering if it's just wishful thinking on Ivison's part and he's trying to spark more controversy. No one else seems to have picked it up or is taking it seriously.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...er-he-returns/ 



> John Ivison: As PM prepares for Israel trip, speculation abounds: Will he resign after he returns?
> John Ivison | 04/12/13 12:49 PM ET
> 
> As Conservatives gathered to mark the start of the Christmas party season, it was curious how few were talking about the Senate.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2013)

Well, there's this, from _Gable_ in the _Globe and Mail_:






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/december-editorial-cartoons/article15688440/#dashboard/follows/

I think some Conservatives agree; the first duty of the leader is to lead ... to lead the party into government. When that looks doubtful, and assuming the platform/policies are OK,  then a new leader might be the right answer.


-----


But, Mods, might this be merged with the Next Conservative leader thread?


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, Mods, might this be merged with the Next Conservative leader thread?


Sounds good - done.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2013)

>was wondering if it's just wishful thinking on Ivison's part

I don't know Ivison's politics, but rest assured there is a large contingent of pot-stirrers out there whose interest in expense account abuse is much less than their interest in trying to generate a self-fulfilling expectation that Harper will vacate his office as soon as possible.

Until something more useful comes along, expect the usual gang of whiners to continue pumping air into this one.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (12 Dec 2013)

Prentice?  He's simply Justin Trudeau without his mother's brain genes.  Why do we want a liberal to lead the Conservatives?  Conservative scandals haven't had traction.  What kind of a scandal is repaying $91,000 to the government.  All the statements by police to obtain warrants have to implicate people or they wouldn't get the warrant.  It doesn't mean it's true, just the cop's spin.

The election is a year or two away and the best weapon is Harper himself.  Once the tough campaign questions start Trudeau will fold.  He had a walk through to get the leadership.  Nobody at all challenged him on an intellectual basis and he's had a media holiday.  He isn't going to become prime minister on his girl hair alone.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2013)

If you go the "Liberal Party of Canada Leadership" thread, you can see the Young Dauphin is apparently on holiday from his own caucus as well....http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/107637/post-1275764.html#msg1275764


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Dec 2013)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Prentice?  He's simply Justin Trudeau without his mother's brain genes.  Why do we want a liberal to lead the Conservatives?  Conservative scandals haven't had traction.  What kind of a scandal is repaying $91,000 to the government.  All the statements by police to obtain warrants have to implicate people or they wouldn't get the warrant.  It doesn't mean it's true, just the cop's spin.
> 
> The election is a year or two away and the best weapon is Harper himself.  Once the tough campaign questions start Trudeau will fold.  He had a walk through to get the leadership.  Nobody at all challenged him on an intellectual basis and he's had a media holiday.  He isn't going to become prime minister on his girl hair alone.




Poli Sci 101: Never, ever underestimate the power of _celebrity_, never overestimate the intelligence or _policy engagement_ of Canadian voters.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (13 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Poli Sci 101: Never, ever underestimate the power of _celebrity_, never overestimate the intelligence or _policy engagement_ of Canadian voters.



You are confusing me with the truth.  Trudeau just scares the bejeezers out of me.  If he is elected I will have to start smoking the legalized weed to cope.  The weed might cure my road rage.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2014)

And _The Star's_ Tonda MacCharles weighs in on this tyopic in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/01/01/jason_kenney_heir_apparent_or_kingmaker.html


> Jason Kenney: Heir apparent or kingmaker?
> *As 2013 drew to a close it was possible to glimpse what a future leadership race for the Conservative Party might one day look like. And to suspect there’s already a frontrunner: Jason Kenney, should he choose to run.*
> 
> By: Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau reporter
> ...




While I still think that Jim Prentice is closest to the sort of _*C*onservative_ I am, I could live with prime Minister Kenney.

I think 2013 was very, very hard on Prime Minister Harper. The Senate issue/scandal has made some (many?) Conservatives question his judgement and it has cost him political capital. "Who," some CPC members are no doubt asking "is better placed to fend off Justin Trudeau? Is it Stephen Harper or a younger man (or woman) who is more "attractive," more _telegenic_, more "likeable?" Jason Kenny scores fairly high on those traits, I think.

Does anyone else find it a bit odd that Tonda MacCharles appears to count out John Baird and Rona Ambrose when she says _"others who are not believed to harbour leadership ambitions like John Baird, Lisa Raitt, Rona Ambrose and Michelle Rempel are also more vocal and publicly visible than ever."_? My suspicion is that both Ambrose and Baird are in the race (despite some disadvantages with the _Reform_ base) but, maybe, one, or both of them what to be the "kingmaker."


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Hill Times_ is a report on an interesting poll:

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2014/01/20/justice-minister-mackay-leads-among-federal-conservative-party-votes-says-new/37168


> Justice Minister MacKay leads among federal Conservative Party votes, says new poll
> *There is no outright sign at the moment that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is even contemplating the possibility of not leading his party into the next federal election. But Justice Minister Peter MacKay does best among Conservative leadership hopefuls, says a Forum Research poll.*
> 
> By TIM NAUMETZ
> ...




Perhaps, given the masses of bad publicity, in the mainstream media, that attended Mr MacKay last year, the old adage that all press is good press is true.

It also indicates that the old Progressive Conservative wing is still alive and well in the CPC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jan 2014)

And Éric Grenier, whose polls, at ThreeHundredEight.com, I often cite, affirms the _Hill Times'_ view in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/peter-mackay-the-favourite-to-replace-harper-polls-show/article16548975/#dashboard/follows/


> Peter MacKay the favourite to replace Harper, polls show
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Mr MacKay won a significant technical victory, over the _Reform_ wing of the CPC, at the last Party Convention in Calgary. Many _Reformers_ wanted a delegation vote to be 'weighted' by its population (something that would have favoured e.g. Alberta constituencies); most of the _Progressive Conservatives_ wanted 'equal' weight, regardless of constituency size (something that favours Atlantic Canadian and Quebec constituencies); the _PCs_ won.

That being said I'm not sure he can defeat a united right wing challenge and I still think Jim Prentice has enormous strength in all wings of the party ... but that may be wishful thinking, the triumph of hope over experience.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jan 2014)

I admit that Peter MacKay is a favourite of mine, and a more charismatic personality than Stephen Harper, but he has not gone through the last decade or two without his own controversy's.  We are in for yet another case where we will be left with not the best, but the lesser of several evils, to choose from.

Such is our Canadian political atmosphere.


----------



## Remius (29 Jan 2014)

He certainly has the charisma I think to take on Trudeau's and has more substance to him.  I'm not sure for who or what I will vote for yet but the Prime Minister's current team isn't doing it enough for me.  A refresh in leadership, maybe, would help.  It's a tough choice right now because I applaud some of the policies and positions but lament others.  The lament is currently tipping to one side however. 

Plenty of time between now and then though.  Watch and shoot.


----------



## Journeyman (29 Jan 2014)

I think that Four Horsemen will end up being John Baird, Jason Kenney, Peter MacKay, and Jim Prentice.

Baird may have the most political savvy (although he _just_ caved and got rid of his English-only business cards.    )

Kenney's domestic coverage within the portfolios of Employment/Social Development and Multiculturalism seem to be largely ignored.

McKay has had some rocky media exposure, but currently has name-brand recognition and popularity -- which can be fleeting in politics.
I personally have to give him extra points for playing rugby and having a hot wife.  :nod:

Prentice, right now, is a long-shot. I believe he's the most intelligent of this lot, but in sound-byte politics that may not count for much.  He also may have some baggage following on from his 2010 resignation.

I guess the question is, what characteristics are required to compete against Trudeau and Mulcair?  :dunno:


But hey, what do I know.  This is a world where Superbowl odds have been skewed by the winner-pick of a blind manatee (which has been correct for 6 of the past 6 Superbowls) :stars:


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Mar 2014)

There is an interesting development being reported in the business pages: *"Enbridge turns to Jim Prentice for pipeline help"* is the headline in the _Globe and Mail's Report of Business_.

The _Globe's_ story says:

     "[A First Nation leader] compared Mr. Prentice’s assignment, which is to renew talks with First Nations about possible partnership agreements with Enbridge, as being like someone “trying to give mouth to mouth” to a dying person.

     But Mr. Prentice, whose years of cabinet work on First Nation and environmental files give him high credibility in aboriginal communities, is optimistic he can make a breakthrough – he says Enbridge is ready to make “significant changes” to get there."

If, and it is a HUGE IF, Mr Prentice can pull this off ~ convince Enbridge to redesign the project in ways that will satisfy First Nations and convince First Nations that he (and through him, Enbridge) actually understands and supports their best interests ~ then his political capital will be vast, he will be a Conservative hero. If he fails, a very distinct possibility, he will be a "has been."


----------



## Nemo888 (6 Mar 2014)

Good luck with that. Jim “The-Dim-Apprentice” Prentice as he is known by First Nations is neither liked or respected. They think he is looking for a few Indians who want a large payout to give the project some press credibility. It is a PR campaign and changes nothing.

Baird will eventually be hamstrung because of his lifestyle. It would be cool if Canada was progressive enough that the right wing party could choose a gay leader, but I don't think we are there yet.

McKay is hands down the smartest, but he can't keep a promise to save his life. That is what will keep him out of the leaders chair. If he does get it he has the best chances of forming a government.

Kenny does not have the charisma to win a federal election. He may be the win the leadership, but only because everyone else is carrying too much baggage.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Mar 2014)

>They think he is looking for a few Indians who want a large payout to give the project some press credibility.

It'll be more than "a few", but basically the payout is the only thing holding up approval.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >They think he is looking for a few Indians who want a large payout to give the project some press credibility.
> 
> It'll be more than "a few", but basically the payout is the only thing holding up approval.




I'm inclined to agree ...

I'm afraid that, in my view, anyway, First Nations' leadership is weak and venal ~ I know there are notable exceptions, many of them, but broadly and generally: weak and venal.

I'm _guessing_ that Mr Prentice has to do two things:

     1. Find out the price of the weak, venal leaders; and

     2. Produce a package that addresses the legitimate concerns of the strong, honest leaders.

If he does that he is _Captain Canada_, given the potential for people avoiding Quebec like the plague for a few years.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2014)

Not directly related to the leadership, except in the sense that it will be interesting to soo who Prime Minister harper picks to head Finance and what the impact of that _might_ be on someone's leadership aspirations, but, the media is reproting that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is resigning from the federal cabinet. The effective date is not clear, but I am assuming it is immediate.

His full statement is:



> Yesterday, I informed the Prime Minister that I am resigning from Cabinet. This was a decision I made with my family earlier this year, as I will be returning to the private sector.
> 
> I am grateful to Prime Minister Stephen Harper for providing me with the opportunity and responsibility to serve Canadians as their Minister of Finance since 2006, one of the longest serving Finance Ministers in Canadian history. As a government, we achieved great things for Canada and I could never have accomplished what I have as Finance Minister without the full support of Prime Minister Harper.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2014)

The speculation begins: Jason Kenney; James Moore and Lisa Raitt are all being mentioned as potential Finance Ministers; ditto Joe Oliver, who has a lot a Bay Street experience, and Tony Clement, anothet veteran of the Mike Harris cabinet. Although some journalists have said John Baird, I doubt he's in play.


----------



## Nemo888 (18 Mar 2014)

Only one is qualified to be a finance minister. Strange that Flaherty would abandon ship right now. Any speculation?

Jason Kenney- Philosophy degree
James Moore- Community college for business administration
Lisa Raitt- Masters in Chemistry
Joe Oliver- MBA Harvard Business School


----------



## ballz (18 Mar 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Only one is qualified to be a finance minister. Strange that Flaherty would abandon ship right now. Any speculation?
> 
> Jason Kenney- Philosophy degree
> James Moore- Community college for business administration
> ...



Now that is credentialism if I've ever seen it...

Surely you do not need a Harvard MBA to realize that if you are spending more than you are making, you end up going into debt...


----------



## Nemo888 (18 Mar 2014)

Why on earth would we need someone with more than a community college certificate to run a G20 economy? Perhaps because we would want the most qualified individual. 

Harper is an economist and has ballooned annual expenditures by 31.4% since 2006 while cutting taxes.(7% pop growth in that time) You argue tax and spend is bad, so what do you think of cutting revenues while increasing spending?


----------



## ballz (18 Mar 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Why on earth would we need someone with more than a community college certificate to run a G20 economy? Perhaps because we would want the most qualified individual.
> 
> Harper is an economist and has ballooned annual expenditures by 31.4% since 2006 while cutting taxes.(7% pop growth in that time) You argue tax and spend is bad, so what do you think of cutting revenues while increasing spending?



Actually, what I pointed out is that listing the candidates by their formal education (which you didn't even get right) and basically saying that "the best candidate is the one with the best piece of paper" is called credentialism.

By the argument you've presented, we don't even need to have political campaigns, press conferences, etc. Whoever holds a PhD from the most prestigious Ivy League School should just be handed the keys to 24 Sussex, let's skip all the other nonsense.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2014)

Jim Flaherty, arguably a good, solid Finance Minister is a lawyer; ditto Ralph Goodale, John Manley and Paul Martin. Michael Wilson, who was Finance Minister in the 1980s, was a Bay Street type. Good ministers are good, tough, brave leader/managers ... the qualifications are human rather than academic.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Mar 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> Actually, what I pointed out is that listing the candidates by their formal education (which you didn't even get right) and basically saying that "the best candidate is the one with the best piece of paper" is called credentialism.
> 
> By the argument you've presented, we don't even need to have political campaigns, press conferences, etc. Whoever holds a PhD from the most prestigious Ivy League School should just be handed the keys to 24 Sussex, let's skip all the other nonsense.



Careful ballz, careful, you'll find it hard to escape ;D


----------



## Nemo888 (18 Mar 2014)

This is not Minister of State for Multiculturalism or Minister of Canadian Heritage. It's Finance. I would prefer an MBA with at least a decade of experience as a CFO. If they have run their own company or firm for a few decades that would be alright as well.


----------



## ballz (18 Mar 2014)

That's nice.

Besides the fact that his MBA is 44 years old (how relevent is it to today's economy / business environment?) and that Finance is not exactly a hard science (is his MBA even focused on Finance?), I would like to know/hear more about/from these people and hear what they think and what their ideas are going forward before I decide that a Harvard MBA is some sort of God-card that trumps everything.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Mar 2014)

:nod:


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Mar 2014)

>Only one is qualified to be a finance minister.

The only "qualification" is appointment by the G-G.  Believe it or not, there are federal civil servants to provide the day-to-day expertise.  I suggest you get some fresh air.


----------



## Nemo888 (19 Mar 2014)

Joe Oliver to replace Jim Flaherty as finance minister. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/joe-oliver-to-replace-jim-flaherty-as-finance-minister-1.2577648


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Mar 2014)

The rumoured appointment of Joe Oliver takes pressure off the likely leadership candidates.

Minister Oliver is a good choice: known and respected on Bay Street and in the caucus and cabinet; he holds Eglington-Lawrence, a urban Toronto riding, as close to _downtown_ TO as the CPC can get; he has no leadership ambitions.

It's not clear that, at age 73 now, he intends to run again in 2015 but he strikes me as being physically and mentally fit.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Mar 2014)

Does anyone but me think there's an even chance that Mr Flaherty's departure gives him ample time to clear the decks and marshal his forces in time for a leadership run after the 2015 election?


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Mar 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Does anyone but me think there's an even chance that Mr Flaherty's departure gives him ample time to clear the decks and marshal his forces in time for a leadership run after the 2015 election?




No, I don't think so.

I think Jim Flaherty has two _ambitions_:

     1. Earn a few big, corporate pay cheques, because he needs to earn some big money to address some family health problems (one of his sons); and

     2. Help his wife, Christine Elliot, become Premier of Ontario, because many (most?) people think Tim Hudak cannot win.


----------



## Remius (19 Mar 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Does anyone but me think there's an even chance that Mr Flaherty's departure gives him ample time to clear the decks and marshal his forces in time for a leadership run after the 2015 election?



Doubtful.  He's 65.  If PM Harper runs (all indications is that he will), he'll stay for at least two years if not the full term.  That would put Flaherty at close to 70 and possibly 72 depending on the scenario.  While he states that health wasn't a factor, he likely won't be healthier then.

Not impossible but highly improbable.    Unless you think the CPC will lose in 2015 and Harper steps down.  But then why leave now if that were the case?


----------



## dapaterson (19 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No, I don't think so.
> 
> I think Jim Flaherty has two _ambitions_:
> 
> ...



Ding ding.  I wonder if even Tim Hudak thinks he can win; the last election was his to lose and he did so.  And I'm pretty confident in his ability to do it again.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Apr 2014)

A development on the Jim Prentice front ....


> *Several current and past Conservative members of Parliament are hoping former federal cabinet minister — and potential Stephen Harper successor — Jim Prentice will jump into the race to be the next Alberta Progressive Conservative leader and premier.*
> 
> Alison Redford’s recent resignation as premier and PC leader has some politicians and operatives scrambling for a saviour to rescue the party and carry on the 43-year Progressive Conservative dynasty.
> 
> ...


----------



## devil39 (9 Apr 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ding ding.  I wonder if even Tim Hudak thinks he can win; the last election was his to lose and he did so.  And I'm pretty confident in his ability to do it again.



Agree completely.  He was awful and they kept him.  Glad I have left Ontario.


----------



## Remius (10 Apr 2014)

I agree, his performance has been awful. 

Heard him speak yesterday and for the first time I was at least mildly impressed.

1) He's not letting himself be pushed around by Wynn's libel threat and is calling her bluff.

2) He wants to scrap the green energy act.  That alone will likely get my vote.

3) His million jobs plan may be ambitious but at least he HAS a plan to offer.

Ontario is a mess right now and I don't think that Wynn or Horvath can fix it (mostly because I think they truly believe that nothing is wrong).  In fact I think they'll make it worse.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2014)

Stephen Maher speculates on the CPC leadership in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Maher+Jason+Kenney+could+prime+minister+before+next+election/10382419/story.html


> Jason Kenney could be prime minister before next election
> 
> STEPHEN MAHER, POSTMEDIA NEWS
> 
> ...




I share Mr Maher's lack of insight into Prime Minister Harper's intentions, but he has said, several times, that it is his intention top make Canada a more _Conservative_ country and I wonder if he thinks there is a better chance of that if Mr Kenny, not he, is at the helm.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Nov 2014)

Re: Colin Kenny.  Confirmed bachelors are so interesting.  (Right, John Baird?)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Nov 2014)

Do you mean *Jason* Kenny?  

Peter Mackay was a confirmed bachelor until two years ago. That worked out pretty well for him...


----------



## dapaterson (16 Nov 2014)

Wrong Kenny on my part.  Colin is, as Frank magazine puts, an avid heterosexualist.

John & Jason, on the other hand...


----------



## GAP (16 Nov 2014)

Depending on how well things turn out in Alberta, Prentiss is a viable contender, but only after a few years as premier.........

or as an alternative to Prentiss.....Brad Wall....


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jun 2015)

_I think_ that, sadly for Canada, Jim Prentice is, probably, totally "out," now ... and he's probably not unhappy to be "out."

But I'm less sure about John Baird: bailing out when he did _seems, to me_, now, to have been a good _strategic_ move. Let's assume that the polls are _trending_ towards a predictable finish ... in the two years after the 2011 election many people, _me included_, saw a solid majority in the CPC's future (2015); now the betting is that there will be a minority and it may just as easily be a NDP minority as a CPC one. In any event, given anything but a shocking, massive majority _I guess_ that Prime Minister Harper will resign as party leader in 2015/16.

John Baird may be well positioned to make a comeback: he's taken another new job, according to this (month old) article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, but it seems to be another "part time," strategic advisor job, one from which he could take a leave of absence to contest the CPC leadership:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/streetwise/john-baird-joins-law-firm-bennett-jones/article24620006/


> John Baird joins law firm Bennett Jones
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




As to Mr Baird's sexual orientation ... _it seems to me_ that Premiers Wynne (ON) and MacLauchlan (PEI) have "broken trail" for a prime minister in, shall we say, an _alternative_ domestic situation.


----------



## Remius (19 Jun 2015)

I think for the most part, his sexual orientation is irrelevant.  Most people just want good leadership.  Even for those (ad there are some) that have a problem with that orientation, they are most likely to overlook it if they get strong leadership out of the deal.


----------



## Underway (19 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As to Mr Baird's sexual orientation ... _it seems to me_ that Premiers Wynne (ON) and MacLauchlan (PEI) have "broken trail" for a prime minister in, shall we say, an _alternative_ domestic situation.



Wait.. what?  Why are the conservatives not advertising this (subtly).  Are they that _progressive_ that its a non-issue or are they afraid of how some of their base might react?  Seems to me that would really help them out against some of the attacks that they are under all the time.


----------



## Remius (19 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Wait.. what?  Why are the conservatives not advertising this (subtly).  Are they that _progressive_ that its a non-issue or are they afraid of how some of their base might react?  Seems to me that would really help them out against some of the attacks that they are under all the time.



Or maybe like most people, they don't give a rat's a**.


----------



## Underway (19 Jun 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Or maybe like most people, they don't give a rat's a**.



I do belive I said that...


			
				Underway said:
			
		

> Are they that _progressive_ that its a non-issue ....



But I don't think that's entirely the case.  Conservatives never ever fail to take an advantage and bludgeon their foes with it.  So either they may not think it's an advantage (as it exposes internal party divisions, like the abortion issue would) or most likely Mr. Baird was not comfortable with campaigning on his sexuality as that's not the classy Canadian way.  He's about policies and politics.  So con's definately outweigh the pros.

I will say this though, _if_ he does run for CPC leadership or Ontario provincial leadership it _will_ become an issue story.  Just because of the stereotype that exists of conservatives in the media and public perception.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I think_ that, sadly for Canada, Jim Prentice is, probably, totally "out," now ... and he's probably not unhappy to be "out."



Do you really want a leader that forces an election on the populace unnecessarily and when things go pear shaped he has a tantrum, takes his ball and runs home in a sulk.  I'm not so sure...  he is just as bad as Iggy was and acted the same too.


----------



## Pencil Tech (19 Jun 2015)

Hmmm, just heard James Moore's not seeking re-election. Baird, MacKay, Moore...they think they're going to lose the election.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Wait.. what?  Why are the conservatives not advertising this (subtly).  Are they that _progressive_ that its a non-issue or are they afraid of how some of their base might react?  Seems to me that would really help them out against some of the attacks that they are under all the time.



Classical Liberals are not advertising this (subtly or not) because in the Classical Liberal universe it simply does not matter. So long a person keeps his/her personal issues to themselves then it is none of _our_ business. the problem is the Progressive meme of making everything "political", so should Mr Baird choose to come back for a leadership bid, the unsavoury attention focused on his personal life will be from those busybodies who choose to make your and my personal business *their* business.

For what its worth, I thought Mr Baird had done an outstanding job during his time in parliament, and would look forward to see him coming back for another tour of public service.


----------



## cupper (19 Jun 2015)

You have to wonder why Harper didn't take a walk in the snow like so many of his predecessors?

Now grant you he was probably thrown off by how late winter lasted so he may have thought he had more time than he really did, but still...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Jun 2015)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> Hmmm, just heard James Moore's not seeking re-election. Baird, MacKay, Moore...they think they're going to lose the election.



I heard about this on CBC Radio just an hour or so and apparently Moore, who is from BC, has a son who is handicapped and there may have been some medical issues that have popped up. They didn't go into any details, but the person being interviewed thought that was the reason and nothing to do with Moore jumping ship.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Jun 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I heard about this on CBC Radio just an hour or so and apparently Moore, who is from BC, has a son who is handicapped and there may have been some medical issues that have popped up. They didn't go into any details, but the person being interviewed thought that was the reason and nothing to do with Moore jumping ship.



#RideMeWilfred suggests otherwise.


----------



## cupper (19 Jun 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> #RideMeWilfred suggests otherwise.



Comme sa

https://twitter.com/dmatthewmillar/status/595250804120035328


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2015)

I was going to post this deadline: Doug Ford would consider running to replace Stephen Harper at the Conservative helm in the On the lighter side [of politics] thread, except that I suspect that Doug Ford would have a fair amount of support ... so it's not funny, is it?


----------



## dapaterson (22 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was going to post this deadline: Doug Ford would consider running to replace Stephen Harper at the Conservative helm in the On the lighter side [of politics] thread, except that I suspect that Doug Ford would have a fair amount of support ... so it's not funny, is it?



Depends.  If you're a Liberal or a Dipper, it's a laugh a minute.  "Accused former drug dealer with crackhead brother wants to take over law and order political party".


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2015)

Jason Kenney is working like a man who wants the job.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Jason Kenney is working like a man who wants the job.




Agreed, Rona Ambrose also, _in my opinion_,
remains a likely contender.









John Baird, Peter MacKay and James Moore have, _it seems_, taken themselves
off the ballot, for the moment ... but when/if Prime Minister Harper resigns
they could all come back ...












Two outsiders who _might_ have leadership ambitions are Kelli Leitch and
Erin O'Toole. Both appear to be popular in the party and are out campaigning
for others ~ always a sign of potential leadership ambitions.









Edit: typos


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Aug 2015)

John Baird, there was some talk a couple of weeks ago about revelations coming to light of why he took off in such a rush.  But since then, Nada...


----------



## Jed (22 Aug 2015)

How well can Rona Ambrose provide tough, Prime Ministerial, leadership especially considering an international aspect?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (22 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was going to post this deadline: Doug Ford would consider running to replace Stephen Harper at the Conservative helm in the On the lighter side [of politics] thread, except that I suspect that Doug Ford would have a fair amount of support ... so it's not funny, is it?



He may have some support in Toronto ... outside of southern Ontario I doubt it.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Aug 2015)

If he's got the Toronto support, you can build outside GTA support. Traditionally the GTA has been tough to crack, if the Tories make inroads there without giving up the rural/west vote, they're right back on top.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (23 Aug 2015)

It's not the first time Doug Ford has considered running for leadership of a party. http://army.ca/forums/threads/113313/post-1336644.html#msg1336644

However, Mariomike's post back in November languished (in a larger omnibus thread "Politics in 2014) with no response or comment.

ERC noted that he considered putting it in the "lighter side" thread, I assume, because he thought most would consider it to be outlandish that Mr. Ford would have a serious shot at the CPC leadership.  I would have been (still am) among those who so thought.  But then, I'm not from Toronto, unfamiliar with its municipal politics nor do I have a favourable opinion of Mr. Ford.  I will admit that my opinion is based mainly on his connection to the antics of his much more famous brother, who, to be honest, was a more successful politician (at least, until he self-destructed).  Would any of us give serious consideration to a one term municipal councillor (who had the advantage of name recognition when he succeeded his brother in that ward) and failed mayoral candidate (who only sought election because of his brother's illness) if he hadn't been put in the national spotlight because of crass behaviour.

While being adept at retail politics, and the Fords were (Rob especially), I don't think that necessarily translates to the coalition building required of a national (or provincial) party leader.

It would be the same as electing someone leader of a party (regardless of qualifications) because they have the name recognition of their daddy who used to be the leader.  Alright, got me!  But you see where that leads to.


----------



## McG (23 Aug 2015)

A Ford at the helm of the CPC would likely redivide the right.  We could be back in The '90s.


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Aug 2015)

Yeah, Doug Ford as federal conservative party leader would be an odd choice. Assuming that the next conservative convention uses the same "one riding -- one point" system that the 2004 convention did, whichever leader is elected requires nationwide support, not just massive support from their base area. Does Doug Ford even speak French? Or have a profile out west (besides being the brother of Rob)? I doubt it.

Now, Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario? That is a much more likely scenario.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Aug 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If he's got the Toronto support, you can build outside GTA support. Traditionally the GTA has been tough to crack, if the Tories make inroads there without giving up the rural/west vote, they're right back on top.


But on the other hand, someone like him could also be seen by the rural base as "just another Toronto guy", too.  Interesting choice to throw out there, indeed.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> But on the other hand, someone like him could also be seen by the rural base as "just another Toronto guy", too.  Interesting choice to throw out there, indeed.



Being "just another Toronto guy" hasn't seemed to hurt the incumbent Conservative party leader.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2015)

Hmmmm ... I see that John Baird is out helping CPC candidates on the campaign trail ...

                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                    John Baird helping MP Dr Kellie Leitch'

                         ... and schmoozing with Ontario's Liberal Finance Minister Charles Souza at the Toronto International Film Festival ...

                                 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Is he testing the waters?


Edit: punctuation


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is he testing the waters?


One wonders how much of the old-style Reformist base he could carry.  Or if enough of the rest were OK, would that matter?


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Being "just another Toronto guy" hasn't seemed to hurt the incumbent Conservative party leader.


He may have been _born_ in TO, but he didn't appear to spend much time there after starting university before heading west.  I think his haters hold more than just THIS against him  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2015)

While _I think_ we should focus on the most likely contenders for the next Conservative leader (Jason Kenney, Rona Ambrose, John Baird, etc) we need to note that there are some attractive newcomers who are building their own support base by helping other candidates.

Dr Kellie Leitch is one of them ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... seen here helping fellow CPC candidate (but one with much less "star power") Ted Opitz ...

And Veterans' Affairs Minister (and RCAF veteran) Erin O'Toole ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... who is another one of those CPC "energizer bunnies," in his case, whenever he sees a veteran.

Neither Dr Leitch nor Mr O'Toole are quite "ready," yet, to contest for the leadership (both need to improve their French and serve in mores senior portfolios) but both will be only be in their '50s in 2025 when the next leader, the one after Harper will need replacing.


----------



## Lumber (25 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Neither Dr Leitch nor Mr O'Toole are quite "ready," yet, to contest for the leadership (both need to improve their French and serve in mores senior portfolios) but both will be only be in their '50s in 2025 when the next leader, the one after Harper will need replacing.



But I thought Harper was stepping down on October, 20th?  :nana:


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> But I thought Harper was stepping down on October, 20th?  :nana:




In _my opinion_, Prime Minister Harper is, already, past his _best before_ date and _I think_ (just hope?) he knows that. I hope that even if he wins, perhaps especially if he wins a majority, he will want to retire as one of the few (ever) prime ministers to have won four mandates (King had six, but ...) and become a Conservative elder statesman and make some serious money on Bay Street.

If he wins a minority and decides to retire quickly he will make life difficult for Messers Mulcair and Trudeau, both of whom have vowed to "take down" a Stephen Harper government. By _convention_, all parties have a _gentlemen's agreement_ to not force an election while one of the major parties is having a leadership race. Such leadership races normally last for about six months ... let's say that Prime Minister Harper wins a minority on 19 Oct and, on 20 Oct, as you suggest, Lumber, he announces his retirement, maybe even going so far as to resign his own seat and appoint an interim leader. What do the LPC and NDP do? Keep their promise and throw the Tories out or be _traditional gentlemen_ and let the CPC elect their new leader and then force an election? Choice two would, of necessity involve one or the other party supporting both a Throne Speech and a budget. Either choice will be criticized by someone.


----------



## Lumber (25 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If he wins a minority and decides to retire quickly he will make life difficult for Messers Mulcair and Trudeau, both of whom have vowed to "take down" a Stephen Harper government. By _convention_, all parties have a _gentlemen's agreement_ to not force an election while one of the major parties is having a leadership race. Such leadership races normally last for about six months ... let's say that Prime Minister Harper wins a minority on 19 Oct and, on 20 Oct, as you suggest, Lumber, he announces his retirement, maybe even going so far as to resign his own seat and appoint an interim leader. What do the LPC and NDP do? Keep their promise and throw the Tories out or be _traditional gentlemen_ and let the CPC elect their new leader and then force an election? Choice two would, of necessity involve one or the other party supporting both a Throne Speech and a budget. Either choice will be criticized by someone.



I was more implying that he would _lose_ on 19 Oct, and as promised, he would step down. But, if he won a minority government, I can't see him stepping down. I haven't read his biography so I don't have a great feel for his character. But I think that the amount of heat Harper must be feeling would have a significant affec ton him. So many Canadians are not just being pro-LPC or pro-NDP, or even anti-CPC; so many Canadians are being anti-Harper. In my short life, I've not seen such resentment for an individual Prime Minister/Party Leader (did the Trudeau haters hate him this much?). So, given the anathema toward Harper, even a minotiry government win for Harper (and this is where I'm making an assumption) would feel like a real personal victory. This would give him, IMO, a surge of personal pride and determination, and keep him from stepping down.

Once more unto the breach.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Sep 2015)

The difference between Trudeau years and now is the access the public have to congregate via the internet.  We're all much more connected today and able to make groups of like minded individuals from far and wide at almost an instant.  That wasn't available 35 years ago.  Some of it is a vicious circle, people disagree with Mr. X or Ms. Y, this fans the flames, which draws in more people, more angst, more flames, repeat ad naseam.  Almost a perpetual motion cycle.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Sep 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> How well can Rona Ambrose provide tough, Prime Ministerial, leadership especially considering an international aspect?



Jed I just saw your post.  Three names came to mind.

Golda Meir.  Indira Gandhi.  Maggie Thatcher.  And I shouldn't forget Benazir Bhutto.

A woman PM, of any party, would do me just fine.  (So long as it wasn't Hedy Fry).


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Sep 2015)

With respect to Harper continuing ....

I believe/sense that part of the Harper's problems have been associated with legitimacy.  His opponents have never accepted him as a legitimate governor.  The amount of political capital he has to expend on an issue is exacerbated by that notion.  Consequently, I believe, that where folks like Trudeau-Pere and Obama feel/felt free to rule by diktat Harper has selected his battles.

The F35 is one.  Perhaps picking a fight with NDHQ over downsizing was another.  Spending money during a recession at the insistence of the opposition.  Pulling out of Afghanistan as a result of a parliamentary vote..... there are others.

It would not surprise me if Harper wins this election he will take it as a form of validation, a declaration of legitimacy.  After that he may well decide to step down in a year or two and hand off to someone else after a well-planned transition.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Sep 2015)

>The difference between Trudeau years and now is the access the public have to congregate via the internet.

Exactly.  Social media and internet publishing have several fold increased the volume of opinion, the range it covers, the speed at which it spreads, and the capability to comment anonymously.  Facebook launched in early 2004; Twitter launched in mid 2006.

I hypothesize that the last feature - anonymous or pseudonymous commentary - has corroded civil standards of public discourse, and that widespread sharing of unattributed malicious vituperations has desensitized and emboldened people to increasingly do so openly.  That has in turn been a multiplier of the resentment of the elite factions displaced and inconvenienced by changes, and many of those people are surprisingly (to me) arrogant about their sense of entitlement to be in charge "for the greater good".


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Sep 2015)

:nod:


----------



## a_majoor (25 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The difference between Trudeau years and now is the access the public have to congregate via the internet.
> 
> Exactly.  Social media and internet publishing have several fold increased the volume of opinion, the range it covers, the speed at which it spreads, and the capability to comment anonymously.  Facebook launched in early 2004; Twitter launched in mid 2006.
> 
> I hypothesize that the last feature - anonymous or pseudonymous commentary - has corroded civil standards of public discourse, and that widespread sharing of unattributed malicious vituperations has desensitized and emboldened people to increasingly do so openly.  That has in turn been a multiplier of the resentment of the elite factions displaced and inconvenienced by changes, and many of those people are surprisingly (to me) arrogant about their sense of entitlement to be in charge "for the greater good".



From studying history I am not surprised at all. The French nobility felt just fine until they were dragged from their beds by screaming mobs during the French Revolution, and other regime collapses right up to the fall of the USSR and its dissolution in the early 1990's happened rapidly and almost without warning for the elites, who are insulated in their bubbles from much of the economic hardship they dole out to us plebes and inside an echo chamber where outside opinions do not register. (Robert Kaplan mentions this in a different context in many of his books, the "ground truths" he observes as a traveler are simply outside of view of the diplomatic corps and government officials enclosed in their embassies).

So they are arrogent since they believe that they are the people entitled to make decisions for the rest of us, and disconnected becasue they rarely feel the effects of their decisions. When "The People" turn out against them (such as the American TEA Party movement, the growth of European Natavist parties or the shift of the Canadian electorate away from the traditional "Laurentian consensus"), they are literally blindsided and quite angry that anyone would dare to disagree with them.


----------



## McG (27 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If he wins a minority and decides to retire quickly he will make life difficult for Messers Mulcair and Trudeau, both of whom have vowed to "take down" a Stephen Harper government. By _convention_, all parties have a _gentlemen's agreement_ to not force an election while one of the major parties is having a leadership race. Such leadership races normally last for about six months ... let's say that Prime Minister Harper wins a minority on 19 Oct and, on 20 Oct, as you suggest, Lumber, he announces his retirement, maybe even going so far as to resign his own seat and appoint an interim leader. What do the LPC and NDP do? Keep their promise and throw the Tories out or be _traditional gentlemen_ and let the CPC elect their new leader and then force an election? Choice two would, of necessity involve one or the other party supporting both a Throne Speech and a budget. Either choice will be criticized by someone.


I suppose they could throw the Tories out but argue there should be no election on the notion that one of the two parties can command the confidence of the house .... and so convention, if upset, would be blamed on the GG for deciding to go back to election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

Now, Chris Alexaneder is, was anyway, often touted as CPC leadership materiel, and, today, he's made an announcement about "measures to stop child and forced marriage, and other barbaric cultural practices against girls and women." Nothing really odd about that, he is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration so it falls, tangentially, into his domain ... other than that it's pretty thin gruel.

But look at the picture of the announcement:






It's taken in his electoral HQ in Ajax but Dr Kellie Leitch, who is the Minister of Labour and Status of Women (so the problem is also, maybe more, in her domain) is there with him. Since the perceived problem is, arguably, more hers than his, then I wonder why he announced it. Is he is trouble? Is his re-election in some doubt? Dr Leitch has been pretty well used in helping weaker candidates ... is that what Mr Alexander is, now, a _weak_ candidate?


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Oct 2015)

The news was only showing the good Dr. speaking of this new snitch line.


----------



## Remius (2 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> it. Is he is trouble? Is his re-election in some doubt? Dr Leitch has been pretty well used in helping weaker candidates ... is that what Mr Alexander is, now, a _weak_ candidate?



His performance on P&P may have been the catalyst as well as the whole refugee debacle.  He became the face of that.  I'm not sure he has recovered or will recover from it.  Maybe they see something we don't.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> _His performance on P&P may have been the catalyst as well as the whole refugee debacle.  He became the face of that._  I'm not sure he has recovered or will recover from it.  Maybe they see something we don't.




Indeed ... _I thought_ the general (public and media) reaction to the P&P thing was overblown, but _I also thought _that Mr Alexander was tired and on edge, and _I thought then, and still think, now,_ that something more than the refugee crisis had to have been wrong to rattle a seasoned diplomat. He seemed and still seems "off his game," if that's the right expression.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Indeed ... _I thought_ the general (public and media) reaction to the P&P thing was overblown, but _I also thought _that Mr Alexander was tired and on edge, and _I thought then, and still think, now,_ that something more than the refugee crisis had to have been wrong to rattle a seasoned diplomat. He seemed and still seems "off his game," if that's the right expression.



I suspect it is the whole grimy process called an election.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I suspect it is the whole grimy process called an election.....



Or is it, I wonder, how _this_ election campaign is being managed by _this_ campaign team? Mr Alexander is a demonstrated, proven _smart guy_, he knew politics was a rough and dirty business before he entered the lists; but Stephen Harper and his team are not like many others ... perhaps one needs a stiffer spine than even a "front line" ambassador in a war zone brings to the "game."


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or is it, I wonder, how _this_ election campaign is being managed by _this_ campaign team? Mr Alexander is a demonstrated, proven _smart guy_, he knew politics was a rough and dirty business before he entered the lists; but Stephen Harper and his team are not like many others ... perhaps one needs a stiffer spine than even a "front line" ambassador in a war zone brings to the "game."


If that's the case, it says more about the nature of the game (and the coach?) and how it's being played than the otherwise reasonably strong victim thereof.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If that's the case, it says more about the nature of the game (and the coach?) and how it's being played than the otherwise reasonably strong victim thereof.



Maybe, but other potential CPC leaders, like Jason Kenny and Rona Ambrose and newer potential contenders Kellie Leitch and Eric O'Toole (and, of course, "outsiders" like John Baird and Peter MacKay) are campaigning or have campaigned under Prime Minister Harper's (harsh?) highly restrictive _regime_ and they seem to have fared and to be faring much better ... but, maybe I'm reading too much into it. I like Chris Alexander, I hope he does well and stays in politics, he's the sort of fellow we need, _I think_.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe, but other potential CPC leaders, like Jason Kenny and Rona Ambrose and newer potential contenders Kellie Leitch and Eric O'Toole (and, of course, "outsiders" like John Baird and Peter MacKay) are campaigning or have campaigned under Prime Minister Harper's (harsh?) highly restrictive _regime_ and they seem to have fared and to be faring much better ...


We'll have to see they handle it if they get hit with any hardballs of the scale of the refugee issue.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... maybe I'm reading too much into it. I like Chris Alexander, I hope he does well and stays in politics, he's the sort of fellow we need, _I think_.


Concur 100%.  Guys like him can contribute a lot even if they don't make it through "leader selection", so to speak.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

I'm not _touting_ Dr Leitch for the leadership, but I cannot help but notice her own (unselfish) _energizer bunny_ support for other CPC candidates ...





Helping Julian Fantino ~ who is in danger of being defeated





Helping King-Vaughn candidate Konstantin Toubis





Campaigning with candidate Ninder Thind in Brampton West

These are the kinds of things that make you friends in the whole party apparatus. They are very good things for leadership hopefuls to be doing.


----------



## suffolkowner (13 Oct 2015)

I truly hope Kellie Leitch isn't even an option. I would need some serious policy agreement to vote Conservative with Leitch at the helm. Never been a fan of Chris Alexander either. Jason Kenney and Rona Ambrose, I think I can get behind much easier.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I truly hope Kellie Leitch isn't even an option. I would need some serious policy agreement to vote Conservative with Leitch at the helm. Never been a fan of Chris Alexander either. Jason Kenney and Rona Ambrose, I think I can get behind much easier.




Interesting ... my _perception_ is that Leitch is a _social liberal_ and a _fiscal conservative_, whereas Ambrose is a _social_ and a _fiscal moderate_ but she is also the closest the CPC has to a _political libertarian_ and Kenney is a _social_ and a _fiscal conservative_. How would you feel about Erin O'Toole, also a young newcomer, and John Baird?


----------



## suffolkowner (13 Oct 2015)

Well for me with Kellie Leitch its more a personal-visceral thing. But perception as you say is what this game is played on. I can't say I've formed an opinion on Erin O'Toole but am definitely not a fan of Baird. I'd like to think that my decision is based on policy but can't deny the effect of persona as well. The labels liberal,conservative I have never been able to make fit with my own views consistently. A fault in my own use of logic perhaps? Or the labels themselves?


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

As long as it's not Pierre poilievre.


----------



## Jed (13 Oct 2015)

I am leaning towards Ambrose or Kenny. Maybe Otoole but I could be easily moved with facts and logic.


----------



## Lumber (13 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> As long as it's not Pierre poilievre.



Ditto.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (13 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> . . . potential CPC leaders, like Jason Kenny and Rona Ambrose and newer potential contenders Kellie Leitch and Eric O'Toole (and, of course, "outsiders" like John Baird and Peter MacKay) are campaigning or have campaigned under Prime Minister Harper's (harsh?) highly restrictive _regime_ and they seem to have fared and to be faring much better ... but, maybe I'm reading too much into it. I like Chris Alexander,  . . .



The names most mentioned on this thread are all currently (or recently) serving MPs.  While they may have greater name recognition with the general population they also carry an association with the current Conservative leadership (i.e., Harper) and, while the CPC will not have its *** handed to it as in 1993, there may be residual "Harper stink" should any of these MPs be the party leader in a following election, particularly if it comes soon (one to two years) after the upcoming contest.  One possibility that hasn't yet been discussed in this thread is a "Cadillac candidate" in the vein of Brian Mulroney (_or Pierre Karl Péladeau, or for those who look south for political infotainment - Carson, Fiorina or Trump_) whose only personal electoral experience prior to assuming the party leadership in 1983 was a failed attempt for that post in 1974.   Is there anyone on the horizon who fits that bill?  While most on these means will not have experience with the backroom politicking of the CPC (_come on ERC, tell us the truth_) there are likely high level business leaders and provincial political operators who may be wondering how they can contribute to the future of the party.


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2015)

When it comes to a new CPC leader I think few are going to dismiss the proven skills of Brad Wall......


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2015)

There are only two possible choices:







 aka


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

Canada has not been kind to provincial politicians who jumped into he federal arena, so, _I suppose_, _*not*_ Brad Wall or Bernard Lord.

Celebrity/charisma works for some: witness the Trudeaus, _Père et Fils_.

We have no tradition of soldiers, not even really, really PR savvy ones like Rick Hillier, jumping into politics.

Big City mayors? John Tory (Toronto) or Brian Bowman (Winnipeg) ... possible, but unlikely, _in my opinion_.

How about people who left, earlier? _I think_ Jim Prentice is both _a)_ tarnished goods, now, and _b)_ probably tired of politics. How about Monte Solberg?

_My guess_ is still that it will be a serving or very recently retired MP. Someone who _retired_ before this election, like John Baird, could be _drafted_ back by the party's grassroots. I agree that, for a serving MP, being seen as being in Stephen Harper's "inner circle" _might_ be a drawback in some party circles, but, remember, please that Stephen harper has, and has earned, the admiration of his party for ending the split and creating the CPC and winning three successive government. Being part of _Team Harper_ is something that many CPC leadership candidates will announce with pride within the party.

I don't have a favourite ... yet. It _was_ Prentice, but I think he's out of contention ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are only two possible choices:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I figured some (never me!) would mention the Fords and the CPC in the same post ...  :boke:

In my opinion the only possible reaction is:


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> When it comes to a new CPC leader I think few are going to dismiss the proven skills of Brad Wall......


Wouldn't Brad walls comments on equalization payments alienate him in Quebec and Atlantic canada, and probably ontario as well?


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Oct 2015)

Likely, but the Tories have proven they don't need Atlantic Canada to win elections, and Ontario is too proud to consider itself a have not province. Wall seems like a dark horse candidate for the next leader.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (13 Oct 2015)

How about Melissa Blake from Fort McMurray?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Likely, but the Tories have proven they don't need Atlantic Canada, or Quebec, to win elections, and Ontario is too proud to consider itself a have not province. Wall seems like a dark horse candidate for the next leader.



TFTFY 

As far as Ontario being too proud to consider itself a have not province. Currently, the Wynne Liebrals will steal, cheat and lie to get the maximum dollars from the Feds and the taxpayer. They have no shame, let alone pride. They are constantly bitching out the Feds for not getting their _'fair'_ share. Whereas The Hairdo, _*IF*_ he wins, will be more than happy to do as his mentor McWynnety wants.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> How about Melissa Blake from Fort McMurray?




She is Métis and a Quebec native, but I wonder: is she bilingual? Some people may not like it but a _national_ party leader must be bilingual.


----------



## Jed (13 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> TFTFY
> 
> As far as Ontario being too proud to consider itself a have not province. Currently, the Wynne Liebrals will steal, cheat and lie to get the maximum dollars from the Feds and the taxpayer. They have no shame, let alone pride. They are constantly bitching out the Feds for not getting their _'fair'_ share. Whereas The Hairdo, _*IF*_ he wins, will be more than happy to do as his mentor McWynnety wants.



A new label to encompass these types of individuals " McWynnety Whiner" Let's give them a big WAAAAA....


----------



## Ostrozac (13 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> a _national_ party leader must be bilingual.



There's one politician that comes to mind when I think of "bilingual" -- Jean Charest is currently between jobs, and isn't he a Mulroney Conservative at heart? I wonder if he'd throw his hat in the ring? He's 57, Paul Martin became PM at 65, Jean Chretien at 59.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2015)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> There's one politician that comes to mind when I think of "bilingual" -- Jean Charest is currently between jobs, and isn't he a Mulroney Conservative at heart? I wonder if he'd throw his hat in the ring? He's 57, Paul Martin became PM at 65, Jean Chretien at 59.



He's already been party leader for a federal party - and grew his caucus by 1000%.  I doubt he'd come back.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2015)

Jeffrey Simpson, who really misses the old, quasi-Liberal, Red-Tory, Progressive Conservative Party, wonders, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ where Stephen Harper's party goes without Prime Minister Harper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/jeffrey-simpson-where-does-the-harper-party-go-without-harper/article26845940/


> Jeffrey Simpson: Where does the Harper Party go without Harper?
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I really, really think Jeffrey Simpson misses the point, the while bloody point, about the party that Prime Minister Harper created.

The old PCs are dead and gone. No one cares, not even one tiny iota what _Babs_ McDougall and Lowell Murray, estimable folks though they may be, think any more. The old PCs, the Red Tories and even the Blue Tories like Michael Wilson are gone ... replaced by Conservatives who are not Liberals waiting their turn, as they were, essentially, under George Drew, John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield and Brian Mulroney.

The new Conservatives have leadership potential ~ better in my opinion than all but one, maybe two Liberals, and those Liberals are _not_ leading the party now ~ and they will be looking to move Canada to the centre-right and their right of centre party to the same place. But make no mistake, it will be centre-_right_, not just the LPC in disguise like the Red Tories were.

On this issue Jeffrey Simpson is right out to lunch. (if you have a birdcage then you have good use for today's _Opinion_ page of the _Good Grey Globe_.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Oct 2015)

That mirrors my thinking.  The Liberal establishment wants the Conservative party to be like them, only a little slower and less connected to Big Law and Big Business.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> ...
> Nice to see a future Prime Minister win his first election - Chris Alexander.




He has an uphill struggle now: he lost his seat, last night, to Mark Holland of the Liberals.

Jason Kenney and Rona Ambrose held on to their seats, as did (relative) newcomers Kellie Leitch and Erin O'Toole, and "dark horse" but _potential_ contenders Denis Lebel, Michelle Rempel, Pierre Poilievre, Candice Bergan and Maxime Bernier. 

I see Rob Nicholson as interim leader ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

This statement is from John Walsh, President of the Conservative Party of Canada:

     Statement from John Walsh, President of the Conservative Party of Canada

     OCTOBER 20, 2015

     I have spoken with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he communicated to me a request to initiate a number of actions pursuant to my responsibilities as laid out in the constitution of the Conservative Party of Canada.

     I thanked the Prime Minister for his leadership on behalf of our party. Stephen Harper has changed Canada for the better, having built a durable, national Conservative movement focused on building a fair, more prosperous and globally significant Canada.

     The Prime Minister indicated that he will continue to sit as a Member of Parliament and asks that a process to both select an interim leader and initiate the leadership selection process in our party begin immediately.

     First, I am communicating to the newly elected House of Commons caucus their responsibility to elect an interim leader as soon as is possible.

     Second, I will be convening a meeting of the National Council to create a Leadership Election Organizing Committee (LEOC) to set out the rules, dispute resolution mechanism and logistics related to the selection of a new leader.

     Third, I am tasking Dustin van Vugt, the Executive Director of the Conservative Party of Canada, to initiate a transparent process to review the 2015 campaign.

     While the election result was not what Conservatives across Canada hoped and worked so hard for, we respect the outcome of our democratic process. I want to take this moment to thank the hundreds of thousands of Conservative activists in every
     part of Canada who volunteered their time, money and ideas, allowing our party to serve our country as government since 2006.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Oct 2015)

I wonder if the party will be pressured to having the leader come from Ontario or Quebec. 

I think that the main reason the press and the Laurentian Elites dislike Mr Harper is that he identifies as being from the west. How dare an Albertan seek to be PM? Doesn't he (she) know that right exists solely for those from central Canada? etc etc


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an article about the forthcoming CPC leadership contest:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-face-question-of-harpers-replacement/article26881918/


> After Tory election debacle, who will replace Stephen Harper as leader?
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> CALGARY — The Globe and Mail
> ...




One of the advantages of a Liberal majority government is that the CPC does have time to stop, _think_ and rebuild under a new leader. One would hope that there might be a policy convention _before_ ~ some months before ~ the leadership contest. (Consider, for example, that Bob Rae spent nearly two full years (May 2011 to April 2013) as interim leader of thew Liberals while the party reconsidered positions and goals and then chose their new leader.)


----------



## Altair (20 Oct 2015)

Ben Mulrooney 

Fight fire with fire CPC


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Ben Mulrooney
> 
> Fight fire with fire CPC



How about finding someone with a pulse next time, CPC?


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Oct 2015)

Dr. Kelly Leitch would be a good choice as an interim leader,  if she could be persuaded to put down the scalpel. Very, very bright person, great sense of humour, works well under pressure and encourages subject matter experts to shine. Definitely not a control freak, and would not surround herself with people like that. 

It is time for CPC v1.0 to be deactivated and removed as a supported product. It had a successful run, it was simply outclassed by better marketing by competitors. There is lots of time to rebuild and recover the electorate next go around, and they better have a Katniss (think Jennifer Lawrence of Hunger Games stock) leading the team. Someone inspirational, talented, and quite correctly, someone who projects energy with a fit and healthy lifestyle, positive and determined disposition, and emotion. No more robots.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

I sympathize with the desire for inspirational leadership, but I'm getting quite effing tired of the widespread narrow-minded bigoted disapproval and open prejudice against people who are by nature reserved, withdrawn, shy, low-affect, competent, confident, disinclined to talk everything over ad nauseum, etc.  It is bordering on being a public epidemic of harassment and it is pissing me off.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

The obvious candidates:








                 Jason Kenney                     and               Rona Ambrose
                                               Both senior ministers
                                              Both re-elected in 2015


To recently "retired" senior Conservatives:








                 John Baird                  and     Peter MacKay
                        Neither seems really unavailable

And two newcomers who have performed well in cabinet:








                   Kellie Leitch                     and                   Erin O'Toole

And my choices for interim leader:








       Rob Nicholson      or             Tony Clement

The CPC is not short of talent.


----------



## mariomike (20 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was going to post this deadline: Doug Ford would consider running to replace Stephen Harper at the Conservative helm in the On the lighter side [of politics] thread, except that I suspect that Doug Ford would have a fair amount of support ... so it's not funny, is it?



Doug Ford to run for Conservative Party leadership?  
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/20/doug-ford-to-run-for-conservative-party-leadership

"Ford is one of the names being bandied about to replace defeated Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper."

"A day after the Conservative loss, Ford said his phone was ringing non-stop about a possible leadership campaign."


----------



## Altair (20 Oct 2015)

Stolen from another site



> What Happens Now?
> 
> The Lion in Winter
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The obvious candidates:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Got any personable young women with tolerable social conservative inclinations, strong fiscal inclinations, speaks unaccented english and hails from Quebec?


----------



## Altair (21 Oct 2015)

Interesting rumbling from the Conservative camp that I was not expecting.

For all of the talk of the CPC and their large war chest, and how they would be ready for another election right away, rumor has it that the party is in debt.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Got any personable young women with tolerable social conservative inclinations, strong fiscal inclinations, speaks unaccented english and hails from Quebec?




Well, Chris, there are:








                                       Sen Josée Verner                                                      and                                          Sylvie Boucher
                                   Who would, presumably                                                                                                Just re-elected
                                   have to resign from the                                                                                             in a Quebec City riding
                            Senate and win a HoC seat _if_ she
                                   won the Party leadership   

Both are real longshots ... I think the CPC needs to recognize that it's firm base is Alberta, broadly, and in the big city suburbs and "small town Canada," especially in Ontario.

Look at: Richmond, BC, Red Deer, Saskatoon, Simcoe and Orangeville; these and La Bauce and the area around Quebec City and places like Hampton, NB are where the Conservative _spirit_ lives and where Conservative values must be redefined. But the real base of the CPC is in _'New Canada,'_ West of the Ottawa River and the next leader must be "at home" there.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Stolen from another site




Others _potential_ contenders mentioned in the article Altair copied (without attribution  :tsktsk: ):*






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



     Maxime Bernier      and           Brad Wall            and,                                    even Doug Ford
who, I agree will almost       who I, personally,                         who some conservatives will want but who, fortunately,
certainly be a candidate    would favour, but who,                     has zero (degrees Kelvin) chance of leading the CPC
                                                 I think, will sit it out


____
* I know, posting from a phone makes things harder


----------



## mariomike (21 Oct 2015)

Doug got 330,610 votes in a municipal election running against two popular contenders.

I understand DoFo Jr. "has zero (degrees Kelvin) chance of leading the CPC". But, I wonder how many votes he would get in a federal election, if he did run.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Oct 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Doug got 330,610 votes in a municipal election running against two popular contenders.
> 
> I understand DoFo Jr. "has zero (degrees Kelvin) chance of leading the CPC". But, I wonder how many votes he would get in a federal election, if he did run.



Enough to be a MP, for sure.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Doug Ford who some conservatives will want but who, fortunately, has zero (degrees Kelvin) chance of leading the CPC



Even they need a Donald Trump type distraction ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Even they need a Donald Trump type distraction ...




Doug Ford can be that, for sure, and his candidacy might deprive some others (Jason Kenney? or self-described _libertarian_ Rona Ambrose?) of the _hard right_ support which might be needed ... a _spoiler_, in other words.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Oct 2015)

I still think the "old Canada" factor will continue to be the issue. Brad Wall might not suffer as much as others from it, but any new Conservative leader from Alberta will face the same fear and loathing from the Laurentian Elites and the complicit press that Mr Harper did.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I still think the "old Canada" factor will continue to be the issue. Brad Wall might not suffer as much as others from it, but any new Conservative leader from Alberta will face the same fear and loathing from the Laurentian Elites and the complicit press that Mr Harper did.




That's one of the reasons I have both Leitch and O'Toole on my list.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Doug Ford can be that, for sure, and his candidacy might deprive some others (Jason Kenney? or self-described _libertarian_ Rona Ambrose?) of the _hard right_ support which might be needed ... a _spoiler_, in other words.



A spoiler ... or maybe a king maker if the Conservatives go by way of a convention.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> A spoiler ... or maybe a king maker if the Conservatives go by way of a convention.




Very possible, too ... he is very, very popular with one (important) slice of the CPC. One challenge for the Party President, Mr Walsh, and the interim leader (whomever (s)he will be) is to keep the party _united_. Both the old true blue Refromers and the old Red Tories will be looking to pull the party away from the _centre_.

I, as a party member and donor, will be pushing *for* a _centrist_ leader.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Oct 2015)

Having had Baird as my Minister, i would say that although he was decent to the staff of the department, he was micro-manager and his selection of office staff was dismal. It was a breath of fresh air when Strahal took over.


----------



## Altair (21 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Others _potential_ contenders mentioned in the article Altair copied (without attribution  :tsktsk: ):*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CPC backroom guy who posted this on another forum but who might not want too much attention drawn to him.

Must protect my sources.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Oct 2015)

A Ford brother would be the kind of sideshow the media would like to encourage to draw attention away from substantial debate or allow them to avoid covering it at all (2 minutes of Ford - oh, sorry, no time left).  He would also serve as a pretext for slagging the CPC in general.  In lieu of an actual candidacy, they will speculate on one, perhaps hoping that the horse will start to sing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2015)

Jean Charest has quashed rumours that he would be a candidate: ""I will not be a candidate to succeed Mr. Harper. I am very happy with my new life and with my work at the McCarthy Tétrault law firm," Charest wrote in an email to Radio-Canada." I never thought he would be a contender.


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Jean Charest has quashed rumours that he would be a candidate: ""I will not be a candidate to succeed Mr. Harper. I am very happy with my new life and with my work at the McCarthy Tétrault law firm," Charest wrote in an email to Radio-Canada." I never thought he would be a contender.


I will never go back to a goverment salary


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2015)

_CBC News_ is reporting that Michelle Rempel is pondering a bid ...





Conservative MP Michelle Rempel took to Twitter in the middle of the night to air her
thoughts about running for Conservative leadership.                              (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)


Edit: spelling  :-[


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2015)

A name up for interim leader - Diane Finley


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I will never go back to a goverment salary



You read my mind man!


----------



## Occam (22 Oct 2015)




----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Oct 2015)




----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2015)

According to this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Conservatives are starting to openly criticize the recent campaign and Prime Minister Harper's leadership style. They are discussing the next leader's style, too:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-openly-criticize-partys-election-performance/article26945334/
My _emphahsis_ added


> Conservatives openly criticize party’s election performance
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




First: Conservatives need to be careful: they (_we_, I need to emphasize, too) are not Liberals.

Second: The "old Canada:new Canada" model, which some of you don't like, works; it explains what we see and it is, therefore a good theory. Yes, Ontario and British Columbia are not as Conservative as, say the Prairies, but they are, even more, not as Liberal as Quebec and Atlantic Canada. The fact is that the Conservatives and Liberals are both, once again, _national_ parties who can be competitive across the country, but the Liberals' base is East of the _Rivière des Outaouais_ and the CPC's base is to the West of the Ottawa River.

Third: A winning party cannot be dominated by angry, old, white men. Lisa Raitt and Michelle Rempel are right: the CPC cannot be _what_ it wants to be and _where_ it wants to be until it can appeal ~ almost as well as the LPC and NDP ~ to younger women, too. 

Fourth: (The is a variation of the sort of joke I taught my nephew and niece ~ "Rule #1: Mom is ALWAYS right; if Mom is doing something wrong, remember Rule #1") See my First point: We are not Liberals.

Stephen Harper, was indeed, a "visionary" leader: his _vision_ was to lead Canada, by barely perceptible, incremental steps, towards a more Conservative national position. he has, in some large measure, succeeded. He has, correctly, abandoned the "hard right" and the 'religious right." At the moment they have no other place to go, and if they find one it will be no great loss ... if the "hard right" and the "religious right" abandon the CPC it will be possible to poach from the stream in which the Blue Liberals swim.

The _vision_ Stephen Harper has is of small town Canada, from Port Alberni (represented by an NDP MP since Monday) to Mount Pearl (represented by a Liberal) but exemplified by someplace like Shelburne or Orangeville in Ontario. That is the "firm base" of Canadian Conservatism. That is where the next leader must have his or her roots ... it's fine, even good to live in Calgary or Ottawa, but (s)he has to "fit" in Shelburne, ON or Swift Current, SK and (s)he has to share the _values_ and _vision_ of the people there. Those values and visions are different from those of the Big City, Big Business Big Labour Liberals and NDP voters in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal ~ they are not "better," but nor are they in any way at all "worse." They are the Conservative values of social moderation and fiscal prudence and they can win elections.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Stephen Harper, was indeed, a "visionary" leader: his _vision_ was to lead Canada, by barely perceptible, incremental steps, towards a more Conservative national position. he has, in some large measure, succeeded. He has, correctly, abandoned the "hard right" and the 'religious right." At the moment they have no other place to go, and if they find one it will be no great loss ... if the "hard right" and the "religious right" abandon the CPC it will be possible to poach from the stream in which the Blue Liberals swim.



I think the part in yellow is the basis of the Conservative campaign failure.

Personal story here: I found out at age 16 that I was myopic. I was siting at the back of the class and considered a bit of a class clown in those days. One day, a teacher asks me to read the quote he put on the blackboard and I answered that there was nothing on the board. After the laughter died down and he insisted on my reading it, my friend, next to me said "here Pierre, try with these on" and handed me his glasses. It must have had the right prescription and I suddenly discovered a world I was missing.

How could I have missed it? Well, I probably started to lose my sight somewhere around age 10, by very small increments. So small indeed that every time I lost  bit more, I probably could not notice as I could not remember that only a few months back I could see just a little better. At every step, the world looked just the same to me, and I had no reference frame to figure that I could see a lot better many years before.

Since PM Harper was changing things ever so slowly, I suspect that most Canadian's failed to notice the ongoing ever so slight changes constantly taking place (it did not help that most of them were buried deep into extensive omnibus bills, so no one ever talked about it in public forums). To then, nine years later, run on your record was a terrible mistake: People's view of your record was that in nine years, you didn't do anything.

Couple that with a campaign that seeks to compare "your" record with the other party's platforms as your sole "positive" ads and promising more of the same (the other ones were just attack ads on the other parties, period) made it look like you had nothing to offer and just wanted to hold on to power for the sole sake of being in power. (As a certain French cartoons would tell us "I want to be calif instead of the calif".

Basically (unless I missed it), the Conservative campaign offered Canadians nothing, over a period of 78 days. Failure was the only possible consequence.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Oct 2015)

It's difficult to evade that pattern.  Another trite observation: conservatives prefer to manage change, progressives are eager to create change.  Conservativism should be the natural inclination of people who depend on stability and for whom one major disruption can be a life-ruining event.  For the people with good educations, interesting and important jobs, comfortable incomes, all sorts of prospects and options, etc, etc to ponder - do you really think the "ordinary" people caught up in the turmoil at the margins of your next pet cause really enjoy being playthings so that you can feel better about your position in Maslow's hierarchy?

If the next Conservative leader comes from QC, so be it, but there have been a lot of recent PMs and party leaders from QC.  Whether or not the next Conservative leader comes from AB should not get anyone's panties in a knot.  (The NDP seems to do the best job of finding leaders from different regions.)

Since Harper helpfully stood with the Fords in the closing days of the campaign, he has essentially freed everyone who chooses to stand apart  from having anything to do with the Ford ilk.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It's difficult to evade that pattern.  Another trite observation: conservatives prefer to manage change, progressives are eager to create change.  Conservativism should be the natural inclination of people who depend on stability and for whom one major disruption can be a life-ruining event.  For the people with good educations, interesting and important jobs, comfortable incomes, all sorts of prospects and options, etc, etc to ponder - do you really think the "ordinary" people caught up in the turmoil at the margins of your next pet cause really enjoy being playthings so that you can feel better about your position in Maslow's hierarchy?
> 
> If the next Conservative leader comes from QC, so be it, but there have been a lot of recent PMs and party leaders from QC.  Whether or not the next Conservative leader comes from AB should not get anyone's panties in a knot.  (The NDP seems to do the best job of finding leaders from different regions.)
> 
> _Since Harper helpfully stood with the Fords in the closing days of the campaign, he has essentially freed everyone who chooses to stand apart  from having anything to do with the Ford ilk._




That's a very important point:

     First: The Fords _do_ represent a small but significant slice of the Conservative base; and

     Second: Stephen Harper, himself, represents a somewhat larger one.

Prime Minister Harper, _de facto_, brought those two groups into the same orbit ... _but_ my guess is that the next CPC leader is going to be "not-Harper." John Baird, Tony Clement and Jason Kenney are, perhaps, the possible contenders most closely aligned to Prime Minister Harper so the "not-Harper" thing is most likely to work against them. Rona Ambrose, Maxime Bernier Kellie Leitch, Peter MacKay, Erin O'Toole and Michelle Rempel were all part of "team Harper" but less, I think, identified with him.

I like the fact the Ms Rempel has come out swinging at the CPC establishment. I also like the fact that Dr Leitch made a lot of friends as she campaigned tirelessly for others ~ almost as much an _energizer bunny_ as Jason Kenney. I, personally, have no problems with a female, or a gay man, leading any Canadian political party, including my own.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2015)

The Huffington Post says: 

   "In the wake of the Conservative Party's defeat, three high-profile female cabinet ministers are being discussed as possible successors to Stephen Harper.

      The first, Dr. Kellie Leitch — a pediatric surgeon, outgoing minister of labour and minister for the status of women — is reportedly set to launch a campaign to lead the Conservative Party of Canada.

      The second, Michelle Rempel — a fast-rising Tory star and outgoing minister of state for Western economic diversification – is opening up about the challenges of mounting a run.

      The third, Lisa Raitt — a much-respected outgoing minister of transport — is keeping her cards close to the vest."

I haven't mentioned Lia Raitt much nor have i heard any rumblings ... but she's a good, solid contender who was _rumoured_ to have been considering a jump to enter the Ontario PC leadership race, but didn't.


----------



## observor 69 (23 Oct 2015)

Some issues affecting any decision Lisa Raitt makes are being one year away from a serious health event and leaving two young boys in Milton ON while she is in Ottawa leading a recovering political party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2015)

From Michelle Rempel (with my _emphasis_ added):

    "[size=14pt]_I don't want our leadership race, or the direction the party takes going forward, to be defined by what the media or what the chattering class_ of our party says it has to be or not be. To recapture the hope and
     optimism of Canadians who didn't vote for us on Monday but who would have, we need a leadership race that is vibrant, full of many candidates, that focuses first on ideas and who we are as a party. We don't need people
     self-deselecting because "they're from Calgary" or "they have two young kids" or "they're maybe a bit too young" or "their French/English isn't impeccable" because the media and the inner circles of our party say those are
     things that disqualify them from the race.

     No.

     First we need to take stock of our loss and the emotional toll a nearly 80 day campaign has taken on many of us. Then we need to refocus on who we are as a party - one that champions _freedom of economic opportunity,
     rights of the individual, less government, and more prosperity_ - and how we inspire Canadians with that message. Only then should we be selecting a leader - because we need to know who we are and where we're going
     before we can choose someone who best embodies the capacity to get us there."[/size]

I share her priorities, and I consider that _"rights of the individual"_ and _"less government"_ means that the government doesn't concern itself with many social issues: abortion, for example, is a matter of privacy ~ a fundamental right for each woman. You or I may dislike abortion, disapprove of it, wish it wasn't the "easy way out" for too many, but the government and the churches must leave women alone to make their own choices and reconcile with their own gods. It's none of the state's bloody business. Ditto marriage ~ "normal" or gay or whatever, as long as it doesn't involve children or defenceless animals. (If you want to try to make with a tiger ... fill your boots, but don't expect Medicare to stitch you back up again!) And it really doesn't matter if you want to wear a head scarf or face mask to swear allegiance to the Queen ~ but you must uncover your face to get a driving licence, testify in court or vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2015)

Paul Wells, writing in Maclean's, reports on rumours about the CPC leadership. He says that:

    "Senior Conservative sources said there is already growing concern that either Harper, or people who were close to him while he was prime minister, are seeking to organize his succession. Some members of the party’s national
     council are calling for a leadership election as early as May of 2016, which would give an advantage to members who are already well-organized, The member who most closely fits that description is Jason Kenney.

     Kenney will have competition. Simcoe-Grey MP Kellie Leitch, not one of the most prominent members of the former government, is said to have an organization already in place, including Andy Pringle, who was chief of staff to
     former Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory, and pollsters Nick Kouvalis and Richard Ciano."


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> From Michelle Rempel (with my _emphasis_ added):
> 
> "[size=14pt]_I don't want our leadership race, or the direction the party takes going forward, to be defined by what the media or what the chattering class_ of our party says it has to be or not be. To recapture the hope and
> optimism of Canadians who didn't vote for us on Monday but who would have, we need a leadership race that is vibrant, full of many candidates, that focuses first on ideas and who we are as a party. We don't need people
> ...




My only quibble with what you have said is here.  I have no problem with the face being masked in public.  But the act of swearing allegiance needs to be witnessed, just as procuring a driver's licence, testifying and voting must be.  The prospective citizen needs to bare their face when swearing allegiance.

However.

They do not have to swear allegiance in public.  2 out 3 of my official attestations were done in the presence of only two people other than myself.  Only once was I on public display.

If the person attests in private and still wants to participate in the public theatricals with their face covered I am quite alright with that.

PS.  I still want to shake hands with a bare-face when concluding personal contracts.  That is my choice.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Paul Wells, writing in Maclean's, reports on rumours about the CPC leadership. He says that:
> 
> "Senior Conservative sources said there is already growing concern that either Harper, or people who were close to him while he was prime minister, are seeking to organize his succession. Some members of the party’s national
> council are calling for a leadership election as early as May of 2016, which would give an advantage to members who are already well-organized, The member who most closely fits that description is Jason Kenney.
> ...



Of course people will seek to control events and take whatever advantages come their way.  

But I do like the idea of an open discussion.  There is time to get that out of the way in the next 18 month and then finesse the warts over the next two and a half years.


----------



## Rick Goebel (23 Oct 2015)

I could use some enlightenment on "You or I may dislike abortion, disapprove of it, wish it wasn't the "easy way out" for too many, but the government and the churches must leave women alone to make their own choices and reconcile with their own gods. It's none of the state's bloody business. "  I am pretty considerably confused about abortion but broadly agree with the quoted statement.  The state, though, generally pays for abortions.  Doesn't that make it the states' business?


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2015)

Our system says, used to say, anyway, that our state provided medical insurance covers all medically necessary procedures ... now I keep on reading that some people, not many to be sure but some, must travel outside of Canada for what are, pretty clearly, medically necessary procedures because they are not available here, but Ontario, for example, doesn't always pay. So the "rule" seems, to me, to be a bit flexible.

Are all abortions "medically necessary?" Some are, to be sure ... no doubt. But some are for _convenience_, I think and maybe the state ought not to pay ... but who decides? A doctor? A civil servant? And on what basis?

I believe that a woman's _right_ to have an abortion rests on an absolutely _fundamental *right*_ to privacy as defined by Brandeis and Warren in the USA late in the 19th century. Full stop, end of that discussion. But the question of paying is a lot more complex and murky, especially if you believe, as I do, that the Canadian single payer healthcare system is economic/fiscal madness which cannot be sustained.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Oct 2015)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> I could use some enlightenment on "You or I may dislike abortion, disapprove of it, wish it wasn't the "easy way out" for too many, but the government and the churches must leave women alone to make their own choices and reconcile with their own gods. It's none of the state's bloody business. "  I am pretty considerably confused about abortion but broadly agree with the quoted statement.  The state, though, generally pays for abortions.  Doesn't that make it the states' business?



Doctor\ Patient confidentiality _should_ preclude that. 

Doctor: I performed an abortion. OHIP, here's my bill.

OHIP: What was the nature of the abortion?

Doctor: None of your business.


----------



## Rick Goebel (24 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Doctor\ Patient confidentiality _should_ preclude that.
> 
> Doctor: I performed an abortion. OHIP, here's my bill.
> 
> ...



How about: I performed in-vitro fertilization.  Quebec health care, here's my bill.

Quebec health care: How old was the patient?

Doctor: None of your business.

Quebec health care: Well, yes it is.  We don't pay for in-vitro fertilization of women over 42.

Is there a reason why paying for only some in-vitro fertilization is ok but paying for only some abortions isn't?


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Oct 2015)

In vitro for women over 42 has a very low chance of working and high risk for complications for both mother and child. I don't have a dog in the abortion fight, but that's their rationale behind the age limit.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Oct 2015)

Actually, there is a reason: In-vitro fertilization of women over 42 has been medically proven to have an insignificant (that means very very very very low) rate of success.

Abortion works on any woman who is pregnant.  

All kidding aside, there are all sorts of medical questions that are covered by Provincial Health Care plans  (and even private plans) that require doctors to reveal some patient-doctor confidential information. And it is perfectly OK because it is to determine if the procedure is covered, and therefore paid by the plan. But this information has to be treated as confidential by those plans and cannot be for the purpose of determining moral values that the sate may wish to impose. At that point, the courts step in to stop the state.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2015)

David Akin speculates on how the leadership contest should develop in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/24/three-things-for-conservatives-to-consider-as-they-move-forward


> Tone, patience and unity
> *Three things for Conservatives to consider as they move forward*
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> ...




So, in no particular order:

     1. Consider women as, at least equal ~ maybe a bit more that equal ~ in _probability_ of a "first round kill;"

     2. No regionalism ~ no _special_ status for a Quebec candidate nor for a Western one;

     3. Take your time, but: new leader first, policy convention second; and

     4. Get the whole _tone_ of the party right, starting with the interim leader and how members perform in the house and in constituencies.


----------



## GAP (25 Oct 2015)

A GOOD female candidate from Ontario makes electoral sense as long as they are NOT:

       Stridently conservative, histrionics are out.......

       Able to avoid regionalism/divisiveness , especially when coming to decrying the Western influence 

Being from Ontario will forestall a lot of the "out there" attitude. It is closer to home and safer....

 :2c:        

footnote: Harper always had the footnote somewhere that he was from Calgary, therefore implying he did not really understand the East....


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> A GOOD female candidate from Ontario makes electoral sense as long as they are NOT:
> 
> Stridently conservative, histrionics are out.......
> 
> ...



Defining "good," in _conservative_ terms, for _Conservatives_, is the tricky part. There is no, single, one-size-fits-all _Conservative_; the spectrum runs from the hard edge of the religious right to the left wing of the Red  Tories, who are Liberals in everything but name. The leader ought ~ _in my opinion_ ~ to eschew both those wings and aim, squarely, for the socially moderate and fiscally prudent middle of the spectrum.

I self identify as being in about the middle of that _conservative_ spectrum and I want a leader who, even though (s)he holds a _principled_ pro-life position, recognizes and affirms that abortion is a settled issue, some Conservatives may wish to debate it, that;'s their right, even to raise it in parliament, but the party's position is that _choice_ is a woman's right and the issue will not be revisited by a Conservative government; I want a leader who will be brave enough to roll back some social programmes and repeal the Canada Health Act, leaving provinces free to experiment with whatever models make fiscal and political sense; I want a leader who will stop the cronyism, pork barrelling and corporate welfare that masquerade as "regional economic diversification" programmes; I want a leader who will make practical policies that aim to stop the human rot that infests too many (arguably most) First Nations ~ First Nations people need to be able to stand, proudly, on their own merits, and through their own efforts as happy, prosperous Canadians; I want a leader who will explain to Canadians why we need to pay for a modest but efficient and effective military, even though it may be a "waste" in pure economic terms; finally I want a leader who will enunciate a practical (affordable), _principled_ and even visionary foreign policy that sets goals for Canada in the world.


----------



## GAP (25 Oct 2015)

I think he died about 2000 years ago.....but yeah..... ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Oct 2015)

So you basically want Harper, but more to the right? 

An interesting thing about Harper's "control" is that without it the CPC might never have gotten into a position to complain about losing government due to it.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Oct 2015)

There is still a deeply rooted anti western bias in the political intelligentsia. In Mr Trudea's own words:

“Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec ... This country — Canada — it belongs to us.”

I think this comment sums up the mountain the next (any) Conservative leader has to scale.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> _So you basically want Harper, but more to the right?_
> 
> An interesting thing about Harper's "control" is that without it the CPC might never have gotten into a position to complain about losing government due to it.




You're not far off at all, Brad.

I thought Prime Minister Harper was far too cautious on the _small government_, _First Nations_ and _corporate welfare_ fronts.

I opposed many (not all) of his "boutique tax cuts," but I thought (still think) his cuts to the HST/GST was good public policy as well as being good politics, because it makes it harder for any government to spend wildly.

I supported him, broadly, on foreign policy, especially on freer trade with all and sundry, and I have expressed the view, elsewhere, that it was the MND, DM and CDS of the day, back in 2012, who _failed a test_ administered by the prime minister (in the form of _*direction*_ to cut the fat in HQs), not the prime minister being "wrong" on defence.

My sense of the CPC's base is shown in the attached diagram. I believe that the next leader must aim to please the 90±% of Conservatives who are somewhere on the Social and fiscal moderates through to Social moderates but fiscal hawks segments on the spectrum. I think we can, even should, be prepared to jettison the Red Tories and the Social conservatives, if necessary to preserve party unity, and the two extreme fringes if they cannot stomach the "mushy middle."


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Defining "good," in _conservative_ terms, for _Conservatives_, is the tricky part. There is no, single, one-size-fits-all _Conservative_; the spectrum runs from the hard edge of the religious right to the left wing of the Red  Tories, who are Liberals in everything but name. The leader ought ~ _in my opinion_ ~ to eschew both those wings and aim, squarely, for the socially moderate and fiscally prudent middle of the spectrum.
> 
> I self identify as being in about the middle of that _conservative_ spectrum and I want a leader who, even though (s)he holds a _principled_ pro-life position, recognizes and affirms that abortion is a settled issue, some Conservatives may wish to debate it, that;'s their right, even to raise it in parliament, but the party's position is that _choice_ is a woman's right and the issue will not be revisited by a Conservative government; I want a leader who will be brave enough to roll back some social programmes and repeal the Canada Health Act, leaving provinces free to experiment with whatever models make fiscal and political sense; I want a leader who will stop the cronyism, pork barrelling and corporate welfare that masquerade as "regional economic diversification" programmes; I want a leader who will make practical policies that aim to stop the human rot that infests too many (arguably most) First Nations ~ First Nations people need to be able to stand, proudly, on their own merits, and through their own efforts as happy, prosperous Canadians; I want a leader who will explain to Canadians why we need to pay for a modest but efficient and effective military, even though it may be a "waste" in pure economic terms; finally I want a leader who will enunciate a practical (affordable), _principled_ and even visionary foreign policy that sets goals for Canada in the world.



https://www.libertarian.ca/

These guys have the platform you want, but are organizationally impaired WRT actually getting things done on the scale needed (sorry to the guys who ran this election, and kudos for doing so, but when you get right down to it...). If anything, they need someone even _more_ ruthless and focused than Stephen Harper as a leader to get their game up.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_ is reporting that former Foreign Minister and Ottawa MP John Baird, 46, is, indeed, considering offering himself for the CPC leadership.

"A Baird candidacy," the _Globe and Mail_ opines, "would significantly alter the ‎competitive landscape for the helm of a party now in search of a compelling challenger to stand up to prime-minister-designate Justin Trudeau. As things stand, the presumed heir apparent is Jason Kenney, 47, a veteran of the Harper cabinet who is still deciding whether to run."

Further, the _Globe_ suggests that "Mr. Baird’s political philosophy is not readily distinguishable from Mr. Kenney’s; were both men to run, the choice for voters would come down to personality and perceived winnability rather than a change in direction [and] like Mr. Kenney, Mr. Baird could be described as a small-government conservative who is hawkish on security and defence."

I am a bit of a John Baird fan, and, as I have said several times, on Army.ca, I am unconcerned about the private lives and proclivities of politicians as long as they are within the bounds of the law and (reasonably) good manners, but I also agree with those who think that we need to change the public "face" (image) of the CPC, to a less stern, unyielding and secretive one, and I wonder if a female leader might not be a better choice to face off against Justin Trudeau in 2019.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2015)

David Parkins, in the _Globe and Mail_, takes stock of the CPC leadership hopefuls as they sift through the electoral wreckage:





L to R: Jason Kenney, Tony Clement, Peter MacKay (looking on from afar), Kellie Leitch, John Baird,
Lisa Rait, Maxime Bernier and Doug Ford
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-october-2015/article26577881/

I don't see Michelle Rempel there but I think she's a possible contender.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Globe and Mail_ is reporting that former Foreign Minister and Ottawa MP John Baird, 46, is, indeed, considering offering himself for the CPC leadership.
> 
> ...




But, CBC News quotes Mr Baird as saying "While I have indeed received expressions of interest and am tremendously flattered by the support, I will not be running for leader of the Conservative party of Canada ... When I retired from politics, I spoke about starting a new chapter in my life. I am extremely happy with this new chapter and will remain dedicated to my work in the private sector."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Oct 2015)

I have to think that Harper allowed an "echo chamber" to form around him, it seemed that slowly they cut off any dissent and people voicing other opinions, got wrapped up in the strategy games and sniping their opponent. They lost the ear to the ground that would have allowed them to pick up clues from the voters.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have to think that Harper allowed an "echo chamber" to form around him, it seemed that slowly they cut off any dissent and people voicing other opinions, got wrapped up in the strategy games and sniping their opponent. They lost the ear to the ground that would have allowed them to pick up clues from the voters.




As others have said, that may have been essential to create enforce some sort of _unity_ on the diverse elements of the fledgling Conservative Party of Canada. There was, as I recall, a lot of _dissent_ from the old Red Tories on the left and some of the hard edged Reformers on the right. Party unity was not a foregone conclusion ... it is still not guaranteed, as David Aiken pointed out in an article I posted yesterday.


----------



## Altair (26 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Parkins, in the _Globe and Mail_, takes stock of the CPC leadership hopefuls as they sift through the electoral wreckage:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


was that Peter MacKay off in the distance?


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Oct 2015)

If hey have any brains at all, they need to outside the box and get someone who is youthful, dynamically adept, strong willed and extremely brilliant. It is that last one that the LPC lacks in their current leader, as time will show.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> was that Peter MacKay off in the distance?



Yes ... lantern jaw and broken nose (rugby).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have to think that Harper allowed an "echo chamber" to form around him, it seemed that slowly they cut off any dissent and people voicing other opinions, got wrapped up in the strategy games and sniping their opponent. They lost the ear to the ground that would have allowed them to pick up clues from the voters.



Time spent on recce is seldom wasted


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Time spent on recce is seldom wasted



And time wasted on recce is never regained......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> And time wasted on recce is never regained......



.........nor are the losses, because of it. 8)


----------



## Loachman (26 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...abortion ... choice ... is a woman's right



There are two parties with direct interest in abortion.

Nobody seems willing to speak for the other.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2015)

David Akin, _Sun News_, reports that Erin O'Toole and Rona Ambrose might be interested in being the interim leader. Mr Akin reports, and _I think_ (but I'm not at all certain that) he's right, that the party rules will make the interim leader ineligible to run for party leader, something in which I suspect Ms Ambrose is interested in doing. Candice Bergen, Michelle Rempel and Andrew Scheer are also mentioned as interim leader candidates, as are Diane Finley and Rob Nicholson. I think Ms Rempel, like Ms Ambrose is really more interested in being party leader but may be just testing the (caucus/party) waters for support.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Oct 2015)

I suspect more than a few are sizing up the party's prospects for the next election, considering that the prior leader will be in caucus, and deciding that they have no desire to be Stanfield to Harper's Diefenbaker.


----------



## GAP (26 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin, _Sun News_, reports that Erin O'Toole and Rona Ambrose might be interested in being the interim leader. Mr Akin reports, and _I think_ (but I'm not at all certain that) he's right, that the party rules will make the interim leader ineligible to run for party leader, something in which I suspect Ms Ambrose is interested in doing. Candice Bergen, Michelle Rempel and Andrew Scheer are also mentioned as interim leader candidates, as are Diane Finley and Rob Nicholson. I think Ms Rempel, like Ms Ambrose is really more interested in being party leader but may be just testing the (caucus/party) waters for support.



There might be valid candidates out there that are going to wait out this round of leader contention. They could come in after the next election defeat and the party would be more willing to reconstruct, rather than vie for power right away.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Oct 2015)

Now is the time to start, not after the next election.  The social media echo chamber is going to be almost as hard for the Liberals to endure.  It's a mistake to assume any old ideas about time and attitudes still apply.  There are lots of hands out, and not much to hand out after the honeymoon ends.

The voter's rebuke was meant for Harper, so he won't command widespread loyalty.  Any new leader with a backbone worthy of the position should by definition not worry about Harper.   All the earnest "advice" and concern trolling and hand-wringing about Harper's presence, aside from being meant to throw up FUD in the Conservatives' face and frighten them into proceeding weakly and indecisively, could equally well be empty words.  Reporters kept remarking on Harper's equanimity in the closing campaign stages and in defeat as if they expected or hoped for an outburst.  He could just as easily be an elder statesman as a distraction.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Now is the time to start, not after the next election.  The social media echo chamber is going to be almost as hard for the Liberals to endure.  It's a mistake to assume any old ideas about time and attitudes still apply.  There are lots of hands out, and not much to hand out after the honeymoon ends.
> 
> The voter's rebuke was meant for Harper, so he won't command widespread loyalty.  Any new leader with a backbone worthy of the position should by definition not worry about Harper.   All the earnest "advice" and concern trolling and hand-wringing about Harper's presence, aside from being meant to throw up FUD in the Conservatives' face and frighten them into proceeding weakly and indecisively, could equally well be empty words.  Reporters kept remarking on Harper's equanimity in the closing campaign stages and in defeat as if they expected or hoped for an outburst.  He could just as easily be an elder statesman as a distraction.




As I said a couple of days ago, the _First Rule_ to remember is that _we_, the CPC, are not Liberals ... so the advice we/the CPC do not want to follow is that which flows from e.g. the _Laurentian Elites_ and the big city _chattering classes_.

There are real, identifiable Canadian Conservative values and goals which can be enunciated and which can attract a good, solid, 35% to 45% of the national vote base. Conservatives don't need to wait for the Liberals to, as they inevitably have done since 1960, fall back into their old habits of _cronyism_ and corruption. Nor do they need to disavow what Prime Minister Harper did for Canada. The voters decided that the Conservatives, but especially Prime Minister Harper, had been in power long enough (nine years); they want change. The Conservative Party can offer the change in _style_ they are after without proposing to undo everything that was done in the past few years. Some policies and programmes (Bill C-51, for example) will change, and the CPC should not fight too hard for some of their old policies. (Getting rid of some 'monumental' projects would be a good idea, too, and one Conservatives ought not to oppose too strongly.) What Conservatives need to do is to offer _most_ Canadians, especially those families in small cities and towns and in big-city suburbs, fresh, new, attractive policies.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Oct 2015)

But can they do that with Diefenbaker Harper still in the room?


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But can they do that with Diefenbaker Harper still in the room?




That will be as hard as he makes it, for as long as he feels the _need_ to stay "in the room."

My guess is that Prime Minister Harper wants to do two things:

     1. Set a good example by continuing to serve, for a while, to avoid the costs/fuss of another by-election; and

     2. Enjoy the privileges and immunities that being an elected MP confer ... for another year or so.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Oct 2015)

The _Huffington Post_ reports that Candice Bergen will seek to be the interim leader, as will, the _HP_ says, Diane Finley, Erin O'Toole and Rob Nicholson.

Interim leader is tricky job ... I think Bob Rae did it well for the LPC: he provided some much needed _gravitas_ and stability while the leadership race ~ it was, really, more like a coronation procession ~ was underway. I believe the the CPC leadership race will be longer and more intense than the Liberal one in 2012/13; it will, certainly, have a much, much more talented field. The interim leader will have to maintain 'good order and discipline" in the caucus while the leadership contestants are battling each other for support; it's a job that needs diplomatic and political skills.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Oct 2015)

I think George Bush set a good example, never commenting on the new leader, focusing on things close to his heart.


----------



## Remius (27 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The interim leader will have to maintain 'good order and discipline" in the caucus while the leadership contestants are battling each other for support; it's a job that needs diplomatic and political skills.



This is key.  Hopefully the CPC's frequent use of attack ads and tricks won't be used to destroy each other.  I see this with the Republican Party in the U.S.  by the time the leadership is settled they've pretty imploded.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2015)

The sort of "advice" which Conservatives need to _ignore_, in total, is the sort offered, in this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, by Jeffrey Simpson, unofficial spokesman for the _Laurentian Elites_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-for-tories-a-long-list-of-difficult-questions/article27008823/


> For Tories, a long list of difficult questions
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Please, please, PLEASE Conservatives, ignore every single word after "Think about Shakespeare’s plays." We should, all of us, think about Shakespeare's plays more often than we do, that's good advice for one and all, but everything that follows is intended to help the Liberals, not the Conservatives.

Do not worry about why the CPC government was "at daggers drawn with scientists, civil servants, “experts,” journalists, the cultural community," those "communities" were "at daggers drawn with YOU before you turned on them.

"How did we manage to fritter away about a fifth of the support we had secured in the 2011 election by voting day 2015?" "Why are we by far the least-favoured second-choice party, with the fewest number of people who would consider voting for us?" and "Is it the correct strategy to try for a maximum of 40 per cent of the electors?" are interesting academic questions and party _followers_, not its _leaders_ should worry over them.

Especially ignore Mr Simpsons concerns that the most likely leaders "are holdovers from the Harper years. They were ministers in Harper governments. They helped frame the government’s policies – at least they did at the margin, given that so many decisions were framed by Stephen Harper. But they defended those policies. They did so in the verbally pugilistic, take-no-prisoners style so typical of the Harper party. They were, are and will be Harperites," he's just annoyed because your, Conservative, opposition "front bench" is qualitatively superior to all but a tiny handful of Prime Minister designate Trudeau's. 

Read Mr Simpson's column, "know your enemy," as we used to say ... then do the reverse.






What the CPC needs to do is to:

     1. Reconnect with its legitimate _values_ and _ambitions_, which are grounded in the families who live in the suburbs around Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Ottawa and in the small cities and towns that stretch from Vancouver Island to the Avalon Peninsula;

     2. Enunciate those values, clearly to all Canadians;

     3. Select a leader who personifies those values ~ and there are many useful candidates, including several "Harperites."

Jeffrey Simpson says _"Harperites"_ with a sneer of contempt; Conservatives need to say it with pride. Jeffrey Simpson represents a fast fading past of elites and croyism; Stephen Harper is the face that showed us the way to a better, more egalitarian society.


Edit: format


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Oct 2015)

The halcyon days of the MSM sneering, deriding and condemning everything Harper are coming to an end. They no longer have the lightning rod for their biased trash, in order to fill their columns. Watch for people like Simpson to become more desperate and outlandish while they attempt to wring one last article out of the CPC and Harper.

I'm looking forward to the day that they become so hungry that they finally, and inevitably, turn on their liberal masters and start devouring them instead.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm looking forward to the day that they become so hungry that they finally, and inevitably, turn on their liberal masters and start devouring them instead.


It won't be "if", but "when" - even if it's only to say, "he's not Liberal _ENOUGH!_"


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The sort of "advice" which Conservatives need to _ignore_, in total, is the sort offered, in this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, by Jeffrey Simpson, unofficial spokesman for the _Laurentian Elites_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-for-tories-a-long-list-of-difficult-questions/article27008823/
> 
> ...



Simpson paraphrasing Rex Harrison

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doz5w2W-jAY

Why can't a Conservative be more like a Liberal?

He is the last troll from whom I would be taking advice.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Oct 2015)

Get used to it.  As the wave of bubbly Barbie journalism about the Trudeau family recedes, there will much more of this "advice": "Go away and be quiet in a retreat for a long time - preferably at least one full election term.  When you come back, be sure to have purged all the experienced members (so that we can then criticize you for lacking depth of experience).  Whoever remains in contention for leadership should be politically to the left of Bob Rae.  Continue navel-gazing intensively and commenting publicly about it.  Above all, do not be misled by those who would attribute the loss to simple voter fatigue, popularity contest politics, and a decade-long campaign waged by the establishment whose noses were put out of joint when Paul Martin was removed."

Conservatives would do better to read Charles Cooke's "The Conservatarian Manifesto" and use it to develop some ideas and policies for a Canadian context.  Those should be developed quickly; every stumble by the federal government - and to a lesser extent, the ON and AB governments - should be met with a discussion of alternatives, not a vaccuum which allows the issue to die quietly.


----------



## Jed (28 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Get used to it.  As the wave of bubbly Barbie journalism about the Trudeau family recedes, there will much more of this "advice": "Go away and be quiet in a retreat for a long time - preferably at least one full election term.  When you come back, be sure to have purged all the experienced members (so that we can then criticize you for lacking depth of experience).  Whoever remains in contention for leadership should be politically to the left of Bob Rae.  Continue navel-gazing intensively and commenting publicly about it.  Above all, do not be misled by those who would attribute the loss to simple voter fatigue, popularity contest politics, and a decade-long campaign waged by the establishment whose noses were put out of joint when Paul Martin was removed."
> 
> Conservatives would do better to read Charles Cooke's "The Conservatarian Manifesto" and use it to develop some ideas and policies for a Canadian context.  Those should be developed quickly; every stumble by the federal government - and to a lesser extent, the ON and AB governments - should be met with a discussion of alternatives, not a vaccuum which allows the issue to die quietly.



Now that is sage advice.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Get used to it.  As the wave of bubbly Barbie journalism about the Trudeau family recedes, there will much more of this "advice": "Go away and be quiet in a retreat for a long time - preferably at least one full election term.  When you come back, be sure to have purged all the experienced members (so that we can then criticize you for lacking depth of experience).  Whoever remains in contention for leadership should be politically to the left of Bob Rae.  Continue navel-gazing intensively and commenting publicly about it.  Above all, do not be misled by those who would attribute the loss to simple voter fatigue, popularity contest politics, and a decade-long campaign waged by the establishment whose noses were put out of joint when Paul Martin was removed."
> 
> Conservatives would do better to read Charles Cooke's "The Conservatarian Manifesto" and use it to develop some ideas and policies for a Canadian context.  Those should be developed quickly; every stumble by the federal government - and to a lesser extent, the ON and AB governments - should be met with _[size=14pt]a discussion of alternatives_, not a vaccuum which allows the issue to die quietly.[/size]




That's why a well managed, fairly lengthy, leadership race is important ... it will give a range of candidates, experienced ones (_Harperites_, in Jeffrey Simpson's sneering words) and newcomers, too (I hope a handful of rank outsiders will challenge, if only to help propagate a wide range of ideas) opportunities to enunciate and test ideas and visions.

I hope the leadership campaign, _per se_ will start on/about 1 Jan 16 and last until, about, mid 2017, with enough events to keep the Conservative friendly media ~ there's a lot of it in the print media ~ engaged, and attract some interest from the (less friendly) TV networks.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Oct 2015)

Meanwhile, walking and chewing gum will be required.

In addition to the internal discussion the Conservatives must keep the Liberals on their toes. That must be the focus of the Interim Leader. To keep the Conservatives as a viable alternative - and to keep pointing out when the Liberals adopt Conservative policies and keep reiterating - I told you so.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2015)

My guess on the interim leader vs party leader _strategy_ is that some contenders for the interim leader job are, in fact, just testing the (support) waters and might even be disappointed if they win because, according to the CPC's own rules the interim leader cannot run to be party leader. Some others are, seriously, interested in  both jobs but they believe, as of now, anyway, that M Trudeau is a two term (eight year) PM and they can enhance their own reputations by being very good interim leaders and then, in 2019, when the CPC, yet again, is the opposition party, they can challenge for the party leadership and be the one who leads the CPC back to power in 2023.

If you are under 50, today, you will still be under 60 when 2023 rolls around. Consider:

Rona Ambrose:   46
Maxime Bernier: 52
Jason Kenney:      47
Kellie Leitch:        45
Erin O'Toole:       42
Michel Rempel:   35
-----------------------
John Baird:          46
James Moore:     39
Peter MacKay:    50


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2015)

So, the interim leader is ... 





The Honourable Rona Ambrose
Source: http://www.conservative.ca/cpc/welcome-interim-leader-rona-ambrose/


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, the interim leader is ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Half of your cabinet are women?  That's cute"


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, the interim leader is ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



PS: Is she single?  ;D


----------



## brihard (5 Nov 2015)

Another far-right social conservative. Ugh. They didn't friggin' pay attention to a thing. They aren't going to swing the Canadian political centre - those of us they lost to the iberals in this election - by pandering to the far right base. We aren't looking for an ardent pro-life libertarian to make the Conservatives palatable again.

At least this rules her out for being the 'real' leader of the party. But I am concerned about how this will shape the rebuild.


----------



## GR66 (5 Nov 2015)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Another far-right social conservative. Ugh. They didn't friggin' pay attention to a thing. They aren't going to swing the Canadian political centre - those of us they lost to the iberals in this election - by pandering to the far right base. We aren't looking for an ardent pro-life libertarian to make the Conservatives palatable again.
> 
> At least this rules her out for being the 'real' leader of the party. But I am concerned about how this will shape the rebuild.



The interim leader isn't about policy.  It's about providing a steady hand and guiding the party through the process of picking a new leader.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Nov 2015)

Brihard said:
			
		

> We aren't looking for an ardent pro-life libertarian to make the Conservatives palatable again.


What's wrong with defending life at its most vunerable stage?

Oh, right, "women's rights" and all that other double-talk nonsense to justify homicide.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> What's wrong with defending life at its most vunerable stage?
> 
> Oh, right, "women's rights" and all that other double-talk nonsense to justify homicide.




It doesn't matter what the leader, interim or new, _believes_ in her or his heart and soul ... all Conservatives who want to govern this country again must understand, and tell all the other Conservatives, that a woman's _right_ to have an abortion, for her own private reasons, is a settled issue. It is fine to express opposition to it, that (free expression) is also a _right_, but a Conservative leader and a Conservative front bench must always, without fail, vote to sustain "choice" or whatever one wants to call it.


----------



## brihard (5 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter what the leader, interim or new, _believes_ in her or his heart and soul ... all Conservatives who want to govern this country again must understand, and tell all the other Conservatives, that a woman's _right_ to have an abortion, for her own private reasons, is a settled issue. It is fine to express opposition to it, that (free expression) is also a _right_, but a Conservative leader and a Conservative front bench must always, without fail, vote to sustain "choice" or whatever one wants to call it.



Precisely this.


----------



## Jed (5 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter what the leader, interim or new, _believes_ in her or his heart and soul ... all Conservatives who want to govern this country again must understand, and tell all the other Conservatives, that a woman's _right_ to have an abortion, for her own private reasons, is a settled issue. It is fine to express opposition to it, that (free expression) is also a _right_, but a Conservative leader and a Conservative front bench must always, without fail, vote to sustain "choice" or whatever one wants to call it.



Very true. But for Brihard's edification, If you are prochoice, as the majority of Canadians appear to be, you are condoning the killing of unborn babies for primarily matters of convenience. A hard truth generally not accepted by individuals.  

But we of a certain age have been accused of being baby killers before and I imagine it will be ever thus by those of a lefty persuasion.


----------



## Lumber (5 Nov 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> If you are prochoice, as the majority of Canadians appear to be, you are condoning the killing of unborn babies for primarily matters of convenience.



I just have a lot of shares in planned parenthood...


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Nov 2015)

I was moonlighting on the east side of Centre Block today and saw some interesting sights.  I did see a very somber looking Jason Kenny come across the way and into the east entrance and I think perhaps Chris Alexander as well.  

What I did see that really made me laugh inside was the sight of three reporters (one was Robert Fife) and camera crews running like the hounds of hell were after them as they belted from behind the Library and out towards the front of the building.  I guess they had tried to or did ambush Mr. Harper as he left out the back door and wanted to get out front to catch the PM leaving.  I don't think I've ever seen the press move like that before.  The reporters were trying to look as dignified as they could while on the run. ;D  Note to self.  Don't become a cameraman, they really looked like they were suffering.

On a side note, there was a ceremony involving a good chunk of the big brass (CDS excluded) and a goodly sized host of military veterans, a children's choir, RCAF musicians etc in the Senate Chambers (?) which went on for some time.  I noted that all of the guest left looking very happy and content with their visit.  Nice to see.


----------



## ballz (5 Nov 2015)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Another far-right social conservative. Ugh. They didn't friggin' pay attention to a thing. They aren't going to swing the Canadian political centre - those of us they lost to the iberals in this election - by pandering to the far right base. We aren't looking for an ardent pro-life libertarian to make the Conservatives palatable again.
> 
> At least this rules her out for being the 'real' leader of the party. But I am concerned about how this will shape the rebuild.



I haven't seen anything about her that appears libertarian to me, other than her claiming to be one.

While pro-life libertarians exist (not uncommon but not the majority from my experience) and the position can logically be justified using libertarian principles, most of the other stuff is pretty clear cut. You can be a libertarian with social conservative views/values, but you can't really call yourself a libertarian if you advocate social conservative _policies_.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Nov 2015)

>We aren't looking for an ardent pro-life libertarian to make the Conservatives palatable again.

However did they create the illusion of governing as centrists - regardless of their personal beliefs - so successfully that the Liberals decided to move left of the NDP as a campaign strategy?

It was a short vacation from the politics of fear-mongering, hidden agendas, extremism, etc.  Back to your regular anti-Con programming.


----------



## brihard (5 Nov 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >We aren't looking for an ardent pro-life libertarian to make the Conservatives palatable again.
> 
> However did they create the illusion of governing as centrists - regardless of their personal beliefs - so successfully that the Liberals decided to move left of the NDP as a campaign strategy?
> 
> It was a short vacation from the politics of fear-mongering, hidden agendas, extremism, etc.  Back to your regular anti-Con programming.



I have voted Conservative before, and likely will again, so you can wind your neck in. I just have no time for the religious-right, Reform element within the party. I am not afraid of the Conservatives, because the courts will wind in most of their silliest nonsense. I do have concerns about some of their policies, and I find some of their policies ass backwards.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Nov 2015)

I think Ms Ambrose is a good choice for interim leader.

She is experienced, telegenic and she will be hard for the Liberals to counter-attack, especially after making a big deal about women in politics.

The real fun will be when the actual leadership race begins...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_ reports the obvious: Dr Kellie Leitch, 45, is mulling an early entry into the CPC leadership race. 







I described Dr Leitch, as I did Jason Kenney, as an "energizer bunny" because she was in so many ridings in the lead-up to and during the recent election campaign: doing favours for other Conservatives and collecting loyalty in return.


----------



## Privateer (9 Nov 2015)

And an update on someone who is not in the race, at least for now... James Moore:

Former Minister of Industry James Moore to join Dentons

link: http://www.dentons.com/en/whats-different-about-dentons/connecting-you-to-talented-lawyers-around-the-globe/news/2015/november/former-minister-of-industry-james-moore-to-join-dentons



> Dentons is pleased to announce that James Moore is joining our Firm as Senior Business Advisor. Based in our Vancouver office, James will be providing strategic advice to clients in British Columbia, across Canada and around the world.



(Dentons LLP is a "global" law firm, that recently swallowed merged with Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP in Vancouver.)


----------



## Privateer (18 Nov 2015)

Denis Lebel named deputy leader of Conservative caucus, and former Speaker of the House, Andrew Scheer, named Leader in the House

link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/denis-lebel-named-deputy-leader-of-conservative-caucus/article27319016/



> Opposition Leader Rona Ambrose has chosen a veteran Quebec MP to serve as deputy leader of the Conservative caucus.
> 
> Denis Lebel had been among the candidates vying for the post of interim leader last month, but lost out to Ambrose for the top spot.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Quote from: Altair on Today at 00:29:01
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail[/], is germane:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/outside-the-bubble-trudeaus-honeymoon-has-a-lot-of-life-left-in-it/article27518614/







Outside the bubble, Trudeau’s honeymoon has a lot of life left in it

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Adam Radwanski
The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Nov. 27, 2015

Roughly a month after Justin Trudeau’s Liberals won power, pundits were already tripping over each other to pronounce that harsh realities – the fallout from the Paris terrorist attacks, the state of our country’s finances – meant the political honeymoon was already over.

If it wasn’t over then, maybe it should be now that the new government has conceded it will break its campaign promise to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by year’s end.

But by all appearances, outside the Ottawa bubble, the honeymoon is still going strong. And to look at what the Liberals are currently able to achieve through imagery and attitude alone is to get the sense it could very well last longer than most – to the extent that if there is any risk posed to Mr. Trudeau by early perceptions, it is a false sense of security.

Every opinion poll since the Oct. 19 election has shown the Liberals with more support than they got that day. Chalk that up to having a fairly easy time of striking an appealing contrast to Conservative predecessors who had overstayed their welcome.

Mr. Trudeau went abroad to a pair of international summits, in his second week on the job, and endured media criticism for underreacting to what had happened in Paris. But if anything penetrated, for those who disliked Stephen Harper’s presence on the international stage, it was probably the clips of the comparatively dashing and self-assured new PM being fawned over in the Philippines.

He held a first ministers’ meeting, and critics pointed out the confab didn’t really seem to achieve much of substance. But what (if anything) stood out to most people was the Prime Minister bothering to hold a conference with provincial premiers at all – something Mr. Harper hadn’t deigned to do since last decade.

It remains to be seen if Mr. Trudeau and other world leaders will settle on anything of consequence at this coming week’s United Nations climate-change conference in Paris. But he may be able to impress many Canadians just through lofty rhetoric and the embrace of ambitious goals, as he ostensibly commits the country to a cause in which Mr. Harper did little to hide his disinterest.

As for refugees, even some usually cynical commentators have responded to Mr. Trudeau abandoning his self-imposed deadline and scaling back his commitment to government (as opposed to private) sponsorship by praising him for being less stubborn than Mr. Harper.

To the extent the Liberals are facing criticism for their handling of that file, the imagery could again be more politically important. There will soon be daily footage of refugees gratefully arriving on our soil and Canadians pitching in to help them get settled. Maybe that would have happened under the Tories eventually, but many won’t believe that – and the Liberals, Mr. Trudeau in particular, are better at inserting themselves into such stories without coming off as crass.

It is possible to see the pattern continuing even through next spring’s budget. The Liberals may invite criticism by projecting a deficit bigger than the $10-billion one in their platform. They’ll also easily make good on campaign promises such as increasing taxes for the rich and lowering them for the “middle class,” which people who only follow these things casually are more likely to notice.

The gap in how the new government is perceived inside and outside the bubble, in other words, might only grow in the months ahead. Understandably, it’s the latter with which the Liberals will be more concerned. But that doesn’t mean they can afford to get too comfortable.

Theirs is a party for which arrogance has often proven pervasive and toxic. The current crowd of Liberals may have learned its lesson earlier this year, when some pre-election overconfidence contributed to a temporary dive in the polls. But there are occasional hints – the declarations that “Canada is back,” or Mr. Trudeau’s comment this week that he left people who doubted him “in the dust” – that it is still not entirely immune.

With the way the Liberals’ first term has been set up, including a promise to get back to balanced budgets by the end of it, the second half could be considerably tougher than the first: At least a couple of their many rookie ministers will inevitably cause them grief. High expectations may clash with the federal government’s limited capacity to directly impact lives. The Conservatives might be energized by a new leader. The more distance from Mr. Harper’s time in office, the less a stylistic contrast with him will matter.

The longer the Liberals’ honeymoon lasts, the more the accumulated goodwill might help them deal with whatever hits them later. They should be prepared, though, for when that perception gap starts to shrink.
		
Click to expand...



I think Mr Radwanski is, broadly, correct: the Liberals are going to enjoy rather a long honeymoon with Canadians, but they have some inherent, inbuilt flaws ~

     1. They remain a divided party. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is wildly popular, in the party, in the country, in the whole world, actually, but he has not, yet, offered any sort of visions that will, possibly, heal the deep wounds that his
         own father inflicted on the party in the late 1960s. There is still a HUGE gulf between the St Laurent/Pearson/Turner/Manley/Martin Liberals and the Trudeau/Axeworthy/Chrétien/Dion/Trudeau Liberals and, eventually, it must be bridged;

     2. It is, still, the same old arrogant, corrupt political machine it always was.

What does this mean for Conservatives?

First: it is important for Conservatives to *honour* Prime Minister Stephen Harper ~ he led the country in, broadly and generally, the right direction, through difficult and dangerous circumstances. His "legacy" must not be discarded just because he was, personally, unpopular.

But, second: popularity matters. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is holding office today because, in the main, Canadians "like" him. They like him and that makes them inclined to trust him, to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Third: the media matters, too. One of the reasons Canadians "like" Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and dislike prime Minister Harper is that the media painted them in different 'shades:' bright and sunny and friendly for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and dark and mean and secretive for Prime Minister Harper. It doesn't matter if Stephen Harper is, actually, very nice but just introverted and shy, the media gets to describe him to 99% of us because we can no longer meet and talk to our leaders. The days of Lester Pearson and John Diefenbaker making "whistle stop" tours across the country are long gone ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




               ... now we "meet" our leaders on TV and on the Internet, and what they say to us is filtered by the likes of Peter Mansbridge or some ferociously bright young social media wizard from Chicago.

Finally: the Liberals will, almost certainly, fall back into their old, familiar comfortable patterns. Conservatives must not emulate the; Conservatives must be scrupulously honest and humble ... think about John and Olive Diefenbaker keeping preserves under the bed and demanding to pay a fair rent for 24 Sussex Drive; and, Conservatives must eschew favouritism and even pork barrelling, despite it's loooooong tradition as staple of Canadian politics; and so on and so forth.

In my opinion the CPC made the smart move in selecting Rona Ambrose as interim leader. I suspect that the political calculus for the next real leader includes: will Prime Minister Justin Trudeau be a one or two term prime minister? (I continue to maintain that, absent a great crisis, we have seen the end of three and four term prime ministers ... six to ten years and out is the new rule) I understand that Erin O'Toole, for example, will not contest the leadership in this session - citing the ages of his children as a determining factor - but might be available after 2019, if the Liberals are still in office. Others may make similar calculations._


----------



## George Wallace (28 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .........
> 
> But, second: popularity matters. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is holding office today because, in the main, Canadians "like" him. They like him and that makes them inclined to trust him, to give him the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> ...........



I would submit that it is less that Trudeau won a popularity vote and that people like him; but more that Harper LOST the "Popularity Vote" and as you said, people did not look at the good that his Party was doing, but voted on Harper's personality.  Trudeau's win was, in my opinion, not "his win", but more Harper's loss.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Nov 2015)

Considering Harper was right up there with Trudeau on preferred PM polling right until the end, I also disagree that Canadians as a majority like him.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Nov 2015)

Jennifer Ditchburn, filing for the _Canadian Press_, is quoted in the _Hiffington Post_ as saying that "A consensus has begun to emerge inside the caucus that the party should take time to regroup and put off a leadership vote until early 2017. Recent signals that Ontario MP Kellie Leitch was on the verge of announcing her candidacy went over poorly among weary colleagues and party members, insiders say ... "People are just tired and nobody wants it to start now,'' said one longtime Conservative activist who has ties to a potential contestant but was not authorized to speak publicly."

My _personal opinion_ is that the CPC caucus chose well in selecting Ms Ambrose to be the interim leader, and a year or 18 months, until say late spring 2017, is quite acceptable; it allows time to set rule and for potential leadership candidates to "test the waters" and build (more) support.

On thing I would like to see (_hope_ to see) is greater influence for the caucus and less for the riding association, the "grass roots." I know that what I'm advocating is less "democratic," but _in my opinion_, in matters like this ~ managing a political party ~ parties are too easily highjacked by _"activists"_ and too much "grass roots democracy" leads us to where the Americans are today ... not, _in my view_, someplace any Canadian political party wants to go. I don't, necessarily, want to see us go completely the way of the Aussies and Brits, but I would like to see the 100_ish_ sitting MPs have more votes than 330+ riding associations because _I think_ the sitting MPs are better judges of what it takes to win the next election than are the local party "activists."


----------



## Infanteer (29 Nov 2015)

I concur Edward.  The line between "grassroots" and "demagoguery" or "mob rule" is thin, in my view.  Look at the impact the Tea Party has had in the states in derailing the effectiveness of Congress.

One of my favorite political pieces by Edmund Burke, found here, is worthing posting at full length.



> I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.
> 
> He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;" and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Nov 2015)

Good words! :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Jennifer Ditchburn, filing for the _Canadian Press_, is quoted in the _Hiffington Post_ as saying that "A consensus has begun to emerge inside the caucus that the party should take time to regroup and put off a leadership vote until early 2017. Recent signals that Ontario MP Kellie Leitch was on the verge of announcing her candidacy went over poorly among weary colleagues and party members, insiders say ... "People are just tired and nobody wants it to start now,'' said one longtime Conservative activist who has ties to a potential contestant but was not authorized to speak publicly."
> 
> My _personal opinion_ is that the CPC caucus chose well in selecting Ms Ambrose to be the interim leader, and a year or 18 months, until say late spring 2017, is quite acceptable; it allows time to set rule and for potential leadership candidates to "test the waters" and build (more) support.
> 
> On thing I would like to see (_hope_ to see) is greater influence for the caucus and less for the riding association, the "grass roots." I know that what I'm advocating is less "democratic," but _in my opinion_, in matters like this ~ managing a political party ~ parties are too easily highjacked by _"activists"_ and too much "grass roots democracy" leads us to where the Americans are today ... not, _in my view_, someplace any Canadian political party wants to go. I don't, necessarily, want to see us go completely the way of the Aussies and Brits, but I would like to see the 100_ish_ sitting MPs have more votes than 330+ riding associations because _I think_ the sitting MPs are better judges of what it takes to win the next election than are the local party "activists."



ERC - 

If you want to see what the world looks like when the Parliamentary Party (Caucus) and the Membership (Grassroots) get out of step take a look at Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.

He has entirely lost the Caucus, and much of the membership, but is held in place by Bob-a-Job members and the Union blocks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12021977/Labour-MPs-have-only-one-option-a-mutiny.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12023823/Jeremy-Corbyn-on-verge-of-whipping-MPs-to-block-Syrian-air-strikes.html

The Labour Party adopted the democratic solution of offering its leadership votes for sale.  

I am with you on the need for reasonable deliberation.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2015)

You can also look at Allison Redford's ascention to Alberta PC leadership as being fuelled by activists (she ran Alberta as a Liberal, even though she was officially a "PC"), or the Ontario Liberal Party under McGuinty and Wynn.

One should not think of the TEA PArty activists in the US, or Reform and Wildrose in Canada as being "obstructinist"; rather as a response against the current political establishment which seems to be working hard to insulate itself from the effects of their own policies. Unless the political establishment starts getting back into line with the population, I predict more of this happening.


----------



## cupper (30 Nov 2015)

Fortunately we don't have the primary system that the US has which allows the extreme ends of the spectrum to influence the choice of party leader. As we've seen in the last and current presidential primaries the GOP candidates duke it out to see who can run farthest to the right, only to pivot back and lose credibility when they get to the general election and try moving back towards the center. You see the same to a certain degree on the Dems side this year as well.

Also, we don't have the gerrymandered electoral map that the US has which essentially guarantees stagnation in the split in Congress, and the close results of the presidential race.

Our problem in Canada seems to be finding a consensus candidate for leadership that truly represents the views of all regions of the country. The western provinces, especially Alberta are far more small "c" conservative than the eastern part of the country, which as we know lead to the rise of the Reform Party and the eventual takeover of the former Progressive Conservative Party. With the exception of a few popular eastern conservative MPs like Peter MacKay, they ultimately brought about the ascendency of the conservative right.

The question is can the CPC eventually find the consensus leader that will be acceptable to all regions of the country?


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2015)

Don't need to.

Just need the majority of seats in the House.

See you in four years time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Jennifer Ditchburn, filing for the _Canadian Press_, is quoted in the _Hiffington Post_ as saying that "A consensus has begun to emerge inside the caucus that the party should take time to regroup and put off a leadership vote until early 2017. Recent signals that Ontario MP Kellie Leitch was on the verge of announcing her candidacy went over poorly among weary colleagues and party members, insiders say ... "People are just tired and nobody wants it to start now,'' said one longtime Conservative activist who has ties to a potential contestant but was not authorized to speak publicly."
> 
> ...




Further to this, Adam Radwanski, writing in the _Globe and Mail_, agrees with Ms Ditchburn and says:

    "Rona Ambrose should probably settle into Stornoway a bit.

     As the federal Conservatives’ national council prepares to meet next weekend for the first time since this fall’s election, the party seems in no hurry to select Stephen Harper’s long-term replacement as leader.

     While it’s unlikely the date for the leadership vote will be announced until the new year, the Tories appear to be headed to holding it only in 2017, or fall of 2016 at the very earliest.

     Despite an early push from some Conservatives to hold the vote next spring, there now appears to be a near-consensus among caucus members and others that it’s best to go slow. “There’s nobody saying ‘let’s do this
     thing in May,’ ” said one Conservative official involved in the process.

     That change of heart among some Conservatives owes, in some measure, to a desire to complete postmortems on their defeat, and for a period of open debate about their future after the rigid discipline of the Harper era."


----------



## Remius (7 Dec 2015)

Not surprisngly...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-cpc-leadership-poll-1.3353882

It seems that Peter McKay leads in polling about the next CPC leader.  Way too early yes but interesting.


----------



## ballz (19 Dec 2015)

The title is a bit misleading, it should say *Maxime Bernier is strongly considering preparing a bid for leadership*....

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/18/maxime-bernier-conservative-leadership-race_n_8840846.html?ncid=fcbklnkcahpmg00000008



> A self-described libertarian, he said he'll focus his platform on a more decentralized federalism, a smaller government less involved in Canadians' day-to-day lives, as well as more personal freedoms.
> 
> He might champion a flat tax — he wrote a book on the subject, he noted. He'll certainly call for balanced-budgets legislation — just like the one the Liberals plan to repeal. Since the election, he has already called for an end to corporate subsidies — fully aware of the paradox, since he dished them out as industry minister.



He'd have my vote!


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Dec 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Further to this, Adam Radwanski, writing in the _Globe and Mail_, agrees with Ms Ditchburn and says:
> 
> "Rona Ambrose should probably settle into Stornoway a bit.
> 
> ...



Good idea.

The Liberals, after their defeat to Harper's conservatives, went through a few too many losers in an effort to push a leader into position too soon.

That is, unless you favour an academic who likes to proclaim that his is the 'Natural ruling party for Canada'.  :


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Good idea.
> 
> The Liberals, after their defeat to Harper's conservatives, went through a few too many losers in an effort to push a leader into position too soon.
> 
> That is, unless you favour an academic who likes to proclaim that his is the 'Natural ruling party for Canada'.  :


Liberals didn't have much of a choice.

Conservatives were in a minority goverment l, next election could have been at any time. Who would feel confident going into an election without a permanent leader?

That said, the CPC have time, might as well use it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jan 2016)

Hints of another businessman considering politics, only here in Canada ...


> The Conservative leadership race has yet to start, but potential candidates are gearing up, including celebrity businessman and ex-Dragon Kevin O'Leary and some high-profile former cabinet ministers.
> 
> The actual convention isn't expected for another 18 months.
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jan 2016)

Trump without the hair.


----------



## Altair (14 Jan 2016)

Kevin O'leary considering a run at the leadership of the federal conservatives? Dear god, make it so.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/conservative-leadership-kevin-o-leary-1.3401967


> The Conservative leadership race has yet to start, but potential candidates are gearing up, including celebrity businessman and ex-Dragon Kevin O'Leary and some high-profile former cabinet ministers.
> 
> The actual convention isn't expected for another 18 months.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jan 2016)

See two articles in the _Ottawa Citizen_:

     Why fire-breathing Kevin O’Leary is a good fit for Conservative leader; and

     ‘I am not Donald Trump’: Kevin O’Leary denies parallels with bombastic American.

The anti-Conservative (_Harper Hater_®) faction will do themselves no favours if they underestimate Kevin O'Leary and what he brings to the CPC leadership contest.


----------



## Remius (15 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> See two articles in the _Ottawa Citizen_:
> 
> Why fire-breathing Kevin O’Leary is a good fit for Conservative leader; and
> 
> ...



Agreed.  And i think that the comparison between him and Donald Trump is superficial at best.  But...

i think the real problem will be how the CPC reacts to him putting his name forward and running.   The LPC can just sit back and watch the CPC implode with this one.  I believe his biggest critic will be conservatives of teh political stripe.


----------



## Altair (15 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> See two articles in the _Ottawa Citizen_:
> 
> Why fire-breathing Kevin O’Leary is a good fit for Conservative leader; and
> 
> ...


I'm not so sure, I think Kevin O'Leary is gifted with the ability to piss people right off.

I was happy when he left dragons den.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure, I think Kevin O'Leary is gifted with the ability to piss people right off.
> 
> I was happy when he left dragons den.



Yep,

He's like Stephen Harper, only with cocaine laced coffee running througn his veins.  

The Conservatives need someone actually likeable.


----------



## GR66 (15 Jan 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Yep,
> 
> He's like Stephen Harper, only with cocaine laced coffee running througn his veins.
> 
> The Conservatives need someone actually likeable.



Doesn't mean he would not be good for the campaign.  He may voice the hard opinions that the more "political" candidates wouldn't put forward and allow all of them more clearly differentiate themselves from both the Liberals and Mr. O'Leary.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Jan 2016)

My criticism of Rona Ambrose is lack if likability.  Harper wore the lie that he was heartless and uncaring.  How would O'Leary be perceived.  He's a tough sell.  My two options are Peter McKay or possibly Maxime Bernier, but it's really time for an Ontario leader.  In the last 47 years we have had 4 Quebecers - 34 years / 2 Albertans - 10 years / 2 Ontarians - 3 years / 1 British Columbian - <1 year.  I credited Turner and Martin to Ontario although Turner also lived in BC and Quebec and Martin seems to have also lived in Quebec.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jan 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Doesn't mean he would not be good for the campaign.  He may voice the hard opinions that the more "political" candidates wouldn't put forward and allow all of them more clearly differentiate themselves from both the Liberals and Mr. O'Leary.


 

_'sacly!_ He will be, may be if he actually does take a shot at it, the sort of lightning rod that can take the heat off others. Not a hope in hell of winning, _I guess_ ... at this time, but useful, to the process, in the leadership campaign year.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> My criticism of Rona Ambrose is lack of likability.  Harper wore the lie that he was heartless and uncaring.  How would O'Leary be perceived.  He's a tough sell.  My two options are Peter McKay or possibly Maxime Bernier, but it's really time for an Ontario leader.  In the last 47 years we have had 4 Quebecers - 34 years / 2 Albertans - 10 years / 2 Ontarians - 3 years / 1 British Columbian - <1 year.  I credited Turner and Martin to Ontario although Turner also lived in BC and Quebec and Martin seems to have also lived in Quebec.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> My criticism of Rona Ambrose is lack if likability.  Harper wore the lie that he was heartless and uncaring.  How would O'Leary be perceived.  He's a tough sell.  My two options are Peter McKay or possibly Maxime Bernier, but it's really time for an Ontario leader.  In the last 47 years we have had 4 Quebecers - 34 years / 2 Albertans - 10 years / 2 Ontarians - 3 years / 1 British Columbian - <1 year.  I credited Turner and Martin to Ontario although Turner also lived in BC and Quebec and Martin seems to have also lived in Quebec.




How about ...










 or 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




These two say they're "out," but ...








... if they got enough "fan mail" either or both might reconsider.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2016)

Given that European nativists, Donald Trump and even the Ford Brothers are all reactions by voters to politicians who refuse to address the issues the citizens want to see addressed, I have a feeling that likability will become secondary to being perceived as a straight talker and problem solver.

Considering that international politics is full of people like Vladimir Putin, who thinks wrestling bears makes him much more attractive to Russian citizens than being "likeable", maybe a change of pace is in order there as well.

I'll be happy to see someone who has a consistent set of principles and is willing to stand by them again.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The anti-Conservative (_Harper Hater_®) faction will do themselves no favours if they underestimate Kevin O'Leary and what he brings to the CPC leadership contest.



Like billions of dollars?


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2016)

Quote from: E.R. Campbell on Today at 08:23:33


> The anti-Conservative (Harper Hater®) faction will do themselves no favours if they underestimate Kevin O'Leary and what he brings to the CPC leadership contest.




Money, energy, high media profile and the ability to speak about issues which most of the political class find toxic or at least far to scary to approach.


----------



## Altair (18 Jan 2016)

There comes a point where something funny becomes serious and not so funny anymore

Like trump right now.

Kevin O'leary is statistically tied with peter Mackay at around 24 percent support for the leadership of the federal conservatives.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jan 2016)

Pretty easy for him to poll higher when he's the only one speaking. I don't think MacKay has even come out saying he'd run yet, so if he's got 24% on name alone, that's a pretty strong lead.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Jan 2016)

I wouldn't put it past Mr O'leary to have volunteered to be the sacrificial lamb. He can open discussion on topics that are potentially toxic to more moderate candidates, and thereby allow them to appear more acceptable. 


_Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are. - Machiavelli_


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I wouldn't put it past Mr O'leary to have volunteered to be the sacrificial lamb. He can open discussion on topics that are potentially toxic to more moderate candidates, and thereby allow them to appear more acceptable.
> 
> 
> _Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are. - Machiavelli_


I don't think the mans ego is built that way.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't think the mans ego is built that way.




Kevin O'Leary is an adequately educated (BA from Waterloo, MBA from the Ivey School and Western), successful entrepreneur who succeeded on his own merits ~ no silver spoon or trust fund for him. He was a successful entrepreneur and author and turned himself into a bombastic media personality for profit because that _niche_, the bombastic one, was unfilled here in Canada. Don't make the mistake of confusing his public persona for the man inside.

I'm not sure if he's really interested or not ... my _guess_ remains that he mainly just wants to shake up the political process. The CPC is most likely to field a group of potential leaders who all murmur _sweet reason_ in public and Mr O'Leary,_ I think_, thinks we need someone to shout a few "home truths" about the way we have managed our country for the past, say, 50_ish_ years.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> There comes a point where something funny becomes serious and not so funny anymore
> 
> Like trump right now.
> 
> Kevin O'leary is statistically tied with peter Mackay at around 24 percent support for the leadership of the federal conservatives.



One could argue that the same could have been said for Justin Trudeau a few years ago.....


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jan 2016)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Conservatives set date to choose next leader
> The Toronto Star
> By: The Canadian Press, Published on Tue Jan 19 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Kevin O'Leary is an adequately educated (BA from Waterloo, MBA from the Ivey School and Western), successful entrepreneur who succeeded on his own merits ~ no silver spoon or trust fund for him. He was a successful entrepreneur and author and turned himself into a bombastic media personality for profit because that _niche_, the bombastic one, was unfilled here in Canada. Don't make the mistake of confusing his public persona for the man inside.
> 
> I'm not sure if he's really interested or not ... my _guess_ remains that he mainly just wants to shake up the political process. The CPC is most likely to field a group of potential leaders who all murmur _sweet reason_ in public and Mr O'Leary,_ I think_, thinks we need someone to shout a few "home truths" about the way we have managed our country for the past, say, 50_ish_ years.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuqemytQ5QA
This is an act to you?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuqemytQ5QA
> This is an act to you?



Not worth answering that. No matter what the answer. If it isn't in total lockstep with your unoriginal thinking, we'd have to endure countless more posts, by you, on the subject. Something, I believe, most here are tired of.


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not worth answering that. No matter what the answer. If it isn't in total lockstep with your unoriginal thinking, we'd have to endure countless more posts, by you, on the subject. Something, I believe, most here are tired of.




Not to worry Altair, I'll chime in here  ;D

O'Leary is a blow hard. He's also a moderately successful businessman whose main talent is self-promotion. This latest stunt is an exercise in just that. He has little substance, and the Conservatives would be loathe to even consider him. Then again, their current leader and pretty much the entire cabinet under Harper was pretty underwhelming in terms of intellectual heft, so anything is possible.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not worth answering that. No matter what the answer. If it isn't in total lockstep with your unoriginal thinking, we'd have to endure countless more posts, by you, on the subject. Something, I believe, most here are tired of.


Yes, god forbid that someone posts things that isn't right leaning, CPC supporting on a military politics board.

Would you like it better if this board was in complete agreement with everyone else?


----------



## MARS (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuqemytQ5QA
> This is an act to you?



The entire show was a poorly contrived act - you must have realized that, no? A very pale attempt to replicate CNN's original Crossfire format, pitting extreme left and right views against each other - part of CBC's content shakeup in 2009 in an attempt to reach a broader, and generally less intelligent audience.  Case in point, Don Newman retired that same year and his highly respected - but not very entertaining - Politics program was replaced with....wait for it....Evan Soloman and P&P.  Both shows - the Lang and O'Leary Exchange and P and P rely on bombastic, on air "gotcha"-type exchanges designed to replicate what was happening on the US networks at the time, as a ratings grab.  To me, that marked a signifcant step away from news and towards infotainment.  I've followed Ms. Lang's reporting for years and I KNOW she isn't as dense, obstuse or extreme in her personal and professional views as her producers evidently insisted she (and Mr. O'Leary) act on the Exchange.  

So yeah dude, totally an act.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

MARS said:
			
		

> The entire show was a poorly contrived act - you must have realized that, no? A very pale attempt to replicate CNN's original Crossfire format, pitting extreme left and right views against each other - part of CBC's content shakeup in 2009 in an attempt to reach a broader, and generally less intelligent audience.  Case in point, Don Newman retired that same year and his highly respected - but not very entertaining - Politics program was replaced with....wait for it....Evan Soloman and P&P.  Both shows - the Lang and O'Leary Exchange and P and P rely on bombastic, on air "gotcha"-type exchanges designed to replicate what was happening on the US networks at the time, as a ratings grab.  To me, that marked a signifcant step away from news and towards infotainment.  I've followed Ms. Lang's reporting for years and I KNOW she isn't as dense, obstuse or extreme in her personal and professional views as her producers evidently insisted she (and Mr. O'Leary) act on the Exchange.
> 
> So yeah dude, totally an act.


So it begs the question,  when O'Leary is polling 25 percent support for the leadership, are people supporting the man or the act? I've only seen the act in public. Even last week when he offered to invest a million dollars in the energy industry if Notley quit.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> So it begs the question,  when O'Leary is polling 25 percent support for the leadership, are people supporting the man or the act? I've only seen the act in public. Even last week when he offered to invest a million dollars in the energy industry if Notley quit.



Once he actually has to debate other issues besides the economy (although that's a major one), we'll see where the poll lands. He's the only guy with a mic right now. No one else has said they'll run, its all speculation.


----------



## MARS (19 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> So it begs the question,  when O'Leary is polling 25 percent support for the leadership, are people supporting the man or the act? I've only seen the act in public. Even last week when he offered to invest a million dollars in the energy industry if Notley quit.



I would say people "think" they are supporting the man, but in reality they are supporting the act, because I also think most of the voting public, of all political stripes, is incapable of distinguishing between the two.  

I think it is all and act, everytime any and every politican speaks.  Used car salesmen, every one of them, as I stated somewhere on this board during the election in a drunken rant.  But I stand by that assessment. There are certainly kernels of truth in whatever they are saying, but even outside of an election, words are important, as we are seeing with the statements coming out of the Cabinet retreat.  And that is acting.  The MND acting like the coaltion meeting is no big deal.  Rona Ambrose acting like she has a ******* clue on how to help the PM solve the econominc crisis.  The Global Affairs minister acting like we are actually gonna do something about what happened Burkina Faso.  The Immigration Minister acting like the Syrian refugee immmigration is rolling along smoothly.

Only ******* Sheeple take any of these acts/tv sound bytes at face value.

I mean, does anyone actually believe that Mrs. Gregoire-Trudeau's "spontaneous" burst into song on MLK day was "not planned"?  Garbage.  Someone somewhere was concerned about potential negative blow back, which would have emberassed her husband.  Someone somewhere would have at least asked "can you actually sing, in key, somewhat?...Ok, cool.  Thumbs up!" before letting that little gem happen.  Not saying there was a full blown War Cabinet to weigh in on it, but for sure she didn't just do that on her own.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jan 2016)

O'Leary the man is notably different (and rather astute, dare I say prescient) than O'Leary the actor.  Then again, that was based on a single meeting, so I remain to be corrected.  YMMV.

G2G


----------



## Remius (19 Jan 2016)

The problem, I think, is that Mr. O'Leary is being defined by the media and the avergae joe by what's happening south of the border.  While he is outspoken and bombastic, any comparison to Trump is juvenile and frankly assanine.  Their politics are nowhere near the same and to be honest  Kevin O'Leary actually sounds smarter because although he can be a straight shooter, he does make a lot of sense.  

Now, I suppose his tv persona is partly to blame for the labelling, but it will be up to him to manage that.  Some [people can't always differentiate between public and private personas but unfortunately, he will be judged by how he is in public.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jan 2016)

At least one candidate should be capable of getting well up the noses of the left and extreme left while retaining an apparent base of support.  It would work best if the anti-conservative media think he is an irremediable buffoon; they would find ways to support his candidacy in order to sabotage the CPC.  If he then turned out to actually be an irremediable buffoon it would be a setback for the CPC, but if not...thanks for the lift.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> At least one candidate should be capable of getting well up the noses of the left and extreme left while retaining an apparent base of support.  It would work best if the anti-conservative media think he is an irremediable buffoon; they would find ways to support his candidacy in order to sabotage the CPC.  If he then turned out to actually be an irremediable buffoon it would be a setback for the CPC, but if not...thanks for the lift.



 :nod:   :goodpost:   

Exactly ... and MARS is spot on, too. I'm appalled that anyone takes the words seriously ... but _tone_, on the other hand, _can_ matter ~ for good or ill.

In the case of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau I would say that, generally, he has the _tone_ just about right ... except for the _Da'esh/ISIL/Muslim_ thingy where, I think, he is singing off (the majority's) key, but, perhaps, _I hope_, because he is trying to change us ... to make us see our "better angels" and so on. I also think Ms Ambrose is "on key" as opposition leader ~ she has the right _tone_, even if some of the words are wrong ... or silly, which is worse. Kevin O'Leary may be a big surprise ... even a shock. He is, in person, a reasonable, intelligent, _liberal_ sort of fellow, he really does have a social conscience, maybe bigger than Justin Trudeau's because he has actually seen the faces of hardship, but he does not have any patience for waste or inefficiency ... which makes him a poor choice for political leader because retail politics is all about wasting money on the undeserving poor, at home and abroad.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuqemytQ5QA
> This is an act to you?


He was not interviewed; he was interrogated.  And what did he say was wrong?  "If you work hard, you may be rich one day."

And the interrogator?  "I'm going to tell you later what you should say to this..."    

There was nothing wrong with what he said.


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> He was not interviewed; he was interrogated.  And what did he say was wrong?  "If you work hard, you may be rich one day."
> 
> And the interrogator?  "I'm going to tell you later what you should say to this..."
> 
> There was nothing wrong with what he said.


I have a long winded response to this but recceguy wouldn't appreciate it if I wrote it.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Jan 2016)

Of course they were both right for different reasons, but that doesn't matter in politics. We're in an era where someone has to be wrong and the other right regardless of the truth of the middle ground.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jan 2016)

I would love to see Mr. O'Leary have a debate with the PM.  That would be a sit back and enjoy the popcorn kind of entertainment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I have a long winded response to this but recceguy wouldn't appreciate it if I wrote it.



Fill yer boots. I have little appreciation for what you say anyway. Besides, you're on Ignore and I only see your tripe if I want to. So don't let me stop you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether anyone else agrees or not.


----------



## Kilo_302 (20 Jan 2016)

MARS said:
			
		

> The entire show was a poorly contrived act - you must have realized that, no? A very pale attempt to replicate CNN's original Crossfire format, pitting extreme left and right views against each other - part of CBC's content shakeup in 2009 in an attempt to reach a broader, and generally less intelligent audience.  Case in point, Don Newman retired that same year and his highly respected - but not very entertaining - Politics program was replaced with....wait for it....Evan Soloman and P&P.  Both shows - the Lang and O'Leary Exchange and P and P rely on bombastic, on air "gotcha"-type exchanges designed to replicate what was happening on the US networks at the time, as a ratings grab.  To me, that marked a signifcant step away from news and towards infotainment.  I've followed Ms. Lang's reporting for years and I KNOW she isn't as dense, obstuse or extreme in her personal and professional views as her producers evidently insisted she (and Mr. O'Leary) act on the Exchange.
> 
> So yeah dude, totally an act.



The show doesn't actually reflect "the far left" and the "far right." Amanda Lang is NOT far left by any reasonable standard, I would suggest she's centrist. She believes in markets (with some regulation) and she aligns mainly with the Liberal Party, which is a centrist party. She reflects what most Canadians believe I think, which is that markets CAN work, but they require regulation to maintain equilibrium.

O'Leary however, IS far right. He's a hyper capitalist who at least says he wants to do away with all regulation. The counterpoint to this would be a socialist point of view, the view that capitalism is inherently part of the problem. We aren't going to get that any time soon on mainstream television.

So in the end, the show serves the purpose of reinforcing a very narrow spectrum of debate. Capitalism with a small amount of regulation, or capitalism without regulation.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jan 2016)

> From: _Kilo_302_
> So in the end, the show serves the purpose of reinforcing a very narrow spectrum of debate.



Yup.  Having the National Socialists involved would vastly open up meaningful discourse to the existing "very narrow" debate.


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Yup.  Having the National Socialists involved would vastly open up meaningful discourse to the existing "very narrow" debate.



What "National Socialists" are you referring to?


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> O'Leary however, IS far right. He's a hyper capitalist who at least says he wants to do away with all regulation. The counterpoint to this would be a socialist point of view, the view that capitalism is inherently part of the problem.



Yours.


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Yours.



Oh so you're suggesting that socialists in Canada are "National Socialists" ie Nazis?


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Oh so you're suggesting that socialists in Canada are "National Socialists" ie Nazis?



Perhaps "Federal Socialists" works for you?


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps "Federal Socialists" works for you?



Not sure what you mean by "Federal Socialists" either. A socialist perspective would be the natural counter-balance to Kevin O'Leary, as he represents a fairly extreme point of view, and a departure from how we currently organize things. If we assume that a somewhat regulated free-market system (what we currently have, although it is moving to the Right all the time) is the political center, and Mr. O'Leary's vision of a flat tax, massively de-regulated political economy represents the right, how does Amanda Lang actually represent the real Left on the show? She represents the status quo.

You also stated (sarcastically) that adding a "National Socialist" point of view would "really open up the debate." Beyond this being an obvious reference to the Nazis (and you're clearly backing down because you know that's utter nonsense), it's simply inaccurate. Including a socialist perspective would by definition open up the debate, and we would have a voice to counter O'Leary's point of view.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Not sure what you mean by "Federal Socialists" either. A socialist perspective would be the natural counter-balance to Kevin O'Leary, as he represents a fairly extreme point of view, and a departure from how we currently organize things. If we assume that a somewhat regulated free-market system (what we currently have, although it is moving to the Right all the time) is the political center, and Mr. O'Leary's vision of a flat tax, massively de-regulated political economy represents the right, how does Amanda Lang actually represent the real Left on the show? She represents the status quo.
> 
> You also stated (sarcastically) that adding a "National Socialist" point of view would "really open up the debate." Beyond this being an obvious reference to the Nazis (and you're clearly backing down because you know that's utter nonsense), it's simply inaccurate. Including a socialist perspective would by definition open up the debate, and we would have a voice to counter O'Leary's point of view.



Canada has, for many decades now, had a socialist overtone, particularly when compared with other Western nations.  We and the Scandinavian countries are far more socialistic than mainstream Europe and especially our neighbour to the South.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Jan 2016)

Without getting into the debate with K_302 over a counterpoint to Mr. Wonderful, I am not sure I get what you mean about "mainstream" Europe, G2G.

The overtone of the political discourse in England is pretty comparable to the one in Canada, and that would be the most centrist/right discourse out there. In France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Greece, and in part Spain recently, the political discourse is much more socialist in tone than in Canada. There is Switzerland, I grant you, but they are almost fascist in outlook  ;D.

What I say must be so because the SuperPAC campaigning against Senator Ted Cruz in the US calls them socialists - like Canada (because we all have a Value Added Tax system) :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Jan 2016)

I discovered this morning that I've been banned from the CBC comments section.  I guess the looney left, latte sipping, Shiny Pony hugging mods can't handle the truth anymore...  :bowing:


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I discovered this morning that I've been banned from the CBC comments section.  I guess the looney left, latte sipping, Shiny Pony hugging mods can't handle the truth anymore...  :bowing:



Congratulations!   [lol:


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I discovered this morning that I've been banned from the CBC comments section.  I guess the looney left, latte sipping, Shiny Pony hugging mods can't handle the truth anymore...  :bowing:



I rip the CBC apart in the comments section all the time. They're not adverse to criticism, you just can't come off as a looney right, Bud swilling, Shiny Gun hugging troll.  

Obviously our issues with the CBC will be different, but I will positively savage articles they post, the organization at large, and the fact that they resemble an even more vapid version of CNN at times. Never had any problems.

Curious though, what's your handle on CBC? I wouldn't mind seeing what posts got you banned.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Congratulations!   [lol:



My boss said I should wear it as a badge of honour.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I discovered this morning that I've been banned from the CBC comments section.  I guess the looney left, latte sipping, Shiny Pony hugging mods can't handle the truth anymore...  :bowing:


Nobody can say you're one of "them"


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I rip the CBC apart in the comments section all the time. They're not adverse to criticism, you just can't come off as a looney right, Bud swilling, Shiny Gun hugging troll.



Yet, over the years I have noticed that they definitely are not adverse to criticism if one is from the Looney LEFT, dope smoking, tree hugging trolls.  Many of them I would have thought ought to have been banned, perhaps even jailed, but seem to be sitting at the "CBC STAMMTISCH".


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yet, over the years I have noticed that they definitely are not adverse to criticism if one is from the Looney LEFT, dope smoking, tree hugging trolls.  Many of them I would have thought ought to have been banned, perhaps even jailed, but seem to be sitting at the "CBC STAMMTISCH".



haha "perhaps even jailed." Oh George, you kill me. cheers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jan 2016)

AB has a flat tax, and isn't extreme - it's just AB.

Extreme is much further right than you think it is, K.  You suffer from a relativity problem - the apparent distance between you and O'Leary is large.  That alone doesn't make him the extreme one.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps "Federal Socialists" works for you?



Actually Canada does have a real National Socialist movement, represented by the PQ/BQ. The others are (or claim to be) International Socialists, although I suppose very few of them would say no to a Fascist Corporate State if they thought they could be in charge...


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2016)

From _"MacKay joins Toronto law firm but won't rule out future political bid"_:


> ... "I've tried throughout my life and professional career to not rule things out — or close doors," MacKay said in an interview with The Canadian Press on Monday.
> 
> "So, it's not where I've been focused of late. My focus has been to return to the private sector and the practice of law, to make that career transition and all of that has been predicated on putting my family first."
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2016)

Although he hasn't thrown his hat into the ring officially, Kevin O’Leary has made more publicity by stating what he sees as the direction of the country taking.  Some do not accept his views.  Sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Sinking economy may lead to Trudeau ouster: O'Leary
> BY JOE WARMINGTON, TORONTO SUN
> FIRST POSTED: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2016 08:02 PM EST | UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2016 08:51 PM EST
> 
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although he hasn't thrown his hat into the ring officially, Kevin O’Leary has made more publicity by stating what he sees as the direction of the country taking.  Some do not accept his views.  Sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts.



The truth is subjective in this case. First, the current economic woes are definitely of the macro variety. The Liberals can't control oil prices any more than they can control the weather. What we CAN control is our economy being reliant on the energy sector and spin off industries. And guess who doubled down on oil in the last decade?

Second, O'Leary is an an entertainer, not an economist. In fact he's barely even a successful businessman. If he's suggesting his business acumen is what qualifies his ridiculous ideas, I think Canada can safely pass on them. I'll take Keynes over "O'Leary" any day.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/01/26/news/real-and-shocking-story-kevin-olearys-business-career



> s Kevin O’Leary a good or bad businessman?
> 
> 
> Buried in the back pages of the financial press last October was a story about the sale of his mutual fund company, O’Leary Funds, to Canoe Financial, an investment firm run by former Dragons’ Den cast member and entrepreneur Brett Wilson.
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jan 2016)

I won’t actually blame either party for the economy as you rightly mentioned it’s out of their hands. As far as the manufacturing sector, anything that the CPC could have done there would have been opposed, I not really sure what if anything they could do from a Federal side to push manufactured goods. For resources, you need to make hay when the sun shines and it was shining, now it is not. However the sun is coming up for the Tourist and Movie industry. Weakness in the US economy and other countries is preventing the forest industry from taking full advantage of the low dollar. Canada’s defense industry might do well out of the low dollar.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jan 2016)

It is hard, very hard, to "support" (subsidize) manufacturing under existing trade law ... unless there is a national defence security aspect to it (like the LAV).

The kind of high volume, relatively "easy" manufacturing that many people would like to do is also low skill/low wage and, therefore, well suited to Indonesia or the Philippines, not to high cost Canada.


----------



## Lumber (28 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is hard, very hard, to "support" (subsidize) manufacturing under existing trade law ... unless there is a national defence security aspect to it (like the LAV).
> 
> The kind of high volume, relatively "easy" manufacturing that many people would like to do is also low skill/low wage and, therefore, well suited to Indonesia or the Philippines, not to high cost Canada.



Do tax and regulatory incentives count as "subsidizing"? If we offered tax incentives to foreign investores to establish manufacturing/harvesting operations in Canada, would that be considered subsidizing?


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jan 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Do tax and regulatory incentives count as "subsidizing"? If we offered tax incentives to foreign investores to establish manufacturing/harvesting operations in Canada, would that be considered subsidizing?



No, that's why the Tories pushed for lower corporate tax rates, to encourage companies to set their headquarters up here. Unfortunately, the hydro costs and provincial taxes in Ontario and Quebec stop manufacturing companies from wanting to set up here. Overhead is way too high.


----------



## YZT580 (28 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No, that's why the Tories pushed for lower corporate tax rates, to encourage companies to set their headquarters up here. Unfortunately, the hydro costs and provincial taxes in Ontario and Quebec stop manufacturing companies from wanting to set up here. Overhead is way too high.


It also got them planning to move out.  I noticed that GM made no commitment re: Oshawa in Davos.


----------



## Lumber (28 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No, that's why the Tories pushed for lower corporate tax rates, to encourage companies to set their headquarters up here. Unfortunately, the hydro costs and provincial taxes in Ontario and Quebec stop manufacturing companies from wanting to set up here. Overhead is way too high.



Couldn't this be another form of incentive? "Set up your plant here and get a %50 rebate on your energy bill for the next 20 years".

"No property taxes for 20 years!"

"You don't pay the interest on loans until 2033!"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Couldn't this be another form of incentive? "Set up your plant here and get a %50 rebate on your energy bill for the next 20 years".
> 
> "No property taxes for 20 years!"
> 
> "You don't pay the interest on loans until 2033!"



That's done all the time. Problem is, other jurisdictions offer a better deal.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2016)

Also that takes manpower to negotiate each and every one of those deals - and time.

Versus an across the board low cost regime from low energy costs and low taxes.

The latter is more cost effective and lest wasteful of bureaucratic resources.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jan 2016)

>What we CAN control is our economy being reliant on the energy sector and spin off industries. And guess who doubled down on oil in the last decade?

Please sh!tcan that "all oil, all the time" nonsense.

Gross domestic product at basic prices, by industry (monthly) (a snapshot comparing 2014 and 2015 at statcan.gc.ca).

The collapse in oil and other commodity prices is a problem, but it isn't THE problem.  What it has done is reveal how weak everything else is and how little anyone else has managed to do.

I continue to believe we are not going to see higher levels of GDP (spending growth) because previous higher levels of growth were attained on the backs of consumer borrowing, and consumers have less room to borrow.  Federal governments may be able to indefinitely spend 110% of their annual incomes each year, but people can not.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >What we CAN control is our economy being reliant on the energy sector and spin off industries. And guess who doubled down on oil in the last decade?
> 
> Please sh!tcan that "all oil, all the time" nonsense.
> 
> ...



Indeed. While the Young Dauphin was spinning the "collapsing oil pillar" nonsense, the reality was that sector was only 8% of the economy at the time, while leasing and real estate was 13%, and more ominously, government expenditures were also aprox 13% of the economy. Using their own political logic, real estate developers are to blame for the state of the economy....


----------



## Remius (29 Jan 2016)

is not though, that oil is more heavily linked to our dollar and has a bigger effect on our dollar thus having a bigger effect on our economy even if it is only 8% of it?


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Indeed. While the Young Dauphin was spinning the "collapsing oil pillar" nonsense, the reality was that sector was only 8% of the economy at the time, while leasing and real estate was 13%, and more ominously, government expenditures were also aprox 13% of the economy. Using their own political logic, real estate developers are to blame for the state of the economy....



As someone working with clients out West, I can tell you that the oil sector affects other sectors. This is pretty straightforward. For example Saskatchewan's provincial budget was cut significantly in 2015 because of oil prices. This affected all government services, and as a consequence many industries that sell to government. We had several school divisions and government offices put off fleet refresh RFPs indefinitely. So while the "oil sector" might only be 8% of the Canadian economy (this link seems to suggest that oil gas and mining are actually 27% of our GDP, so not sure how you're defining "economy  http://www.cepa.com/about-pipelines/economic-benefits-of-pipelines/the-energy-sectors-contribution), the affect is far greater. 

The fact that Canadian economists are painting a dismal picture for our economy in 2016 and have specifically mentioned oil prices as the main factor says to me that oil is indeed the problem, and we're over-exposed.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The fact that Canadian economists are painting a dismal picture for our economy in 2016 and have specifically mentioned oil prices as the main factor says to me that oil is indeed the problem, and we're over-exposed.



So what is our "resourcefulness" going to replace the reduced oil production with, in order to keep GDP at nominal levels?


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jan 2016)

Well, we used to generate more money from selling oil than selling cars.  Apparently the world is back in balance again because we are now making more money from cars than oil.  Unfortunately this is not because we are selling more cars.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Well, we used to generate more money from selling oil than selling cars.  Apparently the world is back in balance again because we are now making more money from cars than oil.  Unfortunately this is not because we are selling more cars.



Chris..... those are not cars..... just say'n.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jan 2016)

> This concept references an interesting phenomenon that occurs in buckets of crabs. If one crab attempts to escape from a bucket of live crabs, the others will pull it back down rather than allowing it to get free. Sometimes, the crabs seem almost malicious, waiting until the crab has almost escaped before yanking it back into the pot. All of the crabs are undoubtedly aware of the fact that their fate is probably not going to be very pleasurable, so people are led to wonder why they pull each other back into the bucket instead of helping the clever escape artist.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Jan 2016)

I remember reading that somewhere before, now that you mention it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> This concept references an interesting phenomenon that occurs in buckets of crabs. If one crab attempts to escape from a bucket of live crabs, the others will pull it back down rather than allowing it to get free. Sometimes, the crabs seem almost malicious, waiting until the crab has almost escaped before yanking it back into the pot. All of the crabs are undoubtedly aware of the fact that their fate is probably not going to be very pleasurable, so people are led to wonder why they pull each other back into the bucket instead of helping the clever escape artist.



Sounds like a couple of Units I served with. :


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> This concept references an interesting phenomenon that occurs in buckets of crabs. If one crab attempts to escape from a bucket of live crabs, the others will pull it back down rather than allowing it to get free. Sometimes, the crabs seem almost malicious, waiting until the crab has almost escaped before yanking it back into the pot. All of the crabs are undoubtedly aware of the fact that their fate is probably not going to be very pleasurable, so people are led to wonder why they pull each other back into the bucket instead of helping the clever escape artist.




Ah, the 'Blue Falcon' crab!


----------



## ballz (30 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So what is our "resourcefulness" going to replace the reduced oil production with, in order to keep GDP at nominal levels?



Oh that's an easy trick, just de-value the currency by going into debt via stimulus spending. Never fails to make the GDP grow. The Federal Reserve taught the world that trick and every government has been using it since.

But why does GDP growth really matter? If we doubled our money supply, our GDP would double as well. So would that mean our economy has strengthened?


----------



## dave.jones3 (30 Jan 2016)

To be fair, that's why most measures of GDP are done in real dollars...


----------



## ballz (30 Jan 2016)

itsmylocker said:
			
		

> To be fair, that's why most measures of GDP are done in real dollars...



That still doesn't solve the problem here of people thinking that the GDP is the ultimate measure of an economy.

In real dollars, if the Federal government spends 1% of the GDP, the *real* GDP will grow by at minimum 1% (this is just simple math since the equation for GDP sums the total of spending, including government spending). It will most likely grow by more since whoever receives it will also spend some of it, and so forth and so on.

However, how does that increase in the GDP, be it 1%, 1.5% or 2.0%, indicate that the economy has improved? It measures consumption by taking the sum of all spending. Just because we are consuming more does not mean our economy is a) producing more (gross production) or b) producing more efficiently (producing with less inputs such as capital or labour). The United States GDP increased for decades prior to the 2008 recession, without actually increasing production.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2016)

The Economist used to have a marvellous method of making economic cross comparisons: How much of a person's time in country "x" would be spent earning enough to buy a Big Mac meal at McDonalds?

This actually covered a lot in a very simple to understand idea. The local franchise owners must be plugged into a wide range of markets to purchase the various ingredients of a Big Mac meal, and using the nation's median wage, you could see just what sort of purchasing power was available to the locals. Obviously, if the median income in Nation A allowed you to buy a Big Mac meal after an hour's work, while Nation B required 3 hours work to do the equivalent, you could peg "B" as being less productive per hour worked (hence the lower wages) or that "B" had an inefficient market system (hence the cost of ingredients to make a Big Mac meal was high) or both.


----------



## ballz (30 Jan 2016)

Very smart indeed, especially comparing it to an hour of one's time. Our time is a scarce resource that holds its value over time, and we all understand its value. Takes all that fiat currency stuff out of the picture that confuses people.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jan 2016)

They're still tracking it:  http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index


----------



## chanman (7 Feb 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> If we doubled our money supply, our GDP would double as well. So would that mean our economy has strengthened?



When comparing GDP across time, the figures are adjusted for inflation to compare like to like. Check the fine print on graphs and you'll usually see something like *2013 CAD or *2012 USD

It'll almost always be using the currency value from a couple years ago after that year's tax numbers have been digested and distributed.


As for manufacturing - it's heavily correlated to resource demand. Falling prices (and oversupply) in structural steel and concrete are closely tied to slowdowns in construction (and construction worker/trades unemployment and wages) or energy to heavy manufacturing in general.

Simplifying greatly, there's an upper limit to how much of a particular good a market can absorb, especially if the goods are (or become more) durable. If modern cars last twice as long as those from 30 years ago, then they only need to be replaced half as often. Even if it takes the same number of man-hours to make car, if people aren't buying at least twice as many cars, there's going to be a permanent reduction in how many car factory workers are needed.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Feb 2016)

From the "Hey! Not my fault" department: Jenni Byrne on How the Conservative Party can avoid the political wilderness



> Ten years ago, the Conservative Party formed government on a wave of change, aided by a weakened and disorganized Liberal Party. Today’s Conservative Party is nothing like the Liberal Party of 2006. If it remains united, keeps the organization strong, continues to train and motivate volunteers, raises money, and offers a sound alternative to this Liberal government, the fundamentals to a Conservative victory in the next election are there.
> 
> Of course, the alternative could also be true. If the Conservative Party doesn’t focus on the issues that matter and affect Canadians, maintain local organizations and build on strong campaign fundamentals, it could be years in the wilderness.


----------



## Loachman (8 Feb 2016)

Mind-numbing garbage, so I only skimmed it earlier.

I did not see anything about such faults as not actually governing like a conservative party, not doing the right things, or pissing off one's traditional supporters.


----------



## Loachman (8 Feb 2016)

Only the part regarding the Conservative Party's failures has been posted below. The rest can be read at the link.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/a_lesson_to_republicans_in_canadas_conservative_party_defeat.html

February 7, 2016

A Lesson to Republicans in Canada's Conservative Party Defeat

By David Solway and Janice Fiamengo

The failure of Canada's majority Conservative government to win re-election on October 17, 2015 should serve as an object lesson to the Republican establishment in the United States.  Among a number of reasons for the debacle, the abandonment or weakening of first principles in the name of pragmatic and ideological compromise was a major factor leading to the Conservative defeat.

The Tories attempted to cater to non-conservative voters, to appeal to a broad constituency, to be liked, to be moderate, by softening the party's message and gutting many of its programs.  Perhaps most obviously, they drew back from significantly defunding and at least partially privatizing our deep-left state-supported national broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.  The CBC is a cultural Marxist production that never met a Conservative policy it liked.  It sees its mandate as constantly attacking every Conservative idea or piece of legislation while propagandizing on behalf of multiculturalism; Islam as a religion of peace; anti-Zionism; and radical movements such as Occupy Wall Street, Idle No More, and #BlackLivesMatter.  It sided with Canada's two socialist parties, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party (NDP).  But aside from legislating a small reduction in the CBC's operating budget, the Conservatives allowed the "MotherCorp" to continue shilling for the opposition.  Afraid of giving its foes something to be offended by, the Conservative government funded its own demise.

No less catastrophic, the Conservatives failed to pass legislation to radically protect free speech across the country – legislation that would outrank our provincial kangaroo courts, known as Human Rights Commissions, whose mandate has been to prosecute individual citizens and groups on the flimsy grounds of "hate speech."  Aside from the fact that leaving these provincial tribunals in place did not garner a single bit of support or sympathy from the social justice totalitarians, this signal failure guarantees that open discussions essential to Canada's future as a robust democracy – especially conversations about mass immigration, Islamic terrorism, and the relation between the two – will continue to be curtailed by the left-leaning proponents of censorship in the name of social "harmony."  Such conversations are also, not incidentally, essential to the survival of a genuine Conservative party.

The Conservatives also implemented half-measures on the subject of gun control, failing to fully disband the despised Gun Registry that makes it almost impossible for people to defend themselves against criminals.  Canadian gun control legislation prohibits individuals with gun permits from carrying guns on their persons except in narrowly defined circumstances, and elaborate storage protocols mean that a home-owner who experiences a home invasion by a burglar or worse would be unable to use his or her gun in self-defense.

Perhaps most damagingly, the Conservatives attempted to fight the election chiefly on the basis of fact and logical argument rather than engaging the passions and patriotic sentiments of the electorate.  They were unable to rebut progressivist attacks portraying them as hateful, bigoted, backward, divisive, and exclusionary.  They had no vision of Canada to offer that was not simply a less enthusiastic version of the feminist, multicultural, and "diverse" image championed by the other parties.  In trying to play it safe, the Conservatives not only failed to dislodge Liberal and NDP voters from their political homes, but also alienated their conservative supporters.

The Conservatives might have used their parliamentary majority to enact truly decisive, game-changing pieces of legislation that could have consolidated a center-right political orientation not easily undone – even in the case of electoral loss.  They didn't, and we are suffering for it now.

So much, then, for Canada's Conservatives.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Feb 2016)

This report of an interview of Kevin O'Leary by Evan Solomon on CFRA in Ottawa, the CPC leadership candidate is opposed to Canada taking part in any combat mission. The story is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. 

*O'Leary: No combat mission against ISIS; stick to Peacekeeping*

Posted on 2/9/2016 10:39:00 PM by CFRA News Staff

Kevin O'Leary says Canada shouldn't be involved in any international military engagements other than peacekeeping - and that includes the allied mission against the Islamic State (ISIS).

The business TV star and possible Conservative Party leadership candidate made the comments on News Talk Radio 580 CFRA Tuesday.

"I don't want to bomb or get involved in any campaigns as a Canadian other than keeping the peace. We are the only country along with the Fins (Finland) that can do that, and we are wasting our equity," O'Leary told Ottawa Now host Evan Solomon. "I actually believe the last person or the last nationality ISIS wants to put a bullet through is a Canadian. I really believe that. The only country that has the moral authority in the history of the Middle East to actually act as a peacekeeper is a Canadian soldier."

O'Leary cited his early years spent in Cyprus in the 1960's as reason for his stance on peacekeeping for Canada.

"We have an opportunity, we shouldn't squander it, I think what Trudeau is doing is a huge mistake," O'Leary said, citing that Prime Minister Trudeau is increasing Canadian special forces in the region while withdrawing the RCAF. "We shouldn't be proud of killing people, we should be proud of keeping the peace between them."

O'Leary is scheduled to speak at the Manning Centre Conference in Ottawa later this month.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Feb 2016)

Well, that's lost any chance he might have down the road of my support.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Feb 2016)

> "I actually believe the last person or the last nationality ISIS wants to put a bullet through is a Canadian. I really believe that.



Failure to understand the enemy and the nature of the conflict.

The more Canada touts itself as the rational, enlightened country - the avatar of western thought and moral authority - the more likely that ISIL will not like us.


----------



## Loachman (10 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well, that's lost any chance he might have down the road of my support.



Pretty much...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Feb 2016)

You guys just don't understand Mr. Wonderfull:

He is opposed to combat mission because nobody showed him "the money" in it: "How do I make mmmoooonnnneeeeyyy!!!

Show hime the money, He'll back the mission until the cows come home.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2016)

Those comments just left me with the impression that he has little or no knowledge of what the CAF is and does.  

Listening to the discussions on the radio, I am of mixed feelings on this topic.  The Problem in Iraq and Syria is so complex, I see it as a no win/no win situation all around.  His comments on Cyprus, although praising the Canadian soldiers, does not reflect on the fact that Cyprus is still a divided island and there is only the most rudimentary form of "Peace" to be found there.   In fact, the numbers of cases where we actually did bring "Peace" to a country/Region is very small.   

With more exposure to what DND and the CAF do, I am sure he will become more informed than he appears now.


----------



## ballz (9 Mar 2016)

chanman said:
			
		

> When comparing GDP across time, the figures are adjusted for inflation to compare like to like. Check the fine print on graphs and you'll usually see something like *2013 CAD or *2012 USD
> 
> It'll almost always be using the currency value from a couple years ago after that year's tax numbers have been digested and distributed.



I guess you didn't read this, here it is again for you:



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> That still doesn't solve the problem here of people thinking that the GDP is the ultimate measure of an economy.
> 
> In real dollars, if the Federal government spends 1% of the GDP, the *real* GDP will grow by at minimum 1% (this is just simple math since the equation for GDP sums the total of spending, including government spending). It will most likely grow by more since whoever receives it will also spend some of it, and so forth and so on.
> 
> However, how does that increase in the GDP, be it 1%, 1.5% or 2.0%, indicate that the economy has improved? It measures consumption by taking the sum of all spending. Just because we are consuming more does not mean our economy is a) producing more (gross production) or b) producing more efficiently (producing with less inputs such as capital or labour). The United States GDP increased for decades prior to the 2008 recession, without actually increasing production.



As for this,



			
				chanman said:
			
		

> As for manufacturing - it's heavily correlated to resource demand. Falling prices (and oversupply) in structural steel and concrete are closely tied to slowdowns in construction (and construction worker/trades unemployment and wages) or energy to heavy manufacturing in general.
> 
> Simplifying greatly, there's an upper limit to how much of a particular good a market can absorb, especially if the goods are (or become more) durable. If modern cars last twice as long as those from 30 years ago, then they only need to be replaced half as often. Even if it takes the same number of man-hours to make car, if people aren't buying at least twice as many cars, there's going to be a permanent reduction in how many car factory workers are needed.



What is the point to this ramblings, that technological advancements are bad for the economy? Or are you aimlessly stating common sense that I don't think any one is disagreeing with, with no real point?

If cars become twice as durable for the same price, that is a technological advancement, and that means people and businesses now get to spend half as much money in cars and have more money for other things. A permanent reduction in car factory workers required does not mean the economy has weakened. In this case it would be the exact opposite as production has increased. What you would find is that all of those lost car factory jobs, and then some, appear in other industries which are now more affordable since business / consumers have more money to spend on other things / invest / etc.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Apr 2016)

Whazzup with one of the (alleged?) contenders ...


> A former Tory cabinet minister will be feted at a cocktail fundraiser today, informally kicking off what is expected to be a long and costly Conservative Party leadership race.
> 
> CBC News has obtained an email copy of an invitation to an event to drum up funds and support for Kellie Leitch, a pediatric surgeon and the former minister of labour and status of women who is expected to mount a leadership bid.
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (5 Apr 2016)

Hmm... is political leaders schmoozing for money a "barbaric cultural practice"?


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Apr 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hmm... is political leaders schmoozing for money a "barbaric cultural practice"?



No.  It's wynnesome.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> No.  It's wynnesome.



Groan!!  :cheers:


----------



## ballz (10 Apr 2016)

Well I'm a little bit saddened this hasn't already been posted so I will do so...

https://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/07/quebec-mp-maxime-bernier-makes-conservative-party-leadership-bid-official/



> *Quebec MP Maxime Bernier makes Conservative party leadership bid official*
> 
> Why wait?
> 
> ...



During the last election, a lot of people expressed to me that they wished the Libertarian Party of Canada had a candidate in their riding so they could vote for them. IMO, Maxime Bernier winning the Conservative leadership race would be a libertarian's wet dream. I will most definitely be joining the party and doing anything I can do help his campaign. For those that expressed a desire to vote libertarian, hopefully you will be able to vote libertarian by voting for a Maxime Bernier-led CPC in 2019. It's a gamble because if some social conservative wins the race I will lament for my membership fees which are gone to support something I despise, but c'est la vie.

My fear right now, however, is that the mainstream media will deliberately ignore Maxime Bernier, much like the mainstream media in the US seemed to deliberately ignore Ron Paul. I have already seen signs of this, such as a CBC article a month ago showing all the potential leaders of the party, and not even mentioning Maxime Bernier.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Apr 2016)

So, I'm confused.  Are you wanting him to get the nod because he's really a Libertarian in disguise or that he will create Libertarians because he's Ted Cruze lite? Or something equally appalling.


----------



## ballz (10 Apr 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So, I'm confused.  Are you wanting him to get the nod because he's really a Libertarian in disguise or that he will create Libertarians because he's Ted Cruze lite? Or something equally appalling.



I want him to get the nod because he is a legit libertarian, and he's not in disguise at all, he's been pretty outspoken about it. He just happens to be trying to create change through being a member of the CPC instead of the LPoC (much like Ron Paul was a libertarian in the Republican Party).

The only policy he supports that is not libertarian (that I know of) is supply chain management. Haven't heard his arguments for it, but you know what, I can live with it for now given all his other libertarian principles, no one is perfect after all.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Apr 2016)

OK gotcha.  My only real objection to him is his lack of smarts with respect to his biker girlfriend and crown documents.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Apr 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> I want him to get the nod because he is a legit libertarian, and he's not in disguise at all, he's been pretty outspoken about it. He just happens to be trying to create change through being a member of the CPC instead of the LPoC (much like Ron Paul was a libertarian in the Republican Party).
> 
> The only policy he supports that is not libertarian (that I know of) is supply chain management. Haven't heard his arguments for it, but you know what, I can live with it for now given all his other libertarian principles, no one is perfect after all.



Actually, I find myself in agreement with many of his positions.  For him government is the fallback position - not the main effort.  That I like.  And, like him, I find myself generally disinterested in personal morality issues.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Apr 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ..... his lack of smarts with respect to his biker girlfriend ......


I have no heartache with biker girlfriends.    :nod:


----------



## dapaterson (10 Apr 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I have no heartache with biker girlfriends.    :nod:


...as long as they keep your secrets


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Apr 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...as long as they keep your secrets



Not possible.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Apr 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not possible.



And that knowledge alone may be enough to keep a man honest.  :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Apr 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...as long as they keep your secrets



And keep wearing those low-cut dresses  [.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 May 2016)

The latest list o' names via Sun Media's David Akin ...


> Colleague Anthony Furey has the latest news from the Conservative leadership race:
> 
> An accomplished physician who served on five tours of duty in Afghanistan is testing the waters for a possible run to lead the federal Conservatives.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 May 2016)

Less concerned about the leader then I am in ensuring that the future CPC MP's are not kept as trained seals only to bark and act upon command.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2016)

Even though he is not in the ring (yet) to become the new Conservative Leader, but still a possibility, Kevin O'Leary sits down for an interview at the Conservative Convention in Vancouver with Ezra Levant.  He lays out some of his views and proposals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7VGE_cmnp8


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Jun 2016)

Nice find George.

He is definitely not another Trump if this interview is any indication. Very savvy use of the media (even though, Ezra is on side and did not ask the toughest of questions). He kept the tone level throughout, deflected the questions he wanted to avoid and got back on his message all the time. Moreover, the said message comes across as something on which he has reflected - not as a "spur of the moment, come out with an instant position that will rouse these people" type of deal à la Trump.

Two small notes:

1) To avoid answering about his lack of French, he talks about being a Montrealer and understanding Quebec. He is probably right: Montreal does claim him as its own even now. And he is correct also that - at least in Montreal - we prefer people that have a poor level of French to simply admit it, apologize and then we will speak with them in English. However, I happen to know that he speaks some french: he simply abhors using it because it is not at the level he believes sufficient for the task, which make him look weak or unintelligent, and he doesn't like that in any language.

2) I also like the fact that he recognizes that "peace making" (and he referred to Cyprus) is war, and requires soldiers at the top of their profession and game. I won't comment on whether that's the way to go or not - but at least he appears to have an understanding of what it entails that is superior to the "sunny ways" of the Liberals who seem to think that just because people in canadian military uniforms show up somewhere, peace breaks out and it's a love in.


----------



## GAP (3 Jun 2016)

I just want someone competent, preferably with some good solid life experience, other than being a drama school teacher or a career politician who has only learned wordsmithing as a trade.....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Jun 2016)

GAP said:
			
		

> I just want someone competent, preferably with some good solid life experience, other than being a drama school teacher or a career politician who has only learned wordsmithing as a trade.....



Then he couldn't have been a good student  ;D

One of my sons gets very annoyed whenever he hears JT speak in front of cameras, because every third word or so is a "eeeeeeeeeeh". It goes like "we will eeeeeee in a short eeeeeeeee time eee do the eeee right thing. eeeeeeee."

I hadn't noticed until my son pointed it out - and now I can't help but here it all the time and it is annoying.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Then he couldn't have been a good student  ;D
> 
> One of my sons gets very annoyed whenever he hears JT speak in front of cameras, because every third word or so is a "eeeeeeeeeeh". It goes like "we will eeeeeee in a short eeeeeeeee time eee do the eeee right thing. eeeeeeee."
> 
> I hadn't noticed until my son pointed it out - and now I can't help but here it all the time and it is annoying.



It has become so bad that it has become a "Drinking Game".  For every "uh!" one is to take a drink.  One may be totally passed out before he finishes.   >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Jun 2016)

You better have a whole bunch of drinks ready because you have to down them real fast and there is no time between "uh's!" to refill.  :blotto:


----------



## GAP (3 Jun 2016)

He needs to go to a Toastmasters meeting. His speech ability is horrible.

It may be endearable to the teenyboppers, but Good God ! get a grip and learn how speak publicly.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jun 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You better have a whole bunch of drinks ready because you have to down them real fast and there is no time between "uh's!" to refill.  :blotto:



When he appears on the screen, you may as well chug the whole bottle and get it over with. 8)


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Jun 2016)

I think at times Ezra pushed his buttons and could have irritated O'Leary immensely if KO had a thinner skin. 
Some key words:
"..Morneau's telephone book budget..."
"...takers not makers..."
"... no government has ever spent that much money successfully..."
"...Trudeau is a giant meat grinder of taxpayer money..."
".... we need better stewards in place..."
"...I want Canadian people to enjoy their time while they live on earth..."


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jun 2016)

More evidence one of the contenders may be out of the federal race ...


> Conservative MP Jason Kenney is poised to announce this summer that he will leave federal politics, fuelling expectations that he intends to run a campaign to unite the right in his home province of Alberta.
> 
> Sources tell CBC News that Kenney made his decision following a series of weekend meetings with key friends and advisers in Ottawa and Calgary.
> 
> ...


op:


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jun 2016)

Looks like Kenney and MacKay are developing "the Plan".... 

op: indeed...


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jul 2016)

At least one of the leadership contenders participates in Toronto's pride parade ...





... while one wonders where the sign slogans might have come from?  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jul 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Looks like Kenney and MacKay are developing "the Plan"....
> 
> op: indeed...


Latest on Kenney's plan ...


> Conservative MP Jason Kenney will announce he is making a bid to run for the leadership of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party in Calgary this Wednesday, CBC News has confirmed.
> 
> Sources also say he is looking to merge the right in his home province by calling on Progressive Conservatives and members of the Wildrose to come together to better fight the progressive forces of the current NDP government ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jul 2016)

Next up ...


> Former cabinet minister Tony Clement will announce (today) he is entering the Conservative leadership race.
> 
> The four-time Tory MP for Parry Sound—Muskoka invited friends on Facebook last week to a "special announcement" at the Royal Canadian Legion's Streetsville branch in Mississauga Tuesday evening.
> 
> Clement told The Huffington Post Canada on Sunday that he is "very" excited ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Less concerned about the leader then I am in ensuring that the future CPC MP's are not kept as trained seals only to bark and act upon command.



Don't worry. Once the LPC rams PR through, _ALL_ MP's will exist to be trained seals....


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Don't worry. Once the LPC rams PR through, _ALL_ MP's will exist to be trained seals....


Betcha once they get it through their heads that they'll NEVER have a majority (or anyone else, for that matter) under PR, they'll eeeeeeeeeeeeease out of that promise pretty quick.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Betcha once they get it through their heads that they'll NEVER have a majority (or anyone else, for that matter) under PR, they'll eeeeeeeeeeeeease out of that promise pretty quick.



Depends on what Gerald Butts' actual objective is. If it is denying Conservatives and conservative voters any chance at power, or to at least maintain a working LPC grip on power through manipulating minority governments (advancing or denying votes to coalition partners in return for promoting LPC policies and rewarding LPC crony's), then I think he'll be just fine with that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jul 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Depends on what Gerald Butts' actual objective is. If it is denying Conservatives and conservative voters any chance at power, or to at least maintain a working LPC grip on power through manipulating minority governments (advancing or denying votes to coalition partners in return for promoting LPC policies and rewarding LPC crony's), then I think he'll be just fine with that.


But they'd also have to risk the rise of smaller right-side-of-the-spectrum parties that could, like in a lot of places with PR governments, could wield power in a coalition.  Be careful that you wish for ...


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Aug 2016)

According to this Canadian Press story reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, Erin O'Toole is considering running for leader of the CPC.

Former veterans affairs minister O’Toole considering run for Tory leadership

By The Canadian Press — Aug 8 2016

OTTAWA — Former veterans affairs minister Erin O'Toole is considering a run for leadership of the federal Conservative party.

The Ontario MP was first elected in 2012 in a by-election to replace former Tory cabinet minister Bev Oda, who resigned after a furor over her international travel expenses.

O'Toole sought the interim leadership of the party after last fall's federal election, saying he wanted to show the party was serious about rebuilding.

Conservative party sources say while his name has long been bandied about, efforts to draft him have picked up steam in recent weeks as the party begins planning for the fall leadership debates.

O'Toole declined to comment but did not deny he is now thinking about a bid.

Conservatives will choose a new leader next May.


----------



## McG (8 Aug 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Don't worry. Once the LPC rams PR through, _ALL_ MP's will exist to be trained seals....


Except, the Liberal Party never promised PR.  The party promised a change from FPTP, and the party leader has indicated his leanings in favour of  preferential ballots.  

Thucydides, given the volumes that you dump into political threads, I would expect you must understand the difference between proportional and preferential systems.  So, why the intellectual dishonesty with this strawman based appeal to fear?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (8 Aug 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Except, the Liberal Party never promised PR.  The party promised a change from FPTP, and the party leader has indicated his leanings in favour of  preferential ballots.
> 
> Thucydides, given the volumes that you dump into political threads, I would expect you must understand the difference between proportional and preferential systems.  So, why the intellectual dishonesty with this strawman based appeal to fear?



I agree that the Liberals seemed more in tune with the preferential ballots than PR specifically.

Based on this graph from the 308.com, I can see why- it basically gives them complete power (AV=Preferential ballot) based on today's polls.

The assumption made is that NDP would put Liberals second and conservatives would put liberals second.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Based on this graph from the 308.com, I can see why- *it basically gives them complete power (AV=Preferential ballot) based on today's polls*.
> 
> The assumption made is that NDP would put Liberals second and conservatives would put liberals second.


Now THAT's a plan the Liberals can get behind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  #selfishdemocracy


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Aug 2016)

The latest on O'Toole ...


> Conservative parliamentarians and long-time Tory operatives sitting on the sidelines of the leadership contest are anxiously hoping MP Erin O’Toole will jump into the race, believing he’s the best candidate to broaden party support and defeat the Liberals.
> 
> Momentum for O’Toole is building as some recent signs suggest longtime cabinet minister Peter MacKay, considered a possible frontrunner, might decide to stay out.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lightguns (31 Aug 2016)

He works for me, I have spoken with him during my pension crisis and he is very able.


----------



## brihard (31 Aug 2016)

My experiences with O'Toole in the interactions I've had with VAC in a minor advisory role were very positive. The man knows how to reach out, communicate, and listen. I believe he was badly constrained by Harpers fiscal restrictions, but he definitely gave a damn. He'd be my pick.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Aug 2016)

...and he survived years of flying in the Sea King! :nod:  

Erin is a genuinely good person and is closer to the Red Tory/Blue Liberal nexus than many other(if not all) candidates.  That nexus is where the battle in 2019 will most certainly be focussed.

Mein :2c:

G2G


----------



## Altair (31 Aug 2016)

I would vote for O'toole. 

Makes me hope they go for o'leary.


----------



## Jed (31 Aug 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I would vote for O'toole.
> 
> Makes me hope they go for o'leary.



Your colors are showing.  [   One should hope for the best candidate for all political parties for the betterment of all.


----------



## Remius (31 Aug 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Your colors are showing.  [   One should hope for the best candidate for all political parties for the betterment of all.



Whoever they pick will likely lose to Trudeau.  not because they aren't good or anything it's just that the electorate will likely stay with him barring something immense happening.

So O'toole loses, leadership race again and what not.  I suspect the smarter ones are waiting for the election after the next one where Trudeau's shine will likely be completely gone.


----------



## Jed (31 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Whoever they pick will likely lose to Trudeau.  not because they aren't good or anything it's just that the electorate will likely stay with him barring something immense happening.
> 
> So O'toole loses, leadership race again and what not.  I suspect the smarter ones are waiting for the election after the next one where Trudeau's shine will likely be completely gone.



Your colors are showing too.  [ Unless you are just having a pessimistic outlook.


----------



## Remius (31 Aug 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Your colors are showing too.  [ Unless you are just having a pessimistic outlook.



No I'm being realistic.  The opposition is currently disoriented.  The NDP is completely messed up that I doubt they will attract any significant liberal votes.  None of their leadership hopefuls are anything special or inspiring for that matter and the party itself doesn't know if it wants to go far left or stay in the center.

The CPC is in better shape.  Good talent.  But whoever runs in the next federal election will be wearing all the baggage of the last CPC government and people won't be tired of Trudeau yet.  and this is all dependant as well on how a Tory convention will shape up.  I am sure that their our elements of the party that will be dissatisfied with certain directions the party is going.  the party is working hard to show a united front but a leadership race could wreck that.  The leaders that should run should wait.  Losing the next time will mean political suicide.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> No I'm being realistic.  The opposition is currently disoriented.  The NDP is completely messed up that I doubt they will attract any significant liberal votes.  None of their leadership hopefuls are anything special or inspiring for that matter and the party itself doesn't know if it wants to go far left or stay in the center.
> 
> The CPC is in better shape.  Good talent.  But whoever runs in the next federal election will be wearing all the baggage of the last CPC government and people won't be tired of Trudeau yet.  and this is all dependant as well on how a Tory convention will shape up.  I am sure that their our elements of the party that will be dissatisfied with certain directions the party is going.  the party is working hard to show a united front but a leadership race could wreck that.  The leaders that should run should wait.  Losing the next time will mean political suicide.



I think you're overlooking the obvious elephant in the room: the Conservatives can form the government without taking Quebec, the Liberals can not. If Quebec turns away from the Liberals towards the Bloc or NDP again, then there's unlikely to be enough seats left in the rest of Canada to assure them of carrying the day.


----------



## Altair (31 Aug 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think you're overlooking the obvious elephant in the room: the Conservatives can form the government without taking Quebec, the Liberals can not. If Quebec turns away from the Liberals towards the Bloc or NDP again, then there's unlikely to be enough seats left in the rest of Canada to assure them of carrying the day.


The bloc and NDP look like spent forces in Quebec right now.

Probably going to get worst once their new leaders are found.

That said it is the most politically unpredictable province so you never can know.


----------



## Remius (31 Aug 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think you're overlooking the obvious elephant in the room: the Conservatives can form the government without taking Quebec, the Liberals can not. If Quebec turns away from the Liberals towards the Bloc or NDP again, then there's unlikely to be enough seats left in the rest of Canada to assure them of carrying the day.



You are also overlooking the fact that right now the Bloc is a non factor.  it could change but I think it isn't going to get any better.  The NDP is looking less and less like an option.  Even with a Quebec leader they weren't able to take that province.  Jack Layton is dead and I suspect the NDP's chance of another Orange wave died with him.

But I think your math is off.  In the last election, even if the Liberals had no seats (ie all 40 seats they have now were gone) in Quebec.  And the unlikely scenario of all 40 going to the CPC, the Liberals still win, albeit a minority situation.  So yes they can win without Quebec.  In fact the last election, Quebec didn't win it for them it just gave them their majority. 

That being said a CPC leader could survive if they reduced the LPC to a minority situation.  A far more likely scenario that defeating the LPC under Trudeau. 

For the record, this isn't a question of me supporting the LPC.  I'm just looking at the facts and the current situation and unfortunately I don't see a viable leader that can take them on right now in any party nor do I think that one will come along in time to dethrone him.


----------



## QV (31 Aug 2016)

There is plenty of time for a CPC leader to dethrone Trudeau.  McKay has a shot in my opinion, he will surely put a dent in the liberal tide out on the East coast.  And the liberals will probably have enough blunders between now and 2019 to sour their popularity where many of the ABC/ABH crowd will come back.  Time will tell I suppose.  I think the libs will be beat on the economy ultimately.


----------



## Altair (1 Sep 2016)

So the same woman who helped propose the barbaric cultural practices hotline sends out a survey asking her supporters  if Canada should screen immigrants for animals Canadian values.

Hmmmm...

That can only end well.


----------



## McG (2 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> ... asking her supporters if Canada should screen immigrants for animals Canadian values.


Auto correct did something weird to your "anti-Canadian" ... or did you find a different article where she wants immigrants who are more tuned to nature?

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kellie-leitch-survey-question-1.3744948


----------



## Altair (2 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Auto correct did something weird to your "anti-Canadian" ... or did you find a different article where she wants immigrants who are more tuned to nature?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kellie-leitch-survey-question-1.3744948


auto correct. Terrible invention.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> auto correct. Terrible invention.


Proofreading. Free.


----------



## Altair (2 Sep 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Proofreading. Free.


every now and again something is going g to slip by.

Not even durex is 100 percent effective.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> every now and again something is going g to slip by.
> 
> Not even durex is 100 percent effective.


----------



## Lightguns (2 Sep 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Whoever they pick will likely lose to Trudeau.  not because they aren't good or anything it's just that the electorate will likely stay with him barring something immense happening.
> 
> So O'toole loses, leadership race again and what not.  I suspect the smarter ones are waiting for the election after the next one where Trudeau's shine will likely be completely gone.



I smell a Peter Peter Reform Appeaser


----------



## Lumber (2 Sep 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Whoever they pick will likely lose to Trudeau.  not because they aren't good or anything it's just that the electorate will likely stay with him barring something immense happening.
> 
> So O'toole loses, leadership race again and what not.  I suspect the smarter ones are waiting for the election after the next one where Trudeau's shine will likely be completely gone.



And people say politicians don't think about the long haul...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (2 Sep 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Proofreading; Free.



FTFY. Semi-colon is better for attaching these independent clauses  [


----------



## Remius (2 Sep 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> And people say politicians don't think about the long haul...



My prediction?  Rona Ambrose returns as leader after the next election loss.  I really thought she was going to make a move to Alberta Politics but she may be setting herself up to pick up the pieces after the next election and cruise to victory in the one after.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Sep 2016)

Do think Canadians will be tired of the Liberals shit after two terms?


----------



## Remius (2 Sep 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Do think Canadians will be tired of the Liberals crap after two terms?



That's my thought on it yes.  But more along the lines of that it will take at least two terms.


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Sep 2016)

The CPC strategy could be to aim to reducing/eliminating the Liberal majority in 2019 and replacing them in government in 2023. Governments tend to defeating themselves by getting complacent, lazy and especially if Liberal by developing a sense of entitlement. Therefore however the CPC select as leader would not be someone to be dropped if he/she does not win in 2019. Therefore whoever the leader is should have the smarts, energy and long view to aim for a term in opposition and one or two terms in power.

Easier said then done.


----------



## Altair (2 Sep 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The CPC strategy could be to aim to reducing/eliminating the Liberal majority in 2019 and replacing them in government in 2023. Governments tend to defeating themselves by getting complacent, lazy and especially if Liberal by developing a sense of entitlement. Therefore however the CPC select as leader would not be someone to be dropped if he/she does not win in 2019. Therefore whoever the leader is should have the smarts, energy and long view to aim for a term in opposition and one or two terms in power.
> 
> Easier said then done.


Wonder if the grammar police are going to give you a ticket.

But yes, depending on how well the new leader does they shouldn't be dropped after one election loss. I just wonder how patient the CPC members are. Tom Mulcair wanted to stay on to fight another day, e was pushed out instead.

Granted, should the CPC lose ground to the LPC next election that leader is probably toast.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Sep 2016)

CPC could reduce the Liberal majority to a minority with the right leader and a well run campaign. There's already fuel for the election fire: limos, child benefit actually is less benefit than CPC benefit it replaced, and atrocious job numbers. If we continue to shed jobs after 4 years of giant deficits, it's proof the Gerald Butts vision of Canada doesn't work. Then again, it will likely depend on whether the MSM rides Trudeau's honeymoon for 4 years longer than it should be.


----------



## Altair (2 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> CPC could reduce the Liberal majority to a minority with the right leader and a well run campaign. There's already fuel for the election fire: limos, child benefit actually is less benefit than CPC benefit it replaced, and atrocious job numbers. If we continue to shed jobs after 4 years of giant deficits, it's proof the Gerald Butts vision of Canada doesn't work. Then again, it will likely depend on whether the MSM rides Trudeau's honeymoon for 4 years longer than it should be.


With weed being legal and taxed next year I'm figuring those deficits won't be quite as large as promised.

As for job numbers, I agree; to a point.

If it continues to be isolated in Alberta and the resource sector fallout will be minimal. It's not like he rode the red wave into alberta and Saskatchewan. If there is widespread stagnation and weakness throughout multiple sectors nationwide he's probably done.

I don't know about you but I'm loving the new CCB. I get more money and it's tax free. Starting 2020 it will be indexed to inflation(something the PBO declined to mention)and MSM went with the sexier story of how the new CCB will be worth less as years go by.

As for the limos, they were repaid within the week so if you think that story will have the same legs as the 16 dollar cup of orange juice and 1000 dollar limorides that wasn't repaid for months you are free to think that.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Sep 2016)

Interesting spin on the media hammering Kellie Leitch's "anti-Canadian values screening" proposal: Survey shows 2/3s of Canadians support it:

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/10/canadians-favour-screening-immigrant-values-poll-shows.html



> Canadians favour screening would-be immigrants for ‘anti-Canadian’ values, poll shows
> 
> Two-thirds of Canadians want prospective immigrants to be screened for “anti-Canadian” values, a new poll reveals, lending to idea stirring controversy in political circles.
> A new Forum Research poll showed that 38 per cent of Canadians think the country admits too many immigrants while 13 per cent say too few are admitted. But 41 per cent think the number of admission is about right.
> ...



Very interesting that the support for the proposal is high among self-identified Liberal and NDP voters.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Sep 2016)

That article simply demonstrates that John Ibbotson was essentially correct in "The Big Shift", and that the same sort of unravelling of trust in the "elites" that propels Trump in the US, the Brexit in the UK and Nativist parties in Europe is not only just possible in Canada, but may almost be inevitable.

The extreme disconnect between the "Laurentian Elites" who champion mass immigration and other nonsense at *our* expense is going to create a larger and larger portion of the population who see that Canadian politics is not working for them or the supposed benefits of trade, multi billion dollar deficits or immigration are *not* accruing to them and eventually they will go looking for a Trump or Le Pen to lead them against these predatory "elites".

I had an interesting conversation with a correspondent who had the opportunity to sit in and discuss some of these issues with a cross section of these "elites" in a Toronto boardroom, and his impression is they simply have no idea of how their actions affect *us*, and unstated, since they have $500,000 to $1,000,000/year incomes and live in gated communities isolated from the rest of us, really don't care, since the effect of their policies and ideas on _them_ will be minimal.

In any case, Canadians may well see their own Trump emerge soon. I rather hope there is a Canadian Trump, because the alternative is "the man on the white horse".


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Sep 2016)

[quote author=Thucydides] because the alternative is "the man on the white horse".
[/quote]

and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer?


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> With weed being legal and taxed next year I'm figuring those deficits won't be quite as large as promised.


That's a preeeeeeeeeeeeeeety optimistic timeline ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer?



No, not _that_ man on the white horse.

For those who did not get the historical allusion, Napoleon is the "man on the white horse", who promised to provide peace and security to the French after the chaos of the Revolution and there of the Revolutionary committees. The French were happy to trade freedom for security, until they saw hat happened next.....


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Sep 2016)

They were happy enough while they were winning.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Sep 2016)

Most people are....


----------



## Altair (11 Sep 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That's a preeeeeeeeeeeeeeety optimistic timeline ...


http://globalnews.ca/news/2650706/canada-to-introduce-pot-legalization-legislation-in-2017/

Hmm?


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> http://globalnews.ca/news/2650706/canada-to-introduce-pot-legalization-legislation-in-2017/
> 
> Hmm?



Yep, and how about those 25,000 refugees by December? Only moved left by 3 months (27 Feb 16), and that's a relatively straight forward screening and transport process. Or maybe the defense policy review that was promised to be completed by this fall, and now is shifting to the nebulous target of "early 2017".


----------



## Altair (11 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yep, and how about those 25,000 refugees by December? Only moved left by 3 months (27 Feb 16), and that's a relatively straight forward screening and transport process. Or maybe the defense policy review that was promised to be completed by this fall, and now is shifting to the nebulous target of "early 2017".


Or the middle class tax cut that was done right away, the new CCB which was done in the first budget.

Sure, you can focus on things that didn't meet their time frame but quite a few of those promises were fulfilled in a timely manner.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Sep 2016)

Keep sipp'n that Kool-aid


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Or the middle class tax cut that was done right away, the new CCB which was done in the first budget.
> 
> Sure, you can focus on things that didn't meet their time frame but quite a few of those promises were fulfilled in a timely manner.


Those are completely different things. Of course they made that timeline, it was literally made for them as budgets are always delivered in Feb. You also fail to remember that Trudeau said he'd start legalizing pot on "day one", causing massive headache for LEOs by people thinking pot was legal after he won the election. He didn't even start the process until 6 months later, and it will be at least 18 months after "day one" until anything resembling a bill will be ready. Then it'll take a few months of debate in the Commons, before having debate shut down because it will have to get done before summer recess 2017. Then it'll get kicked around in the Senate, adding another month or two. We very likely end up 2 full years late, with legislation on the books fall 2017.


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Or the middle class tax cut that ...


... was actually a tax cut to above median income earners and benefit individuals up into the 90 something percentile.


----------



## Altair (11 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Those are completely different things. Of course they made that timeline, it was literally made for them as budgets are always delivered in Feb. You also fail to remember that Trudeau said he'd start legalizing pot on "day one", causing massive headache for LEOs by people thinking pot was legal after he won the election. He didn't even start the process until 6 months later, and it will be at least 18 months after "day one" until anything resembling a bill will be ready. Then it'll take a few months of debate in the Commons, before having debate shut down because it will have to get done before summer recess 2017. Then it'll get kicked around in the Senate, adding another month or two. We very likely end up 2 full years late, with legislation on the books fall 2017.


I really don't understand you.

So if the Liberals just went about starting day one, legalized pot with little study on the consequences, the legality,  etc they would have been seen as reckless.

When they take their time and consult, study and come up with a timeline of 2017 give or take a few months they are tardy?  

So they just can't win I guess.

Whatever.

My point was that pot will be legal in 2017 and tax revenue from that will start coming in. I stand by that. The forecasted deficits will be smaller when that new revenue stream comes online.


----------



## Altair (11 Sep 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Keep sipp'n that Kool-aid


As long as you keep blindly hating everything team red does up to and including drawing breath.

 :cheers:


----------



## Altair (11 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... was actually a tax cut to above median income earners and benefit individuals up into the 90 something percentile.


And a tax hike on those making more than 200 thousand. Not exact a tax break for the rich.

Seriously, complaining about a tax break effecting too many people? Really? Must be doing something right.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> As long as you keep blindly hating everything team red does up to and including drawing breath.
> 
> :cheers:



Just as long as we understand each other...


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Seriously, complaining about a tax break effecting too many people?


Nope.  Disagree with false advertising though.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> http://globalnews.ca/news/2650706/canada-to-introduce-pot-legalization-legislation-in-2017/
> 
> Hmm?


That was their best guess five months ago - seen any more recent estimates with that short a timeline?  The most recent I've seen (Friday past) says the government may not even see a report recommending next steps until November.  I'd bet a loonie all the steps needed for this to happen won't be done by 31 Dec 2017.

I'm for at least decriminalization of marijuana, but even I can see a whooooooooooooooole mess of stuff to be done to make that happen across Canada (given provincial fingers in the pie, too).  Just sayin' don't count those massive tax revenues before they're hatched.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> http://globalnews.ca/news/2650706/canada-to-introduce-pot-legalization-legislation-in-2017/
> 
> Hmm?



....and they'll hold an open competition for the future fighter in 2016, etc....  :blah:

More of the same.

_tic tock_


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Sep 2016)

So what about Kelly Leitch's proposal that immigrants be screened for "anti Canadian values"?

Just what would be considered an "anti Canadian value"?


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2016)

Anything contrary to the Charter of Rights? I think that's a good start. It was also just a survey question with no plan behind it yet, once she provides details it'll clear a lot up.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Anything contrary to the Charter of Rights? I think that's a good start. It was also just a survey question with no plan behind it yet, once she provides details it'll clear a lot up.



The DCO and I had a discussion on this. He's not for it at all. Mind you he does like JT. 

Thus far just about every potential Conservative leader has pretty much said its a non starter. 


To my way of thinking, I didn't serve 35+ years to "tolerate" honour killings, mutilation, Sharia law etc.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2016)

100% agree with you. I think there's a way to do it properly, within the context of the citizenship process in an interview. If we're going to screen refugees, it'd have to be very basic questions directly relating to rule of law (murder and abuse never justified, etc).


----------



## Altair (11 Sep 2016)

A feel good exercise at its best. People will learn what questions they need to lie about right quick.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Sep 2016)

How about having all interviews conducted by well-dressed young ladies, extending their hand for a handshake and saying "Welcome to Canada"?

Monitor reaction.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> How about having all interviews conducted by well-dressed young ladies, extending their hand for a handshake and saying "Welcome to Canada"?
> 
> Monitor reaction.



Probably the best way to do it.


----------



## Altair (11 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> How about having all interviews conducted by well-dressed young ladies, extending their hand for a handshake and saying "Welcome to Canada"?
> 
> Monitor reaction.


What reaction would be appropriate?

Must maintain eye contact?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Anything contrary to the Charter of Rights? I think that's a good start. It was also just a survey question with no plan behind it yet, once she provides details it'll clear a lot up.



The problem is determining what we define as "Canadian values". Using the charter of rights is fine, but it's interpretation is troublesome. Look at the debates about gay marriage or the wearing of burkha's/burkini's/religious articles of clothing.

That's why I think her proposal is illogical... we can't define or come to a consensus as a society on what our values are so how can we apply them to people coming in? 

Finally, applying values tests are a slippery slope. If we expect immigrants to live by our values than what's to say we can't apply a similar test to individual Canadian citizens? Because I can list a whole hockey sock of people in each part of the country I've lived in whose beliefs are against the charter. People complain about the "thought police" and then jump on band wagons to enhance thought police...


----------



## dapaterson (11 Sep 2016)

Canadian values: Poutine,  hockey, Timmys and beer.


----------



## Jed (11 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The problem is determining what we define as "Canadian values". Using the charter of rights is fine, but it's interpretation is troublesome. Look at the debates about gay marriage or the wearing of burkha's/burkini's/religious articles of clothing.
> 
> That's why I think her proposal is illogical... we can't define or come to a consensus as a society on what our values are so how can we apply them to people coming in?
> 
> Finally, applying values tests are a slippery slope. If we expect immigrants to live by our values than what's to say we can't apply a similar test to individual Canadian citizens? Because I can list a whole hockey sock of people in each part of the country I've lived in whose beliefs are against the charter. People complain about the "thought police" and then jump on band wagons to enhance thought police...




So therefore, we should just look the other way without making any attempt at vetting immigrants for appropriate Canadian lawful intent?  Sounds like you support the appeasement laisser faire approach that has worked so well in Europe.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> So therefore, we should just look the other way without making any attempt at vetting immigrants for appropriate Canadian lawful intent?  Sounds like you support the appeasement laisser faire approach that has worked so well in Europe.



First... it's "laissez-faire" not "laisser faire"

Second.... not at all. There needs to be entrance standards and there has been entry standards that have provided a reasonable level of "vetting". Adding an arbitrary "values-based" checklist is different than basic vetting for criminal record, etc etc. The values based vetting is just there to make people feel better and will have no real impact on who comes in. 

Just because I think Leitsch's proposal is illogical and has no real value doesn't mean I dont support vetting. Just vet based on actual, tangible things not someone's perceived "values".


----------



## dapaterson (11 Sep 2016)

Perhaps the better question: what can you say about current vetting, and what is wrong with that process?  Or am I asking for facts to get in the way of a good rant?


----------



## Altair (11 Sep 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps the better question: what can you say about current vetting, and what is wrong with that process?  Or am I asking for facts to get in the way of a good rant?


feels>facts.

Just look down south.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2016)

Or look at Europe, and what unscreened migration is doing to countries there. 99% of immigrants or refugees won't be the issue, keeping the 1% out who want a passport of convenience/hold extremist views is what we should aim for.


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or look at Europe, and what unscreened migration is doing to countries there.


So, this is not Europe and there is screening here.  The discussion is not an examination of values screening verses no screening, it should be an examination of what values screening adds to current screening (or more appropriately, what is current screening lacking that values screening would correct).  Honour kills and mutilation are already things that we don't tolerate, so in this conversation they are red herrings at best. 

There is also the question of practical implementation.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Sep 2016)

An overwhelming majority of Canadians like the idea of screening, even amongst the left.  (sorry, can't find the story easily on phone)  Survey approval ratings % were in the mid 80s, IIRC.


----------



## Jed (11 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> First... it's "laissez-faire" not "laisser faire"
> 
> Second.... not at all. There needs to be entrance standards and there has been entry standards that have provided a reasonable level of "vetting". Adding an arbitrary "values-based" checklist is different than basic vetting for criminal record, etc etc. The values based vetting is just there to make people feel better and will have no real impact on who comes in.
> 
> Just because I think Leitsch's proposal is illogical and has no real value doesn't mean I dont support vetting. Just vet based on actual, tangible things not someone's perceived "values".




Sounds like we agree on this point.  Nothing wrong with some wordsmithing a Commander's Intent, though.  At least in my opinion, anyway.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Sep 2016)

Not sure how effective screening would be.

Example.
 *"‘You are now in Canada’: Anger management ordered for Iranian-born man who attacked wife’s boss" 
* 
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/you-are-now-in-canada-anger-management-ordered-for-iranian-born-man-who-attacked-wifes-boss


> An Iran-born Edmonton man has been ordered to take anger management courses following a “nasty” *attack on his wife’s boss stemming from a male co-worker saying hello to her in a mall.*
> 
> Aadel Moradi, 39, was given a suspended sentence and placed on probation for 18 months on Tuesday in provincial court after pleading guilty to assault charges over what was an* apparent clash of cultures.*





> “*You are now in Canada*. We do not place restrictions on the way that women live here, unlike in some other countries,” said MacDonald, adding it is “very sad” that Moradi doesn’t see it.





> “No men are allowed to speak to his wife and she can’t speak to any men.”





> Shaigec told court that Moradi,* based on his culture and upbringing, had been offended by his wife’s co-worker approaching her in public* and speaking to her without first introducing himself to Moradi.




This sounds like a prime example of a new comer to Canada who's culture clashes with ours except he's been in Canada 15 years.

The _Oh it's my culture _trash isn't an excuse.  If someone believes a certain barbaric way of acting is right, but 
in order to get all the benefits that Canada offers them they need to say it's wrong, I'm pretty sure they'll just lie about it to get in. You can't change someone overnight, or in 15 years in some cases.


----------



## Jed (11 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not sure how effective screening would be.
> 
> Example.
> *"‘You are now in Canada’: Anger management ordered for Iranian-born man who attacked wife’s boss"
> ...



Agreed. But at least if incoming immigrants have this credo / gauntlet ? up front coming in country they can't say they weren't advised.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Agreed. But at least if incoming immigrants have this credo / gauntlet ? up front coming in country they can't say they weren't advised.




.......and when they do try some of their horseshit, like the guy above, they can be warned and a second offence gets them sent packing.

Human Right Commissions and Tribunals need stringent guidelines when dealing with complaints of this nature, so they don't operate in the same wishy washy kumbaya mode that they have been. Personally, I think HRC's should be gotten rid of.

I believe there is no place in this country for muslim enclaves that exist to retain their ME culture of law and religion. If they can't fit into the bubble of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian law and Canadian norms, they shouldn't be here.

They need a ROE when they come here for screening.
ie - In Canada women can wear what they want. Women can speak to who they want. Women do not require male escorts to go shopping. Leave the acid and flammables at home, we don't use them against women here and you can't drown all your daughters because they dress like Canadians and have Canadian friends.

Lastly, and most important, we have to stop letting the UNHCR decide who settles here. That job belongs to Canadians.


----------



## ballz (11 Sep 2016)

We have no principle belief to be the foundation of our "values," hence our values are relatively meaningless. The government infringes upon the Charter of Rights and Freedoms whenever it is convenient / in order to appease the majority (the reason we have a constitutional democracy is to stop the majority from committing tyranny against the minority). It's hard to screen for values when you have none, and its hard to tell people to do no harm to others when you constantly do so for your own benefit.

We choose willy nilly feelings instead of solid principles, and hence contradict our own "values" all the time.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> As long as you keep blindly hating everything team red does up to and including drawing breath.
> 
> :cheers:



I'm not totally blind in my distaste for team rouge. I have a good opinion of Sajin.   And "blind" insinuates without thought or consideration.  The distaste I have has been thought of.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Sep 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> .......and when they do try some of their horseshit, like the guy above, they can be warned and a second offence gets them sent packing.
> 
> Human Right Commissions and Tribunals need stringent guidelines when dealing with complaints of this nature, so they don't operate in the same wishy washy kumbaya mode that they have been. Personally, I think HRC's should be gotten rid of.
> 
> ...



So, what do we do for born and raised Canadians who violate these values? The guy in Brantford was born here as an example. Do we strip them of citizenship? As for the other examples, females in Canada can go to any number of resources if they feel they are being abused or harassed and someone who murders their family are still liable to the penalties of law for murder (regardless of the why... what is the inherent difference between the mom who drowns her children because she gets angry at them or the dad who kills his daughter because he offends her? They're both murders and subject to the same punishment). The "strike" system is a slippery slope as it opens things up to false accusations and tiers of citizens, both of which are unacceptable in Canada.

The muslim enclave argument is off base as well. Almost all immigrant groups form enclaves upon arrival. There are still Ukrainian, German, Dutch, italian, chinese, indian, etc enclaves throughout Canada (each with their own unique "me" cultures). That's why there's no easy Canadian culture to define or Canadian values- these often differ by region. If we had done this for Germans (actually, we did... and Ukrainians, Japanese, etc) than we wouldn't have Oktoberfest nor would Germans have ever really integrated.

Next, the UNHCR doesn't decide who comes here, the government does. The government may accept recommendations, but the final say is with OUR government, so this is definitely a strawman.

Created dual systems in Canada wont help anyone integrate into our society. It just creates separate sets of rules for citizens and creates bitterness. The divide between classes and the anger in France is a big part of why they've had so many internal attacks... why would we want to emulate that? 

Finally... there are no universal "Canadian values" so what would we ever base this on? It's foolish


----------



## MARS (11 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> My point was that pot will be legal in 2016 and tax revenue from that will start coming in. I stand by that. The forecasted deficits will be smaller when that new revenue stream comes online.



It doesn't matter to me how long they take - I have no dog in this fight - but I am close to a public servant working on that file.  Summer 2017 for the staff to submit their way ahead plan up the chain, so add several months to that, at least, for vetting at higher levels


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Sep 2016)

MARS said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter to me how long they take - I have no dog in this fight - but I am close to a public servant working on that file.  Summer 2017 for the staff to submit their way ahead plan up the chain, so add several months to that, at least, for vetting at higher levels



Of course the US refusing entry to pot smokers won't have any effect on implementation.


----------



## Jed (12 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> 1.  So, what do we do for born and raised Canadians who violate these values? The guy in Brantford was born here as an example. Do we strip them of citizenship? As for the other examples, females in Canada can go to any number of resources if they feel they are being abused or harassed and someone who murders their family are still liable to the penalties of law for murder (regardless of the why... what is the inherent difference between the mom who drowns her children because she gets angry at them or the dad who kills his daughter because he offends her? They're both murders and subject to the same punishment). The "strike" system is a slippery slope as it opens things up to false accusations and tiers of citizens, both of which are unacceptable in Canada.
> 
> The muslim enclave argument is off base as well.  2. Almost all immigrant groups form enclaves upon arrival. There are still Ukrainian, German, Dutch, italian, chinese, indian, etc enclaves throughout Canada (each with their own unique "me" cultures). That's why there's no easy Canadian culture to define or Canadian values- these often differ by region. If we had done this for Germans (actually, we did... and Ukrainians, Japanese, etc) than we wouldn't have Oktoberfest nor would Germans have ever really integrated.
> 
> ...




1. They are Canadian citizens. They get treated exactly the same as everybody else.  The laws of the land.

2. There is a big difference from the Euro type enclave and the way immigrants were invited into areas to be settled in Canada as they opened up sparsely populated areas 100 - 150 years ago.  Incoming people should have respect for the culture they are coming in to just as Canadians should have respect for whatever countries culture that they wish to go into.

3.  Of course. Everybody should follow the same rules.  Religious police  or Communist Political officers and what not are not welcome and should not be allowed  anymore than Biker gangs are allowed. It is all fine until laws are broken.   

Society has a way of naturally ostracizing those who refuse to fit in. Respect and Acceptance for the most part, need to be earned, not mandated and regulated.

Agitators of all sorts are now tolerated until the law gets sufficiently trampled on and the population rises up and says enough of this BS.

I could be wrong but I think you missed Recce's point that newbies should at least be given ROE's before they enjoy the fruits of our country.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> 1. They are Canadian citizens. They get treated exactly the same as everybody else.  The laws of the land.
> 
> 2. There is a big difference from the Euro type enclave and the way immigrants were invited into areas to be settled in Canada as they opened up sparsely populated areas 100 - 150 years ago.  Incoming people should have respect for the culture they are coming in to just as Canadians should have respect for whatever countries culture that they wish to go into.
> 
> ...



I understood his point, I just think he's dead wrong.

1. Naturalized Canadians and born Canadians, once given citizenship, must be judged against the same rules despite religious differences. Once they are approved for citizenship the vetting process has to end, full stop, as they are then expected to live under the same rules.We can't have classes of citizens. If we do, then where does our concept of "Canadian values" end? A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.  

2. I think that if you studied European colonization you would appreciate that little has changed since Europeans arrived here. Catholic citizens of New France said the same thing about Huegenot (Protestant) immigrants coming to New France, English said the same of Irish and Scots, they all said the same of Ukrainians, Germans, and Italians, etc etc etc. Than those immigrants hate Chinese and black immigrants. I attached 4 x political cartoons from the 1800's (3 American, 1 Canadian) for context. These arguments are nothing new, and those who wish to continue them will just be on the wrong side of history again once a new Boogey man arises. I also attach this link. Yes, the Atlantic is left leaning, but the cartoons are period and historically accurate.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/racist-anti-immigrant-cartoons-from-the-turn-of-the-20th-century/383248/

Also, find a link to a good book on racist immigration policies. It's from the Canadian Scholar's Press, so the validity is a touch higher than a blog.

http://www.cspi.org/books/the-history-of-immigration-and-racism-in-canada

3. Yes. All Canadian immigrants are vetted based on a large number of factors and do a citizenship test. Once the laws are broken the criminals are punished. Mrs Leitch's proposal doesn't assist any of this. Her prpposal would just lead to arbitrary "values" being used to test values... we have laws that are effective.

to reiterate- I know Syrian refugee's who share more of the "Canadians values" than many Canadians I've known, including some in the military. There is no way to 100% guarantee safety, but these measures just add to terrorist propaganda and serve to weaken the values that we are supposed to represent.


----------



## Jed (12 Sep 2016)

BG45

I believe you are reading too much between the lines when you equate your last post wrt to past bigotry and racism to Ms Lietch's proposal to attempt 'enlightening' of incoming peoples to this great Country of ours as one and the same.

Is it too much to ask anyone to be cognizant of the Laws of the land and cultural norms before they become a citizen or even to reside in Canada for lengthy periods of time? I don't think so.  Most other countries in the world do not think so either.

Countries that have been foolish enough to just twiddle their thumbs and hope the problem goes away are now in great turmoil. ie France, Germany, Sweden, Britain, Australia.

Are the US and Canada now going to be cursed with the same problem?  Maybe we should be getting hard headed like Israel or Saudi Arabia and look after our current citizens first and foremost? 

I personally believe in immigration.  I also believe it at least setting out the expectations prior to people enjoying the fruits of our great Country.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> BG45
> 
> I believe you are reading too much between the lines when you equate your last post wrt to past bigotry and racism to Ms Lietch's proposal to attempt 'enlightening' of incoming peoples to this great Country of ours as one and the same.
> 
> ...



We already do set out standards and have an expectation for incoming citizens:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/become-eligibility.asp

We expect income tax filings, that persons not be convicted or on trial for a crime against Canadian law (for a time, but in extreme cases this would be a no go criteria), and that persons pass a citizenship test that includes history, VALUES, institutions, and symbols.

So what is missing that this plan would help?

That's why I disagree that I'm reading between the lines too much. It's just a new reiteration of the same examples I provided and that Trump is mouth breathing to our south. Like the literacy tests designed to keep the irish our of the US this test would be designed to keep our new undesirables out. The results will be the same.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Sep 2016)

Why wouldn't we want to keep undesirables out? :dunno:

So, if these others want to come here, to cut to the chase,  perhaps they need to understand and prove that they are familiar with our norms and sensibilities and that their barbaric tribal ideas and practices don't fly here. Should they violate them, they go to jail. Deny a service dog in your cab, go to jail. Berate someone for how they are dressed, yup, go to jail. Bring your daughter into emergency because their illegal circumcision::? Lose them to child services and go to jail. Rinse & repeat. The problem is with those that come here intent on converting and killing us.

Lastly, the enclaves in Europe have existed for a long time. Canada just needs to catch  up. The free city of Toronto has already allowed muslim only housing, refusing to let anyone else rent there, even though it's illegal to discriminate against them.

I refuse to sit by and accept that Trudeau's plan is good for everyone and the country. In my opinion, it's a scam for more votes, and for the sake of our citizens I hope people wake up.
 :2c:


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Sep 2016)

Everyone loves it when the government of the day asks cultural questions they _agree_ with.  

If you let _one_ government of any stripe set up this kind of test, though, then any _future_ government can change the questions -- even to ones folks may not like or agree with.  What then?

#thinedgeofthewedge

Lots of laws & rules out there to deal with illegal cultural practices - let's use those more aggressively  & consistently, shall we?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Sep 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't we want to keep undesirables out? :dunno:
> 
> So, if these others want to come here, to cut to the chase,  perhaps they need to understand and prove that they are familiar with our norms and sensibilities and that their barbaric tribal ideas and practices don't fly here. Should they violate them, they go to jail. Deny a service dog in your cab, go to jail. Berate someone for how they are dressed, yup, go to jail. Bring your daughter into emergency because their illegal circumcision::? Lose them to child services and go to jail. Rinse & repeat. The problem is with those that come here intent on converting and killing us.
> 
> ...



I meant "undesirables" in a sarcastic sense, in that this proposal is mostly an anti-muslim screening process in a similar vein to many historical ones. It was not a literal. I have noted several times with sources stating that we ALREADY screen and do values/history/institutional testing and have a standard. 

How many people in Canada have suffered from illegal circumcisions? Some women who entered have, but I can't find a single case where it's happened here. So this is a simply bogeyman. Same for the other examples... aside from onesies and twosies these are not widespread occurrences. 

As for enclaves, they exist in Canada. Just yesterday I went and bought corn from a hutterite colony in Manitoba. I grew up in Ontario around old order amish and Mennonites who lived in clusters, spoke different languages, and refused to integrate into Canadian society. When I lived in Vaughn, Ontario there was an Italian enclave. Brampton is a Hindu enclave. Perhaps we should kick out the Hutterites and amish too then? They often practice incest (debate as you want, but I GUARANTEE this one), force women to be subjugated, etc. Aside from you strawman argument that muslim people will be terrorists where's the outrage?

You can refuse to sit by all you want, but you're on the wrong side of history. Leitsch's values checklist is just a thinly veiled attempt to reach out to people's base fears. Look at any study which shows how many deaths are attributed to terrorism vs other ways of dying


----------



## Altair (12 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I meant "undesirables" in a sarcastic sense, in that this proposal is mostly an anti-muslim screening process in a similar vein to many historical ones. It was not a literal. I have noted several times with sources stating that we ALREADY screen and do values/history/institutional testing and have a standard.
> 
> How many people in Canada have suffered from illegal circumcisions? Some women who entered have, but I can't find a single case where it's happened here. So this is a simply bogeyman. Same for the other examples... aside from onesies and twosies these are not widespread occurrences.
> 
> ...


Well, this line of politics has been refreshed and recycled throughout the years.

The Irish, the Italians,  the Chinese, Jamaicans,  Haitians, now people from the middle east. If it worked before why not now?


----------



## Jed (12 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I meant "undesirables" in a sarcastic sense, in that this proposal is mostly an anti-muslim screening process in a similar vein to many historical ones. It was not a literal. I have noted several times with sources stating that we ALREADY screen and do values/history/institutional testing and have a standard.
> 
> How many people in Canada have suffered from illegal circumcisions? Some women who entered have, but I can't find a single case where it's happened here. So this is a simply bogeyman. Same for the other examples... aside from onesies and twosies these are not widespread occurrences.
> 
> ...



This is just ridiculous.  It is an extreme stretch to associate / compare Hutterite colonies with Muslim enclaves around the world.  For the most part these colonies that are numerous throughout Canada function well within our Canadian laws and norms.

You could talk about Dukabors possibly, but eventually they have assimilated with the rest of the Canadian Society.

Could it be that the reason that Muslim peoples seem to be coming to the forefront in Societies concerns is because their religion eventually demands they force their practises on their neighbours and is totally intolerant of any other peoples way of life?

There have not been very many other peoples that strap on bombs to their feeble minded, and women and children on a regular basis and send them in to slaughter innocents.

You sound like an Extremist Muslim appeaser.  Is it too much to ask people to at least acknowledge a countries Laws and cultural norms?


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Sep 2016)

:goodpost:  on the whole


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Sep 2016)

Remember, if someone can't argue directly on the topic, they can just accuse you of racism to try to win the argument.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Sep 2016)

[quote author=Altair]
Well, this line of politics has been refreshed and recycled throughout the years.

The Irish, the Italians,  the Chinese, Jamaicans,  Haitians, now people from the middle east. If it worked before why not now?
[/quote]

I know. I don't even know why people are getting upset. Remember the crusades? Exactly. Plus people die every day from car accidents and stuff like that, people are just being racist.  There's no difference between what happened with the Irish and Italians with what's happening today world wide with Islam.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Remember, if someone can't argue directly on the topic, they can just accuse you of racism to try to win the argument.


Yup, but that must be a strawman





			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Look at any study which shows how many deaths are attributed to terrorism vs other ways of dying



32,658 people killed by terrorists around the world in 2014

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322308/Number-people-killed-terrorists-worldwide-soars-80-just-year.html#ixzz4K3mBA8Uq 

Almost 33,000 in one year. That's the reported ones and only one years statistics. If you think that's insignificant, I'll have to agree with Puckchaser this time.  There's not a lot we can do about medical diseases, industrial accidents, etc. However, stopping the slaughter of, mostly innocents, is something we can do something about. The perpetrators need killing. And that goes for wherever they are found.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Sep 2016)

You can craft screening so it doesn't disadvantage or unfairly target specific groups of people, or verifiable refugees. Economic immigrants, especially unskilled workers should be subject to enhanced screening to see if their values system is compatible with Canadian laws and societal norms. No one accuses Australia is racism for having tight controls on immigration.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2016)

What about 'polygamy'?

How many potential, perhaps actual, cases of Welfare Fraud are being carried out by polygamists now living in ghettos?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> This is just ridiculous.  It is an extreme stretch to associate / compare Hutterite colonies with Muslim enclaves around the world.  For the most part these colonies that are numerous throughout Canada function well within our Canadian laws and norms.
> 
> You could talk about Dukabors possibly, but eventually they have assimilated with the rest of the Canadian Society.
> 
> ...



Accusations and name calling are the lynch pin of politics in 2016, so you should probably keep that going. Grow up Peter Pan. Not all opinions have to fit neatly into A or B/Con or Lib categories. I'm not an appeaser of radical islam, I'm more anti racial profiling for immigration because I believe that western values and culture is better than it and have demonstrated how it is historically the precedent for Canada and the US. Whereas your arguments are based more on your feelings

You've heard of the crusades right? You know the biggest Canadian terrorist attack was by Sikhs right? The current practice for citizenship has a values based, history, and institutions based test that all have to pass. Like any other group of immigrants they'll settle in enclaves because of linguistic and cultural reasons, unless you've never noticed that Germans settled around Kitchener, Portuguese around Cambridge, Amish around St. Jacobs, Dutch around Ingersoll, etc etc. That doesn't mean that they're not assimilating. It means that they are initially more comfortable being around those that understand their socio-economic needs. Like when westerners move to other countries and settle in enclaves.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Sep 2016)

[quote author=Jed]

*Could it be that the reason that Muslim peoples seem to be coming to the forefront in Societies concerns is because their religion eventually demands they force their practises on their neighbours and is totally intolerant of any other peoples way of life?*

There have not been very many other peoples that strap on bombs to their feeble minded, and women and children on a regular basis and send them in to slaughter innocents.

You sound like an Extremist Muslim appeaser.  Is it too much to ask people to at least acknowledge a countries Laws and cultural norms?

[/quote]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEm4xuBhqg


> What do you do when someone is Muslim and they want out of Islam? You kill them. You have to kill them, do you understand?  The judgement for adultery? Stone him until he dies.  Transgender or gay? Kill them. Throw them from the highest place



This was posted a few weeks ago. Not from Raqqa but apparently from a school in the UK. We would be naive to think this isn't happening in Canada as we speak.


----------



## mariomike (12 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What about 'polygamy'?
> 
> How many potential, perhaps actual, cases of Welfare Fraud are being carried out by polygamists now living in ghettos?



I remember a funny thing on Bill Maher's show about that, "Would you rather be the second or third wife of Mel Gibson or the only wife of Willard Scott?”.

A lady replied, "If it comes to Mel Gibson, I wouldn’t care if I was one, two, or three.” 

This was 20 years ago, so today I suppose we could substitute Matt Damon for Gibson. The principle remains the same.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I know. I don't even know why people are getting upset. Remember the crusades? Exactly. Plus people die every day from car accidents and stuff like that, people are just being racist.  There's no difference between what happened with the Irish and Italians with what's happening today world wide with Islam.



Strange, I don't remember the Irish or Italians flying planes into buildings, or slaughtering whole villages after subjugating all the females, or using poison gas against civilians or inhumane ways of killing people by fire, beheading and stoning.

Is it racist to want to stop these animals? Is it unfortunate that the vast majority of these terrorists are muslim, but were we racist when we took on the Kaiser in WWI or the Axis in WWII? No, they were a threat to world peace and the government of the times decided to kick their ass and kill them into submission. During that time, immigration of the people considered the enemy was halted. It seems to have worked fine. What's changed?

The Crusades were centuries ago and most of humanity has moved on and evolved. People keep bringing it up, but it's pointless.

To reiterate what Puckchaser alluded to, the words racist, xenophobe, islamophobe, and all the other buzzword phobes are designed to limit, or end, discussion when you have exhausted your standpoint without being right or not having the facts to rebutt intellectually.


----------



## Jed (12 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Accusations and name calling are the lynch pin of politics in 2016, so you should probably keep that going. Grow up Peter Pan. Not all opinions have to fit neatly into A or B/Con or Lib categories. I'm not an appeaser of radical islam, I'm more anti racial profiling for immigration because I believe that western values and culture is better than it and have demonstrated how it is historically the precedent for Canada and the US. Whereas your arguments are based more on your feelings
> 
> You've heard of the crusades right? You know the biggest Canadian terrorist attack was by Sikhs right? The current practice for citizenship has a values based, history, and institutions based test that all have to pass. Like any other group of immigrants they'll settle in enclaves because of linguistic and cultural reasons, unless you've never noticed that Germans settled around Kitchener, Portuguese around Cambridge, Amish around St. Jacobs, Dutch around Ingersoll, etc etc. That doesn't mean that they're not assimilating. It means that they are initially more comfortable being around those that understand their socio-economic needs. Like when westerners move to other countries and settle in enclaves.



Looks like you are doing the name calling, but It doesn't bother me as long as you smile when you say it.  [

The whole world is racist. It has been forever.  The extent of racism is the issue.  Not one single person is without some bias.  It is how it is dealt with both individually and as a group that makes the difference.

I've been around a bit too and observed human nature at its best and worst.  Am I a tad emotional about this issue? You bet I am.  It upsets me considerably to see our Country being dragged down in to a cesspool due to people not speaking their mind or using any common sense.  It upsets me to see politicians of all stripes act dishonourably and suck in all sorts of useful idiots.

I have first hand experience with several of your 'enclaves' around the world and in Canada. I will take Canadian 'enclaves' any day before what we see now around the world.

You are a soldier. Stand up and help defend your country from obvious harmful individuals and / or cultural practises.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I remember a funny thing on Bill Maher's show about that, "Would you rather be the second or third wife of Mel Gibson or the only wife of Willard Scott?”.
> 
> A lady replied, "If it comes to Mel Gibson, I wouldn’t care if I was one, two, or three.”
> 
> This was 20 years ago, so today I suppose we could substitute Matt Damon for Gibson. The principle remains the same.



However, we have Laws against "Human Trafficing"...... >


----------



## mariomike (12 Sep 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The free city of Toronto has already allowed muslim only housing, refusing to let anyone else rent there, even though it's illegal to discriminate against them.



More on that,

Toronto city councillor says Muslim-only subsidized housing is acceptable
http://globalnews.ca/news/2187517/toronto-city-councillor-says-muslim-only-subsidized-housing-is-acceptable/
TORONTO — A Toronto city councillor says a provision that allows only Ahmadiyya Muslims access to a city-subsidized apartment building is not unfair.

“We want people to live in a culturally-appropriate setting,” said Councillor Joe Cressy, of Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> The whole world is racist. It has been forever.  The extent of racism is the issue.



Actually, I would say that it more human nature to be "BIASED" as opposed to "RACIST".  It is human nature to be suspicious of something new/unusual and be biased against it.  Once it has become a "known" the bias is usually gone.  "Racists" do not change their views.  Therefore, in your argument, I would suggest you substitute "biased" for "racist"......Which changes the whole message you are sending.


----------



## Jed (12 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, I would say that it more human nature to be "BIASED" as opposed to "RACIST".  It is human nature to be suspicious of something new/unusual and be biased against it.  Once it has become a "known" the bias is usually gone.  "Racists" do not change their views.  Therefore, in your argument, I would suggest you substitute "biased" for "racist"......Which changes the whole message you are sending.



OK George, but when does BIAS morph into RACISM ?


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> OK George, but when does BIAS morph into RACISM ?



As I stated,  





> "Racists" do not change their views.


----------



## mariomike (12 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> However, we have Laws against "Human Trafficing"...... >



True. But, perhaps most women benefit from polygamy, and most men benefit from monogamy?

George Bernard Shaw said, “The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first rate man to the exclusive possession of a third rate one.”


----------



## Jed (12 Sep 2016)

I got that George but there is a time element to the change.  Many people assume RACIST when basically it is just BIAS not yet evolved.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> True. But, perhaps most women benefit from polygamy, and most men benefit from monogamy?
> 
> George Bernard Shaw said, “The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first rate man to the exclusive possession of a third rate one.”



However, when we bring monetary gain into the picture, it could be construed as "Prostitution", could it not?


----------



## mariomike (12 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> However, when we bring monetary gain into the picture, it could be construed as "Prostitution", could it not?



Other than buying breakfast, Alpha males get it for free.  

For the others, "Chant your a$$ off kid, but, any _ _ _ _ _  you get in this world, you gonna have to pay for, one way or another."
The Last Detail.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You can craft screening so it doesn't disadvantage or unfairly target specific groups of people ...


Like Roman Catholics opposing same-sex marriage or Orthodox Jews insisting on their women being covered wanting to move to Canada?


----------



## Altair (12 Sep 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Like Roman Catholics opposing same-sex marriage or Orthodox Jews insisting on their women being covered wanting to move to Canada?


For some weird, unidentifiable reason, I doubt those groups are the target of this anti Canadian values talk.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> For some weird, unidentifiable reason, I doubt those groups are the target of this anti Canadian values talk.


Maybe, but if they answer the questions (of the day, anyway) incorrectly (no, I don't support same-sex marriage -- yes, my woman should be covered) = here's your hat, what's your hurry? #CollateralDamage


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> For some weird, unidentifiable reason, I doubt those groups are the target of this anti Canadian values talk.



Racism. That's why.  Nothing to do with the gratuitous amounts of violence being pumped out in the name of Islam everybday,  just  white Conservatives being racist that's all.


----------



## Altair (12 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Racism. That's why.  Nothing to do with the gratuitous amounts of violence being pumped out in the name of Islam everybday,  just  white Conservatives being racist that's all.


I don't think that's it, but if you believe that I feel bad for you.


----------



## Altair (12 Sep 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Maybe, but if they answer the questions (of the day, anyway) incorrectly (no, I don't support same-sex marriage -- yes, my woman should be covered) = here's your hat, what's your hurry?


Hahaha,  if that's the case I say go for it.

If other intolerant religious groups get sacked up in this dragnet all the better 

I change my mind, I'm all for this. Go kellie.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Sep 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yup, but that must be a strawman
> 32,658 people killed by terrorists around the world in 2014
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322308/Number-people-killed-terrorists-worldwide-soars-80-just-year.html#ixzz4K3mBA8Uq
> ...



 : Stating you're being called a racist as an excuse to not have to justify your argument is foolish and is a strawman. I never said you were racist, I said I disagreed with you. I stated that the request to add more anti-values screening was thinly veiled xenophobia, as I believe it is since it serves no actual purpose but plays to people's base fears. 

Since 2001, there have been 3380 US citizens killed by terrorists, including the 2990 killed on 9/11. The vast majority of the deaths, even stated in your article, are from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Nigeria, which makes sense since these nations are in open conflict against terrorist groups. Your numbers make no sense in a Canadian context, unless you are trying to demonstrate that there are many victims of terrorism who may want to come to Canada. In which case, we should continue to vet those people (since we do already) and allow entry to those who meet our standards (which we already do). Fun fact, if you read the two links there have been way more deaths attributed to good only fashion shooting deaths and toddlers. Throwing "terrorist" out is just a way of playing to peoples fears for your own gain (a la Donald Trump).

In the attached link, you'll see that terrorist attacks in Europe and the US are less frequent than in 1979. The majority of those attacks are from non-muslim groups, including the "Earth Liberation Front" which accounts for most of the attacks in Florida.

That is all to say that your number, while accurate, is disingenuous for Canada to say the least.

http://qz.com/558597/charted-terror-attacks-in-western-europe-from-the-1970s-to-now/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/16/eight-facts-about-terrorism-in-the-united-states

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

North America is by far the most secure area of the nation.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Looks like you are doing the name calling, but It doesn't bother me as long as you smile when you say it.  [
> 
> The whole world is racist. It has been forever.  The extent of racism is the issue.  Not one single person is without some bias.  It is how it is dealt with both individually and as a group that makes the difference.
> 
> ...



Name calling... sure. You said I was a radical islam apologist, but I'm the name caller. Back to grown up matters... 

As for, "It upsets me considerably to see our Country being dragged down in to a cesspool due to people not speaking their mind or using any common sense.  It upsets me to see politicians of all stripes act dishonourably and suck in all sorts of useful idiots." This is why I am beginning to reconsider my lifelong record of voting conservative. Adding a "Canadian values list" is counter productive, gives ammo for actual terrorists to use, and doesn't even provide a useful defence against anyone coming into the country. If they want in they're just going to answer the questions how the system wants them to be answered. We have immigration and legal precedents and procedures in place to deal with all of these agendas.

Finally, your last bit. I'm actually deploying to Op IMPACT (not Kuwait) in the very very near future so lets get off of soap boxes. And I believe I am defending my country from harmful individuals and practices... I don't believe that spreading fear and placing additional restrictions on certain religions or people (lets be honest- this is aimed at muslims, clear and simple) is in line with Canadian values, and I believe that people like Leitsch put Canada at more risk since they fuel hate for Canada in the muslim world. The fact that it was brought up also seems to indicate that Mrs Leitsch doesn't actually understand how the immigration system works, since we already screen.

Some muslims are extremists and need to be screened out. The vast majority aren't. We have systems already in place for that, which, based on the fact that we've had no terrorist attacks from people born outside of Canada and rare instances of "barbaric cultural practices", would seem to be effective. Adding another pointless beaurocratic layer is stupid, full stop.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Sep 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Like Roman Catholics opposing same-sex marriage or Orthodox Jews insisting on their women being covered wanting to move to Canada?


I don't mind the hijab, as long as the face is uncovered. By that logic, we should boot out the Amish. RCs oppose, but don't advocate stoning LGBT people. If they did, they shouldn't be welcome in Canada either.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't mind the hijab, as long as the face is uncovered. By that logic, we should boot out the Amish. RCs oppose, but don't advocate stoning LGBT people. If they did, they shouldn't be welcome in Canada either.


But we'd be asking about _values_ (beliefs), not _potential behaviour_ - see how messy it gets?

Just saying that asking these kinds of questions about what people think could pull in all kinds of collateral damage we don't see right away.


----------



## CougarKing (12 Sep 2016)

Ouch. I hope this isn't final.

Canadian Press



> *Peter MacKay not running for Conservative Party leader*
> Canadian Press
> 
> 1 hour ago
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Sep 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> But we'd be asking about _values_ (beliefs), not _potential behaviour_ - see how messy it gets?
> 
> Just saying that asking these kinds of questions about what people think could pull in all kinds of collateral damage we don't see right away.


We've got about 10 pages on a simple survey question, with people assuming all sorts of things. I think we should wait and let Leitch explain how she wants to do go about this, instead of trotting out the racism card (definitely not directed at you). There's a million ways to skin this, some are wrong, others could make this a better country to live in for our kids.

We have psychologists weeding out unstable people from LEO/CAF jobs using personality profiles. Is that racist, or making sure the right people are compatible with the environment they want to go to?


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We've got about 10 pages on a simple survey question, with people assuming all sorts of things. I think we should wait and let Leitch explain how she wants to do go about this, instead of trotting out the racism card (definitely not directed at you). There's a million ways to skin this, some are wrong, others could make this a better country to live in for our kids.


Even though all we have so far is what's been written down, fair enough.  I do look forward to hearing more from Leitch on this, even if I'm still leery about the principle of governments screening folks based on what they _think/believe_.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We have psychologists weeding out unstable people from LEO/CAF jobs using personality profiles. Is that racist, or making sure the right people are compatible with the environment they want to go to?


Maybe THAT's more of something closer to what might be considered, given that (with some caveats) psych/personality testing may spot _instability_, which _may_ be more worrisome than _beliefs_.  Then again, we'd also have to be careful with that, given psychiatry's history with some governments.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Sep 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Maybe THAT's more of something closer to what might be considered, given that (with some caveats) psych/personality testing may spot _instability_, which _may_ be more worrisome than _beliefs_.  Then again, we'd also have to be careful with that, given psychiatry's history with some governments.



Could use this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory

While painful to complete, various agencies use it to weed out unstable people. Non-popular beliefs aren't a bad thing if that individual doesn't hold violent or oppressive personality traits. No test is perfect, but if it keeps one terrorist/child abuser/spousal abuser out of the country (or from doing harm here), then do we not owe it to our population to do all we can to protect them?


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Sep 2016)

One of the retired Chiefs at work has a nephew at St Jean.  Lots of headaches with the quality of recruits coming through.  One of them even has Tourette's, that must be interesting to say the least.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... Non-popular beliefs aren't a bad thing if that individual doesn't hold violent or oppressive personality traits ...


If you disagree with x, but not f**k people over or break the law because they're x, maybe, indeed.


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... if it keeps one terrorist/child abuser/spousal abuser out of the country (or from doing harm here), then do we not owe it to our population to do all we can to protect them?


Careful - some folks might not like that approach for the same reason they don't like it for gun control  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> One of the retired Chiefs at work has a nephew at St Jean.  Lots of headaches with the quality of recruits coming through.  One of them even has Tourette's, that must be interesting to say the least.



Well.....It will not be the first time that we have had pers who have had "speech impediments"......and some of them holding high ranking positions....... [


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Sep 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If you disagree with x, but not f**k people over or break the law because they're x, maybe, indeed.Careful - some folks might not like that approach for the same reason they don't like it for gun control  ;D



Could apply the same thing to alcohol, cars, skydiving...


----------



## Jed (12 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Name calling... sure. You said I was a radical islam apologist, but I'm the name caller. Back to grown up matters...
> 
> As for, "It upsets me considerably to see our Country being dragged down in to a cesspool due to people not speaking their mind or using any common sense.  It upsets me to see politicians of all stripes act dishonourably and suck in all sorts of useful idiots." This is why I am beginning to reconsider my lifelong record of voting conservative. Adding a "Canadian values list" is counter productive, gives ammo for actual terrorists to use, and doesn't even provide a useful defence against anyone coming into the country. If they want in they're just going to answer the questions how the system wants them to be answered. We have immigration and legal precedents and procedures in place to deal with all of these agendas.
> 
> ...



Point 1. I did not say you were a radical Islam apologist.  I said " You were sounding like an extremist Muslim apologist"  There is a difference.  I meant no offence by my words, so sorry about that.  I am tired of this axis of approach that seems to come from every Main Stream Media outlet and left leaning journalist.

Point 2.  I disagree with this approach. I view it as appeasement; which I vehemently disagree with.

Point 3. I have no axe to grind with other peoples cultures and religions until it starts to impact people I care about. I have many  Muslim friends, and Jewish friends, and Atheist friends.  I feel that I try to be open and honest with all but I don't generally  pick verbal fights. It is easier when you have mutual trust and respect built up over the years.

Point 4.  Not much additional bureaucracy is required to state your Country's case to incoming peoples and at least it gives incoming folks fair warning.   Sure they most likely will just say what they want you to hear but at least someone would be able to remind them  of what is right and wrong if and when things go pear shaped.


Good for you going on a deployment, I'm sure it will be good for you and those you work with.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Sep 2016)

As much as I'd like to see MacKay in 2019, he's smart to consider the next round.  I'd be paying attention to my young family too.  Good on him for putting them first at such a critical point in their life.

G2G


----------



## Lightguns (13 Sep 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As much as I'd like to see MacKay in 2019, he's smart to consider the next round.  I'd be paying attention to my young family too.  Good on him for putting them first at such a critical point in their life.
> 
> G2G



My thinking is that he feels the cons cannot win in 2019 and he is waiting for the sure win.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> My thinking is that he feels the cons cannot win in 2019 and he is waiting for the sure win.



Agreed I would say he runs in the election after 2015.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> My thinking is that he feels the cons cannot win in 2019 and he is waiting for the sure win.



That is probably also true, and pragmatically (and as a rugby player thinking that maybe the LPC for now is like the All Blacks), it makes sense, but I do believe that, that notwithstanding, he very much wants to have his privacy with his family for the next 4-6 years.  :nod:


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Sep 2016)

[quote author=Jed]

Point 3. I have no axe to grind with other peoples cultures and religions until it starts to impact people I care about. I have many  Muslim friends, and Jewish friends, and Atheist friends.  I feel that I try to be open and honest with all but I don't generally  pick verbal fights. It is easier when you have mutual trust and respect built up over the years.[/quote]

It's fun for people to bring up the Crusades and a dozen other historical examples of cases where non-islamic radicals were assholes but unless it's something happening in the last 10 or 20 years it's not really relevant to the state of the worlds security TODAY.

Romans were assholes, who cares, I'm worried about my family today and it's not the Romans who are going to blow up markets or attack me for saying hello to someone.   




> Point 4.  Not much additional bureaucracy is required to state your Country's case to incoming peoples and at least it gives incoming folks fair warning.   Sure they most likely will just say what they want you to hear but at least someone would be able to remind them  of what is right and wrong if and when things go pear shaped.




The new Canada.
*Trudeau salutes the “sisters upstairs” at gender segregated mosque *
 http://www.speakingnews.net/trudeau-salutes-the-sisters-upstairs-at-gender-segregated-mosque-the-rebel


> *Justin Trudeau skipped any 9/11 memorials* marking the 15th anniversary of the horrific terrorist attacks that killed thousands of people including twenty-six Canadians *but on September 12th he was at the Ottawa Mosque to celebrate the end of the Hajj*, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.
> 
> *While there, he spoke about Canadian values, including equality, even as men and women were completely segregated inside the mosque with men on the main floor, women upstairs*, something Trudeau even alluded to.
> 
> ...



Maybe we should be careful what we wish for when we start talking about "Canadian values" if they're anything like our leaders.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe we should be careful what we wish for when we start talking about "Canadian values" if they're anything like our leaders.


You see how everyone likes values being tested when it's values they agree with, but not so much if it's values they don't like?


----------



## Jed (13 Sep 2016)

Well, I am not really a 'dyed in the wool' any specific party type of person. My voting allegiance can, and has been changed throughout my 40 plus years  of casting a vote.  

Today, however; there is no way that I could envisage casting a vote for the Federal Liberal Party under the tutelage of JT Jr. and the backroom elites pulling his strings.

I predict this leadership team is going to pull our great Country apart just as disastrously as the Democrats under the Obama team have pulled apart our staunchest Allie, the USA. (Too be fair it is not solely the Democrat team's fault but they seem to specialize in divisive Red Herring  tactics with respect to Occupy  ___ movements,  BLM,  lack of support for the Laws of the Land, Police officers and the Military).

If JT Jr. and the backroom elites continue in this vein, imitating Democrat Party processes, it won't be long before the specter of Western Separation or Quebec Separation issues are back on the table. The Country I'm sure can weather 4 years of this inane administration but I'm not sure if it could take 8 years, ala the Obama administration to the south of us.

With that said, I believe it is imperative that the Conservative Party find an honourable, principled and effective Leader to lead the fight against this current disastrous leadership that our Country currently has sooner than later.  A second Liberal majority will deeply fracture our Country.

Needless to say, this is my personal opinion, for what it is worth.


----------



## Lightguns (13 Sep 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That is probably also true, and pragmatically (and as a rugby player thinking that maybe the LPC for now is like the All Blacks), it makes sense, but I do believe that, that notwithstanding, he very much wants to have his privacy with his family for the next 4-6 years.  :nod:



He is a progressive, this is how progressives see the world.  Example; the latest progressive entertainment is a movie about Nat Turner's Slave Revolt, it fails to even mention one of the 31 white children hacked to death by Nat and boys but shows the a "Glory" of the freedom fighters and the greed on white soldiers hunting the poor freedom fighters down.  Ameristan is balkanizing and becoming the very banana republics that it once despised but so are we.  Progressives are a cancer on the nation.


----------



## mariomike (13 Sep 2016)

Sep 13, 2016 

"The announcement on Tuesday followed speculation on social media that the former Toronto city councillor would declare his intention to join the race for the federal Conservative party leadership."
http://www.680news.com/2016/09/13/no-one-going-untouched-doug-ford-tell-book/

Doug had this to say about that, today,
https://www.instagram.com/p/BKTK-fmA7Nq/

Canada's "Trump Lite"?


----------



## a_majoor (13 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Sep 13, 2016
> 
> "The announcement on Tuesday followed speculation on social media that the former Toronto city councillor would declare his intention to join the race for the federal Conservative party leadership."
> http://www.680news.com/2016/09/13/no-one-going-untouched-doug-ford-tell-book/
> ...



The conditions for a Trump or Marnie Le Pen are out there in Canada. It is much like those forests which were aggressively managed for 50 years to prevent forest fires; they are full of dead branches and other tinder which fuels much greater fires than would have happened otherwise. Because our particular conditions are different from France or the United States, the particulars of a "Canadian Trump" will also be different (I personally would expect someone with more business/media connections like Kevin O'Leary), but don't doubt it will come.


----------



## mariomike (15 Sep 2016)

For any Ford Nation "folks" who could not make Ford Fest 2016, a few highlights,

Doug "Future Premier Canada", Randy ( black cowboy hat ) Renata, Doug Ford the Third ( That's weird...better not go there. ), Mike Stirpe  Ford ( always sounds like he's on Helium ), no sign of Kathy - no surprise, Kenny Neville, Penny M., Councillor Mammoliti, Mr. Cho said a few kind words, etc... What a crowd!
https://vimeo.com/182252449

Penny M., "John Tory was like ISIS coming to Toronto."
https://vimeo.com/110287800


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2016)

Another name into the growing leadership stew pot?


> Former immigration minister Chris Alexander is expected to join the race for the federal Conservative leadership.
> 
> A source with close knowledge of the race confirms Alexander is gathering the necessary signatures and financial support and building a team for a run.
> 
> The source says his campaign is expected to focus on foreign policy and the economy ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Oct 2016)

The latest:  Tony Clement drops out ...


> Conservative leadership contender Tony Clement is dropping out of the race to replace Stephen Harper.
> 
> The Ontario MP said his campaign didn't raise enough money to meet the "financial realities of this race."
> 
> "I set for myself a series of benchmarks that I believed were necessary to achieve, by the fall, to ensure I had a viable chance of success," he said in a note to campaign supporters. "Unfortunately, we did not achieve those milestones to my satisfaction." ...


... while Chris Alexander (pretty much) confirms he's in:


> Former immigration minister Chris Alexander has confirmed he plans to run for the Conservative leadership and that a key plank of his campaign will be a proposal to sharply increase the intake of immigrants to 400,000 every year, including 40,000 refugees, because “this is a core value for me and for Canada.”
> 
> Although not yet officially a candidate, the McGill and Oxford graduate said the paperwork would be completed within the next week or two. After that he intends to undertake a cross-country journey by car to the West Coast, “stopping in every place we can where we have an invitation, to speak with groups, large and small, of Conservatives and potential Conservatives.”
> 
> Alexander expressed concern about leadership hopeful Kelly Leitch’s controversial proposal to vet prospective immigrants and reject them if they did not share “Canadian values.” ...


----------



## ballz (15 Oct 2016)

Well that changes things, but the day before that news, this poll had Maxime Bernier out front with Tony Clement slightly behind. Maxime Bernier was the 1st or 2nd choice for 22% of people.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/10/12/federal-conservative-leadership-race-wide-open-poll-suggests.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Oct 2016)

It's _official_ official now ...


> Ontario MP Kellie Leitch officially launched her campaign to become the next federal Conservative Party leader on Saturday, continuing to talk about the importance of what she terms Canadian values.
> 
> Leitch made the announcement in Collingwood, Ont., which is in her Simcoe-Grey riding ...


... while the Tories juggle critic positions as hats get thrown into the ring:


> Rona Ambrose, Leader of the Official Opposition and Interim Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, (Sunday) announced changes to the Shadow Cabinet.
> 
> “The race for the leadership of the Conservative Party is growing, both in the number of candidates, and in excitement about their ideas for the future of our party and our country. Recently, a number of Shadow Cabinet members have stepped away from their critic roles to join this historic contest. I want to wish Steven Blaney, Erin O’Toole and Lisa Raitt the best of luck as they pursue this next step, and I thank them for their service to our Caucus and Shadow Cabinet since November of last year. I also want to welcome back Tony Clement to the Shadow Cabinet, and thank him for his willingness to serve.”
> 
> “As well, I want to thank Members of Parliament John Brassard, Alupa Clarke, Gerard Deltell, Phil McColeman, Pierre Poilievre and Alain Rayes for agreeing to serve in new roles in the Shadow Cabinet. I look forward to working with them and the entire Caucus to hold this Liberal government to account over the coming days and weeks.”


New "who's critic of what?" list attached.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Oct 2016)

Bracketing fire around the base?


> *Quebec MP Steven Blaney is running for leadership of the Conservative Party, and his first major policy position is a ban on the niqab and a promise to invoke the notwithstanding clause if courts strike down his new measures.*
> 
> The former minister in the cabinet of Stephen Harper said he will introduce legislation that would forbid the Islamic face-covering while voting and taking the oath of citizenship. He also said that the prohibition would extend to people working in the federal public service.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2016)

A couple of updates:

_*"'I'm in your corner': (Lisa) Raitt launches Conservative leadership bid"*_
_*"Conservative party elder statesman Peter MacKay says he won’t endorse any Tory leadership candidate, but argues likability is important for the next leader and cautions that identity politics pushed by some hopefuls is “a swamp” the party should avoid ..."*_


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Nov 2016)

Well, so much for "the motive hasn't been determined yet" ...


> The Kellie Leitch campaign is taking steps to be certain of the safety of the Conservative Party leadership candidate after a weekend incident at her home prompted calls to police.
> 
> The Ontario Provincial Police visited Leitch’s home near Creemore, Ont., on Friday and twice early Saturday morning after what Leitch believed was an after-midnight break-in to her garage, an event that came hours after what she described as threatening online activity.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2016)

"Feed the base, feed the base!" - highlights mine ...


> Federal Conservative leadership hopeful Chris Alexander says he didn’t stop a crowd calling for Alberta Premier Rachel Notley to be locked up because politicians need to listen to constituents.
> 
> The former immigration minister was speaking at a rally against the provincial NDPs’ planned carbon tax Saturday when protesters began the “Lock her up” chant popularized during president-elect Donald Trump’s campaign.
> 
> ...


Gotta remember that if I hear something I disagree with - my changing the subject will show my disagreement ...


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> "Feed the base, feed the base!" - highlights mine ...Gotta remember that if I hear something I disagree with - my changing the subject will show my disagreement ...



Yep.  In fact many people do that.  It is an avoidance mechanism.  I have sat in many rooms and heard many idiots spout off and not said a word.   And changed the subject....


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2016)

Meanwhile, the Council of European Canadians has picked its horse - for now, anyway -- shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> Immigration reformers, social conservatives and ethnic nationalists have been emboldened by Donald Trump's win in the United States, but we're still very much a target for politicians, the media, big business and academia here in Canada. Having an historic change next door doesn't insulate us from being carpet bombed by Social Justice Warriors, Cultural Marxists, Islamophiles, Immigration advocates or Big Business.
> 
> Indeed, if a political candidate with even some of our views dares to stick his or her head above ground, he or she is immediately attacked as a racist, fascist or worse.
> 
> ...


A bit about the Council ...


> European Canadians make up three-quarters of the Canadian population but there has been no group advocating our interests in the national dialogue.
> 
> The rise of special interest groups from other cultures and regions, and growing attacks on European concepts of law, liberty, economics and identity, now require a response.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (5 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, the Council of European Canadians has picked its horse - for now, anyway  . . .
> 
> A bit about the Council
> 
> ...



Okay, so this council portrays itself as a voice for Canadians of "European" descent.  Maybe perceptions have changed in the more than half century since I've been aware of my heritage, but back then those of us whose ancestors emigrated from the British Isles and Ireland did not consider ourselves of European descent, we were Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh or (if stuck-up) British.  Europeans were a lesser form, allies some or the former enemy, friendly in most cases and generally nothing wrong with them but lesser all the same.  I'm not sure that I would consider being lumped in with them that appealing.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2016)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Okay, so this council portrays itself as a voice for Canadians of "European" descent.  Maybe perceptions have changed in the more than half century since I've been aware of my heritage, but back then those of us whose ancestors emigrated from the British Isles and Ireland did not consider ourselves of European descent, we were Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh or (if stuck-up) British.  Europeans were a lesser form, allies some or the former enemy, friendly in most cases and generally nothing wrong with them but lesser all the same.  I'm not sure that I would consider being lumped in with them that appealing.



 :cheers:

No discrimination beyond the Channel.   [


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2016)

"Wogs start at Calais" is such a harsh phrase, right?  >


----------



## ballz (5 Dec 2016)

Meanwhile, while Kellie Leitch tries her best to rob the spotlight, my hope is that Maxime actually continues to have the most support...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-conservative-leadership-donors-1.3876575


> *Maxime Bernier's donor base is bigger and broader than Kellie Leitch's*
> _Quebec MP's distribution of donors gives him edge over Conservative leadership rivals_
> 
> The most recent set of fundraising data for the Conservative leadership race put Kellie Leitch narrowly ahead of Maxime Bernier in total dollars raised. But an analysis of where these contributions came from suggests Bernier has a bigger and broader base of national support within the party — and that puts him in a much better position to win than Leitch.
> ...



So...

90% of all Quebec donors, 71% of all the donors from Alberta, 68% of all the donors from BC, 82% of donors in the North, 65% of donors in the prairies, and 59% of donors in Atlantic Canada donated to Maxime. In Ontario, the home province for Kellie Leitch and Michael Chong, 40% of donors gave to Maxime.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> "Wogs start at Calais" is such a harsh phrase, right?  >



We do try to adjust with the times.   [


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Dec 2016)

Really?  Oh, my ...


> Reality TV star and businessman Kevin O’Leary landed in hot water Saturday over remarks he made about warriors and peacekeepers on an Ottawa radio show.
> 
> In a Friday segment on Ottawa radio station CFRA about Canadian options for helping Syria, O’Leary stressed that Canada is known for its peacekeeping.
> 
> ...


A bit more ...


> Conservative leadership hopeful and veteran Erin O’Toole has condemned comments made by “reality TV star and American resident” Kevin O’Leary about Canada’s military, calling them “disturbing” and insulting to all Canadian veterans.
> 
> Speaking during an interview on CFRA on Friday, O’Leary, a potential Conservative leadership candidate, said “there’s nothing proud about being a warrior.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (18 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> O’Toole said he finds O’Leary’s comments “disturbing” as a veteran, and “concerning” as a Conservative ...


...._and_  delusional, if he actually believes Syria will be stable any time within the next six months.  :stars:


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Dec 2016)

I'm pretty sure that the next Canadian Conservative Leader will be Trump:

Conrad Black: Donald Trump understands America in ways smug Canadians can’t

A pandemic of denial over the incoming president of the United States grips his Democratic opponents, and, like most American fads and traits, is as strong in Canada as anywhere. It is now five weeks since the election, and we have watched an unprecedentedly asinine sequence of delusional activities to cushion the conventional wisdom from the impact of the result. There was the recount, where the Green candidate, who garnered one per cent of the vote in the presidential election, rounded up over five million dollars from the Democrats to challenge the returns, where in Wisconsin approximately one vote was reduced from Trump’s margin of victory for every million dollars squandered in the recount. Even Jeb Bush, who spent over $200 million to garner seven per cent of the vote in Florida, where he had been a popular and  successful governor, achieved more with his backers’ money (while Donald Trump paid for his own nomination campaign and made almost as much from the sale of trinkets and t-shirts and silly hats to pay for his big sweep).
There were, we were darkly assured, going to be deep fissures and mortal wounds in the Republican Party. Party chairman Reince Priebus, at daggers’ drawn with the candidate, we were assured, will be his chief of staff. The previous presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, an irreconcilable opponent, recanted everything during his lengthy but unsuccessful audition for secretary of state. The president-elect named the wife of the Senate majority Leader, Mr. McConnell of Kentucky, who nine months ago had written Congressional colleagues that they would “drop (Trump) like a hot rock,” to his cabinet, to administer the renovation of decayed American infrastructure. Speaker Paul Ryan, who had scampered into the tall grass like a garter snake when the 11-year old Billy Bush tape was thrown into the hopper by the Clinton campaign, is beavering away with the Trump entourage to design and strategize the cyclonic legislative program that Trump has promised.
As there had never been any possible argument for the re-election of the Obama-Clinton Democrats, unlike the Eisenhower-Nixon Republicans in 1960, the Kennedy-Johnson Democrats in 1968, the Nixon-Ford Republicans in 1976, and the Clinton-Gore Democrats in 2000, all of whom lost their bid for a third term by a hair’s breadth (and it will never be known who really won the 1960 and 2000 elections), the entire Clinton campaign was a stentorian smear job on Trump, as, pre-eminently, a racist and a sexist. This has evaporated with his selection of high office-holders and his own general conduct. The whole Clinton campaign, in a phrase of Thornton Wilder, was “written on running water, written on air,” and it is a mnemonic and disagreeable feat to remember any of it.
Contrary to the wails of apprehension from the universal alarmist consensus, the transition process has been handled very smoothly and has produced widely admired candidates to fill the great offices of the United States government. The utter chaos that was predicted and expected to produce Don “Only in America” King as secretary of state and a particularly submissive and bosomy Miss Universe as White House chief of staff, has in fact put forward a universally respected four-star combat Marine general for the Pentagon, the first general to lead the Defense Department since the chairman of the Combined Allied Military Chiefs of World War II and author of the Marshall Plan, George C. Marshall, an uplifting precedent. Health-care reform, meaning without monopolistic insurance fiefdoms in each state, skyrocketing premiums, and seeking universal coverage with assured retention of existing doctor relationships, will be in the hands of the Congress’s principal authority in the field (Tom Price). Education will be in the hands of Betsy DeVos, a champion of chartered schools, who will lead the final charge against the Luddite, know-nothing corruption of the teachers’ unions, who have destroyed the state education systems and to whom the Democratic Party is tied hand-and-foot. The Labor secretary (Andy Puzder), is perfectly qualified to complete the liberation of the American working class from the despotism of organized labour, now reduced to less than seven per cent of the work force. And the designated head of the Environmental Protection Agency (Scott Pruitt), will fight pollution and support conservation tooth and nail, but will not imagine that a possible one centigrade degree rise in the world’s temperature in 80 years for unknown reasons justifies fuelling automobiles with pablum, making every roof a crystal palace of solar panels, foresting windmills in every under-built area, except where it might discommode the scenic panorama of the altruistic rich such as the detritus of the Kennedys at Cape Cod.
There are the usual fussings about confirmation processes — it is all atonal whistling past the graveyard which is about to receive for interment the much discussed legacy of the Obushtons — Obamas, Bushes, Clintons. Donald Trump is right to call his narrow and numerically minority victory a “landslide.” He ran against all the Republicans and all the Democrats, the hackneyed Bush-McCain-Romney also-rans, the Cruz loopy-right, the Clinton-Obama incumbency, and the Sanders left, almost all the Washington media and almost all the polls, and the entire pay-to-play casino of lobbyists in the great Washington sleaze factory. He stormed Babylon and put them all to fire and sword. There were stylistic lapses in the campaign to be sure, but they were almost all designed to pull out the Archie Bunker votes and win Trump the Republican nomination with the votes of millions of people who had not been in the habit of voting. Since the nomination, there were relatively few gaucheries, and since the election almost none.
Taxes, spending, education, environment, campaign finance reform, health care, trade, and immigration are all about to receive as swingeing a stroke as Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the economy in 1933, and Trump has the mandate and the congressional majorities to do it. And the Democrats are still grumbling about Russian influence in the election and the electoral college system, mindless of their fate as Trump drives a mighty bulldozer toward them at 60 miles per hour. And in Canada, in the same spirit as the CBC radio panel that two weeks ago felt Canada was necessary to advise him that not all of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims were at war with America, this week we had Lawrence Martin advise Brian Mulroney to “rein in” Trump, “protectionist, jingoistic, boorish, heapingly erratic” as he is. There is no dispute about Brian Mulroney’s diplomatic skills in dealing with the American presidents he’s known, and other world leaders, but he performed those feats as prime minister of a country that pulled its weight in the Western Alliance and contributed importantly to the satisfactory end of the Cold War.
Donald Trump does not need to be reined in. He has calculated every step of his campaign from the ridiculed dark horse of 18 months ago to the man who will be sworn as General George Washington’s 43rd direct successor in five weeks. To the extent any of Martin’s adjectives are applicable, it is just because Trump’s evaluation of tactical requirements makes them so. But Lawrence Martin actually warned the readers of The Globe and Mail on Tuesday that Michael Moore, the helter-skelter far left film-maker, torqued up by “Trumpian xenophobi(a),” had sounded the alarm that Trump has loaded his cabinet with “corporate-military statism … a fascist brew.” (Martin said pretty much the same thing about Ronald Reagan when he was Washington correspondent for the Globe 36 years ago.)
What mad national egotism, propelled by “arm-flapping moralism” (in the words of half-Canadian U.S. secretary of State Dean Acheson 60 years ago) propels Lawrence Martin to imagine that Canada has any standing to do anything but answer the phone if the White House calls. The Harper government, as it talked tough, allowed our armed forces to wither almost to the proportions of Slovenia or Costa Rica. Fortunately, Trump is not at all xenophobic, fascistic, racist or sexist. He is also not an advocate of “corporate-military-statism” any more than Harry Truman sought a government of haberdashers or Jimmy Carter one of peanut farmers. Trump saw that the U.S. system had become an anthill of corruption and hypocrisy and called it that. He promised to drain the swamp, and will do it; it will be a changed America in six months, and doubtless Lawrence Martin will ascribe it to Donald and Melania listening to the CBC each night in the White House. In this analysis, it is not the president-elect who has been sleepwalking through Fantasyland; he saw the American crisis plainly and launched one of history’s great democratic political movements to deal with it. The pure snowmen of the North plod cheerily on in Santa Lawrence Martin’s workshop, like happy elves incanting “High ho, high ho, there’s nothing about the U.S. we don’t know.” But there is.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-donald-trump-understands-america-in-ways-smug-canadians-cant


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Dec 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...._and_  delusional, if he actually believes Syria will be stable any time within the next six months.  :stars:



That was more like what I was thinking...unless of course the Donald and the shirtless Chevalier come to an agreement and divvy up SYR?


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Dec 2016)

Or worse, if he believes peacekeepers can be imposed against the wishes of the combatants, and their presence will cause both sides to lay down their arms.  :facepalm:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Dec 2016)

Foreign countries divvying up the area is how this whole mess started almost a hundred years ago now. I very much doubt that  foreign countries re-divvying it up now will help.

As for delusions, there are two more in Mr. O'Leary's speech that shows he is ignorant of Canada's position and actions in the world: (1) Other nations do not look upon Canada as a peacekeeping nation, at least not our allies and our enemies (and we have a few); and, (2) Canada deploying only peacekeepers in the future would be against our international obligations to many allies. 

I was going to add that he also doesn't seem to understand that the past successes of our soldiers in peacekeeping has always been linked to the fact that our soldiers were a highly trained and effective fighting military force, but that is something that everyone in Canada outside DND seems to be ignorant of any way.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Dec 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Or worse, if he believes peacekeepers can be imposed against the wishes of the combatants, and their presence will cause both sides to lay down their arms.  :facepalm:



Indeed, OS...because that's worked "well" in places like Croatia (Medak and Zadar), South Lebanon (PB Khiam), Rwanda and Somalia.

It briefs well in PowerPoint, though...


----------



## ballz (18 Dec 2016)

O'Leary's best contribution to the Conservative Party leadership race would be to bring as much attention to it as he can. His best contribution to the Canadian political scene in general would be to continue using his spotlight to shine light on government policies destroying business opportunities and wasteful government spending.

If he enters the race, he'll do more harm than good.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Dec 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Foreign countries divvying up the area is how this whole mess started almost a hundred years  a few millenia ago now. I very much doubt that  foreign countries re-divvying it up now will help.
> 
> ...



FTFY   :subbies:


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> FTFY   :subbies:




I think OGBD was referring specifically to Messer Sykes and Picot and their little effort. Actually, after the Romans, except for a very salutary visit by Genghis Khan's fellows about 1,000 years ago and the rather stumbling crusaders a few hundred years later, there wasn't much outside interference ... it was, mostly, one more or less local caliph after another, most inept and corrupt.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Dec 2016)

Bazinga!


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Dec 2016)

Sounds good now, but we'll have to see ...


> Conservative leadership candidate Erin O’Toole announced his veterans policy Tuesday — and among his promises is a pledge to “immediately drop” the legal effort commenced by the Harper government and revived by the Trudeau government to block a class-action lawsuit by veterans seeking a return to lifetime disability pensions.
> 
> A former veterans minister in the Stephen Harper government, O’Toole negotiated a ceasefire with veterans suing the then-Conservative government over Ottawa’s decision to replace lifetime pensions with lump-sum payments. That truce expired in May 2016 and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made it clear he would continue the challenge to the lawsuit despite promising to restore lifelong pensions as an option for injured veterans.
> 
> The case, known as the Equitas lawsuit, was filed in the B.C. Supreme Court in October 2012 by six veterans who argued modern soldiers were not getting the same level of support as those who fought in past wars ...


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Dec 2016)

Even if Erin doesn't win, he's forcing the hand of the other leadership candidates who will have to take a stand on this issue. Good for him for bringing it back out into the open.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jan 2017)

More from the fight ...


> The gloves are finally off in the federal Conservative race, with Lisa Raitt tossing blows Wednesday that she hopes will knock out both Kevin O’Leary and Kellie Leitch.
> 
> To Raitt, the blustery hyperbole-addicted O’Leary and the arguably race-baiting Leitch represent the type of politics that are so “irresponsible, divisive and negative” that they do not belong in a leadership campaign.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jan 2017)

I don't know who Lisa Raitt is. 

Kellie Leitch strikes me as fake and an opportunist. I think her whole "pepper spray for Women" was bullshit and I know of people who approached her in the past to ask about womens self-defense (pre pepper spray story) and Kellie popped smoke.

Erin has went on the record to say he's going to look into revamping our stupid and unfair firearm laws which is pretty cool.

Kevin seems like a reality TV star who has said some massively stupid things. His _not warriors_ comment probably gave Trudeau a boner.


With Rick Hillier and Mike Bobbitt not in the running I'd vote for Erin.


----------



## mariomike (4 Jan 2017)

What about Ford Nation? #df4pm

"Two brothers - one vision".


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Jan 2017)

I'm with Jarnhammer!!

Mike Bobbit for PM!!!

 ;D


----------



## ballz (4 Jan 2017)

O'Leary is just hogging attention and I believe will eventually endorse Maxime Bernier. He practically already did.

I'm pretty surprised only one person dropped out at the 50k deadline... with one jumping in last minute I believe its still at 14.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jan 2017)

I like Kellie Leitch. She's the only one so far that has taken a stand on things. She's been fleshing out her policies. She's resonating with blue collar Canadian taxpayers. I also like being told the truth, which I haven't been feeling from anyone else. All I hear from her opponents is the same tired platitudes that every politician trots out when they have nothing to talk about.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jan 2017)

Maxime Bernier lost it in my books years ago, even before he put his name in the hat.  Taking Classified documents home, and living with a woman/biker chick with known Biker Club connections, then having all that widely publicized told me that he has no concept of national security.  But, we have seen worse; some very much worse.


----------



## cavalryman (4 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> But, we have seen worse; some very much worse.


Yep.  One almost became POTUS.  [:'(


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jan 2017)

Well....Just saw my first ATTACK AD......Lisa Raitt is attacking two candidates for the Leadership.....Kelly Leitch and the yet to declare Kevin O'Leary.......Insinuating that they are of the same ilk as Donald Trump.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well....Just saw my first ATTACK AD......Lisa Raitt is attacking two candidates for the Leadership.....Kelly Leitch and the yet to declare Kevin O'Leary.......*Insinuating that they are of the same ilk as Donald Trump*.


You mean the guy who won the US Election by appealing to the people, smashing the status quo and riding a bow wave of pent up anger against years of extremist left wing social ideology?

Sign me up to Kelly Leitch then!  (Since Mr O'Leary has yet to declare)


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jan 2017)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> You mean the guy who won the US Election by appealing to the people, smashing the status quo and riding a bow wave of pent up anger against years of extremist left wing social ideology?
> 
> Sign me up to Kelly Leitch then!  (Since Mr O'Leary has yet to declare)



But according to polls Trump only had a 1% chance of winning lol


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Jan 2017)

I'm disappointed that Michelle Rempel doesn't seem to be interested in taking a run at it.  She seems to get us common folks, and isn't afraid to fart in church if it's necessary.


----------



## ballz (4 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Maxime Bernier lost it in my books years ago, even before he put his name in the hat.  Taking Classified documents home, and living with a woman/biker chick with known Biker Club connections, then having all that widely publicized told me that he has no concept of national security.  But, we have seen worse; some very much worse.



Actually, she hadn't had any known connections to biker gangs for 10 years prior to meeting Maxime. It is entirely possible that he didn't know. And I doubt he's the only politician to bring paperwork home, he was just unfortunate enough to be dating a vengeful woman, happens to the best of us. But he admitted his mistake, resigned, and to this day admits he made a mistake. One mistake in a 10 year political career, and he owns up to it like a man and carries on. But, 9 years later, people still want to use that incident of all things.

I find it funny the weird nuances people seem to want to nail people against the wall for. With Gary Johnson it was the whole Aleppo ordeal, even though 98% of voters didn't know what Aleppo was and it was nothing in comparison to some of the dirt and dumb things that came out of the other two candidates.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I like Kellie Leitch. She's the only one so far that has taken a stand on things. She's been fleshing out her policies. She's resonating with blue collar Canadian taxpayers. I also like being told the truth, which I haven't been feeling from anyone else. All I hear from her opponents is the same tired platitudes that every politician trots out when they have nothing to talk about.



 ???

Maxime Bernier has been policy heavy from the start...

Repeal the Canada Health Act
End corporate welfare (specifically pointing out GM and Bombardier bailouts, despite Bombardier bailouts being money for Quebec)
End supply management (despite Quebec having almost 50% of all dairy farms in Canada) **something every other politician is afraid to fight against**
Reduce government spending (you'll notice a lot of his policies involve cutting government revenues)
Scrap boutique tax credits and instead, increase the basic personal exemption
Abolish the maple syrup cartel
De-fund the CBC
Dismantle the CRTC
Eliminate the carbon tax
Replace the firearms act with legislation that protects property rights
Change our relationship with First Nations by respecting their property rights
Reduce Corporate Tax rate to 10%
End interprovincial trade barriers (which I can't even believe exist)
Abolish capital gains tax

7 years ago, he was saying the same things, he's been nothing but principled and consistent in his message... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3XSAXqoado 

Kellie Leitch...

Screen immigrants for Canadian values (I am not going to call her racist over this... I am just going to say its a pointless endeavour and is more of a sound bite than it is a policy)
Take pepper spray off the list of prohibited weapons
Cap government spending
No national carbon tax
Against legalizing marijuana
Dismantle CBC
Let the People Speak Act (I actually like this, its from Switzerland's model and we need it)
And 5 things to support national resource development, mostly all authoritarian in nature.
Anything else?

As for "truth," her own campaign manager is gloating about straight up lying.... http://ipolitics.ca/2017/01/03/leitch-campaign-manager-gloats-about-spreading-false-info/


----------



## ballz (4 Jan 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm disappointed that Michelle Rempel doesn't seem to be interested in taking a run at.  She seems to get us common folks, and isn't afraid to fart in church if it's necessary.



I think she's got a bright future ahead of her. She's only been an MP for 6 years and she's still young. She'll be a force for the CPC for a long time.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> But according to polls Trump only had a 1% chance of winning lol


s
He didn't win; the Russians hacked it. LOL


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2017)

I still like Leitch and I don't want any more Prime Ministers from Quebec for quite a while.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jan 2017)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> s
> He didn't win; the Russians hacked it. LOL



Yes the Russian hackers. CNN ran a story on it which included a picture of supposed Russian hackers.







Incidentally the hackers hacking looks an awefull lot like the XBOX video game I'm playing at the moment.
http://bgr.com/2017/01/02/cnn-hacking-fallout-screenshot/


----------



## mariomike (5 Jan 2017)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> One almost became POTUS.  [:'(



123 pages in Radio Chatter about that.


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2017)

Frankly the whole bunch of them (how many now?  13? 14?) are entirely uninspiring.  Bernier and maybe Raitt would get my vote if I was a voting member.  It doesn't really matter as whoever is the next leader won't be after the next election.  I honestly do not think any of them can take on Trudeau.

This CBC article, which is biased I must say but isn't necessarily wrong with the assessment.  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/winner-conservative-race-1.3921456

I hope that after 2019 or 2020 someone of true quality with lead the CPC.  Maybe by 2023-24 we'll see another conservative government.


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Jan 2017)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anti-canadian-values-test-leitch-1.3925420


Kellie Leitch would charge immigrants for Canadian values test

Fee wouldn't apply to refugees — but they would still be required to take the test

By Catharine Tunney, CBC News Posted: Jan 07, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 07, 2017 5:00 AM ET


Conservative leadership hopeful Kellie Leitch says she would charge immigrants a fee to cover the cost of her proposed Canadian values screening test at the border.

"For myself, screening everyone for Canadian values, screening everyone at the border is important ... My intention is to transfer that cost to the individual who is immigrating here," the Simcoe-Grey MP told the CBC's Catherine Cullen on The House.

"Prior to our Conservative government, the Liberals had brought in a fee for individuals that were immigrating to Canada and my intention would be to bring back that fee."

Introduced by then-finance minister Paul Martin in 1995, the $975 right-of-landing fee was reduced to $490 and renamed the right of permanent residence fee under the Stephen Harper government during the 2006 budget.

Leitch said it would be a jumping off point, but any fee would have to be adjusted for inflation and the number of immigrants coming to Canada.

The fee would only apply to immigrants, not refugees, she added. Refugees would, however, still have to take the test.

One of the key components to Leitch's campaign is a push to conduct interviews with every potential new Canadian.

Leitch's controversial platform, which has been targeted by opponents, includes conducting face-to-face interviews with immigrants for values including equal opportunity, hard work, helping others, generosity, freedom and tolerance.

How immigration officials would go about testing for generosity is still being hammered out.

"The opportunity for creating appropriate ways of questioning  are absolutely there and I look forward to working with Canadian public servants and Canadians in general to make sure we have the right questions to ask," she said

_©2017 CBC/Radio-Canada. All rights reserved_


----------



## Remius (9 Jan 2017)

Zebedy Colt said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anti-canadian-values-test-leitch-1.3925420
> 
> 
> Kellie Leitch would charge immigrants for Canadian values test
> ...



Her and Trudeau are two sides of the same coin.  Some of her base will believe her stuff the same way Trudeau's base believe his.  Both are without real susbstance.  Her drain the canal analogy today sealed the deal for me about taking her seriously...


----------



## Altair (10 Jan 2017)

Is it wrong that I'm torn between O'Leary and Trudeau?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jan 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Is it wrong that I'm torn between O'Leary and Trudeau?



Not really. It is a free country. Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Lightguns (10 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Frankly the whole bunch of them (how many now?  13? 14?) are entirely uninspiring.  Bernier and maybe Raitt would get my vote if I was a voting member.  It doesn't really matter as whoever is the next leader won't be after the next election.  I honestly do not think any of them can take on Trudeau.
> 
> This CBC article, which is biased I must say but isn't necessarily wrong with the assessment.
> 
> ...



2019?  You mean 30 more PM Trudeau vacations from now?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2017)

Reflecting on the US election, and the failures in our recent elections, I can see O'Leary actually doing well.  People seem to dismiss the current crop of "leadership" candidates who have "no vision" or "dream", who just seem to follow the tired old Party Lines and seem to be only in it for profit.  Trump came out with a "dream"; a dream "to make America Great again."  Perhaps he was playing on Martin Luther King Jr's "I have a dream" or actually had a desire to make America Great again.  I can see the Conservative Parties of Canada and Ontario, both having the same problem: people are tired of the "politician without a dream" and the end result is that only a "loser" will face off against the Liberals.  The candidate who comes forward with a "dream" may well take the leadership by storm.


----------



## observor 69 (10 Jan 2017)

Mentioning MLK Jr and Trump in the same breath.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I can see the Conservative Parties of Canada and Ontario, both having the same problem: people are tired of the "politician without a dream" and the end result is that only a "loser" will face off against the Liberals.  The candidate who comes forward with a "dream" may well take the leadership by storm.


Have to be careful about such dreams, though - one man's "Make x Great Again" is another man's "X's back!"  Sound nice, but not much substance in the slogan alone.

Then again, who reads platform documents anymore anyway, right?


----------



## mariomike (10 Jan 2017)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Mentioning MLK Jr and Trump in the same breath.



I remember going into homes here in Toronto and seeing three portraits on the walls: Jesus Christ, President Kennedy and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.


----------



## Remius (10 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Reflecting on the US election, and the failures in our recent elections, I can see O'Leary actually doing well.  People seem to dismiss the current crop of "leadership" candidates who have "no vision" or "dream", who just seem to follow the tired old Party Lines and seem to be only in it for profit.  Trump came out with a "dream"; a dream "to make America Great again."  Perhaps he was playing on Martin Luther King Jr's "I have a dream" or actually had a desire to make America Great again.  I can see the Conservative Parties of Canada and Ontario, both having the same problem: people are tired of the "politician without a dream" and the end result is that only a "loser" will face off against the Liberals.  The candidate who comes forward with a "dream" may well take the leadership by storm.



It's not a question of dreaming as much as it is them being uninspiring.  And that is personal opinion I admit. 

But there are fundamental differences between our system and theirs and even the conservative vs liberal mindset here.  Remember that Stephen harper's conservatives had more in common with the Democrats than anything else and that our Liberals are far more to the left than the democrats are. 

The concern is that the CPC is an alliance of conservatives.  Fiscal, progressives and traditional social conservatives.  Ms. Leitch will likely split her party perhaps irreversibly along those lines.  O'Leary is more of a red tory and conservatives don't think he espouses traditional conservative views or values.  Other than the economy he has very little in common with them.  That will also lead to a split, I fear.  I can't see, so far, any leader that can keep the party united like Brian Mulroney or Stephen harper was able to do. 

I have no doubt that either can win the leadership.  It will be interesting to see what sort of party comes after though.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jan 2017)

The discussion of CPC vs. "Alliance (re-branded Reform) + PC" and whether a split is inevitable has been a long time coming.  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Altair (10 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> It's not a question of dreaming as much as it is them being uninspiring.  And that is personal opinion I admit.
> 
> But there are fundamental differences between our system and theirs and even the conservative vs liberal mindset here.  Remember that Stephen harper's conservatives had more in common with the Democrats than anything else and that our Liberals are far more to the left than the democrats are.
> 
> ...


Is O'Leary even a Conservative? I could just as easily see him running under a liberal banner if they happened to have a job opening for a leader right now.

He, like Trump in a sense, is simply using the party as a vehicle to advance. I think in that sense he can appeal to a broad number of Canadians and not get stuck in the ideological battles of lifelong conservative members. And like trump and the republicans, enough CPC members would never vote for anyone else ever, allowing him to pick up more voters from groups that traditionally don't vote conservative.

Someone like Leitch is perfect to win the leadership, appealing to enough conservative core members to get them to support her, but come election time I doubt her ability to expand the party past what they got in the last election.

I personally would only vote for Erin Or O'Leary out of the conservative camp. Anyone else and I'm either voting BQ or LPC.


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2017)

If O'Leary could speak french I could possibly vote for him over Bernier. Not that I think he's got better policies than Bernier, but in our modern day obsession with celebrity over substance, O'Leary has more brand value with the average Canadian. However, unable to take on Trudeau in Quebec and Trudeau runs away with Quebec in the election and is almost guaranteed victory. Maxime Bernier is the only candidate that can take on Trudeau in Quebec. Anyone else (so far) will have to win without Quebec as PM Harper struggled to do.

Conservatives seem to be falling into the same stupid game than the Liberals fell into that decimated their party and made them irrelevant for a short period of time..... just looking for a "star" candidate. Look where that got the country... deficits until 2050... and if we play the same game, PM Trudeau will actually be PM long enough to run deficits until 2050.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> O'Leary is more of a red tory and conservatives don't think he espouses traditional conservative views or values.  Other than the economy he has very little in common with them.





			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Is O'Leary even a Conservative? I could just as easily see him running under a liberal banner if they happened to have a job opening for a leader right now.



He's practically libertarian. A "moderate" libertarian if you will (wait, is that an oxymoron haha), fiscally conservative and socially liberal. He's already said he would have a hard time running against Bernier because he agrees with everything Bernier says.

I get what you are saying but I don't think O'Leary could win leadership with the Liberals, they are far too happy to *spend* money in the way they think we all ought to live. I think O'Leary, Bernier, and other fiscally conservative, socially liberal people can really only fit in the Conservative party since taxes / government spending dominates much of the discussion. Their laissez-faire approach to social issues will always handicap them within the CPC though.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jan 2017)

How can you be a libertarian, moderate or not, and still believe in gun control?


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jan 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Is O'Leary even a Conservative? I could just as easily see him running under a liberal banner if they happened to have a job opening for a leader right now.



I think you're 100% right.


----------



## Altair (10 Jan 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How can you be a libertarian, moderate or not, and still believe in gun control?


How can one be conservative and support gay marriage?

He's not a cookie cutter libertarian, he's Kevin O'Leary. I don't think one can label him very effectively.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think you're 100% right.


This is a rare occurance.


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How can you be a libertarian, moderate or not, and still believe in gun control?



You're asking about O'Leary, right? What was his stance on gun control?

I don't know O'Leary's stance on gun control, so I can't comment specifically towards him. But even I, as a libertarian who hates the Firearms Act and would burn it in a heartbeat, and would drastically reduce the firearms (and other weapons) laws we have, believe in a level of gun control that some libertarians would claim makes me a communist.

In any case, many libertarians would savagely attack any other "libertarian" who doesn't conform to what they believe is the "true" form of libertarianism. Anarchists would throw minarchists and classical liberals under the bus in a heartbeat. I've taken a ton of flak for believing Canada should have a standing professional military (a larger, more expensive one at that), which apparently makes me the worse libertarian to ever live. Libertarians are their own worse enemies.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jan 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> You're asking about O'Leary, right? What was his stance on gun control?
> 
> I don't know O'Leary's stance on gun control



Here are quotes from Kevin O'Leary on AR15 rifles in Canada.



> "there is no need anybody to have that"





> " you would never hunt with it, you would only use it to kill people.."





> "that is a weapon that is just used to kill everybody in the room! Who should have that? Nobody! "





> "unless you are an accredited law enforcement officer, what the hell are you doing with that rifle?"


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2017)

The problem in a sense is that people are trying to emulate Donald Trump, but Donald Trump is a unique individual, and anyone trying to emulate him will not be able to do so.

The other issue is that Donald Trump, while notionally "Republican", is really the leader of the New American Party, and trying to pin traditional Republican (or even Democrat) labels on his program is a mugs game. The populism that President Trump tapped into is specific for the here and now of the United States, and anyone who wants to play the "Trump card" in Canada would have to find the specific flash points for Canadian population, and the means to connect directly with the population (bypassing the media gatekeepers).

Of course not only will there be some people who will try to emulate President Trump without understanding who he is and what he stands for, but the Canadian media will also be happy to try to pin the table on people they don't like (also without understanding who President Trump is or what he stands for).


----------



## mariomike (10 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Here are quotes from Kevin O'Leary on AR15 rifles in Canada.



"that is a weapon that is just used to kill everybody in the room!"

I thought that was the AK?!  

"AK-47, the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively, got to kill every mother%$#er in the room; accept no substitutes."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDyXbcu2RXg

"NOTHING, gets between me and my AK!"


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Here are quotes from Kevin O'Leary on AR15 rifles in Canada.



Well that's disappointing... Another city-kid that is automatically scared by their own ignorance. I suspect, away from the TV and over a beer, he'd probably see the light.... but pobody's nerfect.

EDIT: Regardless, I would still see him as fiscally conservative, socially laissez-faire on *most* issues... which is a moderate libertarian. Everyone has exceptions to an ideology that they are associated with (whether or not they choose to be), if not they're probably crazy.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jan 2017)

I fail to understand why people are afraid of social conservatives. The stuff that the social Liberals are ramming down our Collective throats is appalling.


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2017)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I fail to understand why people are afraid of social conservatives. The stuff that the social Liberals are ramming down our Collective throats is appalling.



I'm afraid of anyone that thinks it's okay to use the state to tell me how to live my life. Social conservatives and social progressives are equally terrifying.

When I say socially liberal, I mean liberal in the classical liberal sense, not today's version of the word. 

EDIT: In fact, I see social conservatives and social progressives as equals. "It's not about left vs right, it's about authoritarianism vs liberty."


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jan 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> ... Another expat city-kid that is automatically scared by their own ignorance ...


FTFY


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2017)

Well....we won't need Russian hackers with Bernier at the helm.  He'll just leave those Secret documents laying around his condo for anyone to view.   >


----------



## cavalryman (10 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well....we won't need Russian hackers with Bernier at the helm.  He'll just leave those Secret documents laying around his condo for anyone to view.   >


Just think about the opportunities for disinformation  [


----------



## GAP (10 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well....we won't need Russian hackers with Bernier at the helm.  He'll just leave those Secret documents laying around his condo for anyone to view.   >



Well.........after seeing the reason he was distracted, I understood.....she was rather distracting......... ;D


----------



## Altair (18 Jan 2017)

O'Leary was smart to avoid embarrassing himself in the French debate.

 When only half of the people running can actually talk French I am beginning to think that Trudeau won have any serious competition in 2019.

 Maxime Bernier, Chris Alexander, Steven Blaney, Rick Peterson, Andrew Sheer, Micheal Chong, Pierre Lemieux. That's it.

 Lisa Raitt is terrible

 Kellie Leitch is has major issues with French.

 Deepak Obhrai can't even read French off his own notes, never mind speak it.

 Brat Tost is lost in French, gets easily annoyed and switches to English.

 Erin O'Toole was decent enough...I guess? Speaks it like a 5th grader, but at least he can speak it. Would get massacred by Trudeau however.

 Andrew Saxton is in the same category as O'Toole, can speak it but not at a high level.

 So 7 People who can actually go toe to toe with a fully bilingual Prime Minister out of 15. 

 Of those, Peterson wont win, Chong is a longshot, Lemieux isn't winning it, Blaney doesn't have any name recognition outside of Quebec. That leaves the conservatives with Sheer, Alexander, and Bernier as the only ones who have a shot of winning who can be considered fully bilingual.

 I don't know if the Conservatives strategy involves completely ignoring Quebec, but looking at this leadership contest, I can't help but think it might be.


----------



## gryphonv (18 Jan 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't know if the Conservatives strategy involves completely ignoring Quebec, but looking at this leadership contest, I can't help but think it might be.



It's worked before, and Trudeau is making it a little easier for someone to swoop in and steal the English vote in Quebec. While it is a small demographic, it still can swing the tides in a few electorates.


----------



## Altair (18 Jan 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> It's worked before, and Trudeau is making it a little easier for someone to swoop in and steal the English vote in Quebec. While it is a small demographic, it still can swing the tides in a few electorates.


The English vote in Quebec is centered around Montreal. Montreal, a big urban multicultural center is not exactly fertile ground for the conservative party. Even during the big liberal collapse of 2011 they didn't lose the anglo vote in Quebec around Montreal.

And yes, the Harper conservative years were great at splintering the Quebec vote up until 2015. 2006 it went mostly bloc, and away from the Liberals. 2008, same story. 2011, it went NDP, who had the best chance of forming government outside of the CPC that year, but NDP weakness in the rest of Canada wasted that vote. 2015 it went Liberal once again and coupled with strength in the rest of Canada the Liberals were able to win. 

So it's possible to win without Quebec, but that means the Quebec vote needs to be split, or wasted on parties that cannot win, (bloc, NDP). With the bloc a spent force, and the NDP not likely having a leader with as much Quebec Bona Fides as Mulcair and Layton, unless the CPC can compete with the Liberals in Quebec, there is only one way for that vote to go.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jan 2017)

I believe that anyone wanting to be the next PM and is unable to converse in both official languages has about as much chance as the Leafs winning back to back Stanley Cups.  If you can't play in both playgrounds with the kids, you're done.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jan 2017)

The interesting candidate for me, with respect to Quebec, is Maxime Bernier.

He comes from a part of the country that has found common cause with Anglos in the past on small c-conservatism (economic and cultural).  The problem for the western Conservatives has been the difference on Co-operatives.  Co-operatives, introduced in Canada in the west were slow to be adopted in Quebec.  But while they have faded elsewhere they remain very strong in Quebec.   Especially the dairy co-ops.

Bernier is challenging those co-ops on their home turf.

It will be interesting to see how he makes out.  If he can carry his seat in the face of the dairy lobby in his home riding, I think, it will put him in a very interesting position - a socially liberal, economically conservative (ie economically classical liberal) from Quebec.

Will Quebecers, and more particularly, Beaucerons, vote blood or ideology?

By they way, for the record, I'm supporting Bernier.


----------



## Remius (18 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The interesting candidate for me, with respect to Quebec, is Maxime Bernier.
> 
> He comes from a part of the country that has found common cause with Anglos in the past on small c-conservatism (economic and cultural).  The problem for the western Conservatives has been the difference on Co-operatives.  Co-operatives, introduced in Canada in the west were slow to be adopted in Quebec.  But while they have faded elsewhere they remain very strong in Quebec.   Especially the dairy co-ops.
> 
> ...



Right now he's the front runner for me.  If I had to vote it would be for him  Not sure he can take on Trudeau unfortunately but he stands a better chance than the rest.


----------



## Altair (18 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The interesting candidate for me, with respect to Quebec, is Maxime Bernier.
> 
> He comes from a part of the country that has found common cause with Anglos in the past on small c-conservatism (economic and cultural).  The problem for the western Conservatives has been the difference on Co-operatives.  Co-operatives, introduced in Canada in the west were slow to be adopted in Quebec.  But while they have faded elsewhere they remain very strong in Quebec.   Especially the dairy co-ops.
> 
> ...


Bernier is one of the only candidates that can produce a vote split in Quebec. Some will vote blood, some will vote ideology. 

His true advantage is his distancing from the legacy of Harper. Harper, while respected in Quebec, was never loved, and by the end was actively disliked by Quebecers. A lot of those running now will continue to pay for that attachment to the former Prime Ministers dislike in Quebec. Bernier was removed from all that after being punted from cabinet in a way that Blaney, Sheer, Alexander Leitch, Raitt are not. He can claim to be a outsider with fresh ideas while everyone else was a lieutenant of Harper in one way or another.

It will be interesting to see how he does in the leadership contest, because I think he is the perceived frontrunner now and will draw most of the fire of the rest, especially Leitch and O'Leary.


----------



## Remius (18 Jan 2017)

I wonder though if the western caucus and their supporters would be able to stomach a leader from Quebec or if we may see a split along regional lines again.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> I wonder though if the western caucus and their supporters would be able to stomach a leader from Quebec or if we may see a split along regional lines again.



They changed the way the voting works for the leader, you need broad party support across all regional lines to win. No longer will the big ridings in Alberta hold who the balance of power. If Bernier has Quebec, he'll need Alberta and Nova Scotia support as well to win.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jan 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> The English vote in Quebec is centered around Montreal. Montreal, a big urban multicultural center is not exactly fertile ground for the conservative party. Even during the big liberal collapse of 2011 they didn't lose the anglo vote in Quebec around Montreal.



You may wish to look at the 2011 electoral map.  While Westmount remained reliably Liberal, Notre Dame de Grace, a yellow-dog Liberal riding switched to the NDP.


----------



## Altair (18 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You may wish to look at the 2011 electoral map.  While Westmount remained reliably Liberal, Notre Dame de Grace, a yellow-dog Liberal riding switched to the NDP.


was that a result of losing the English vote or the NDP running up the French vote do you think?


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jan 2017)

Despite the French name, NDG remains a largely English enclave.  I haven't seen poll by poll numbers, but I would have thought that its loss would have triggered a little more introspection on the part of the Natural Governing Party.


----------



## cavalryman (18 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> introspection on the part of the Natural Governing Party.


 :rofl:

Oh - wait - you were serious... never mind.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> I wonder though if the western caucus and their supporters would be able to stomach a leader from Quebec or if we may see a split along regional lines again.



Pretty sure he is doing all right here in Alberta. And BC.


----------



## ballz (18 Jan 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> So it's possible to win without Quebec, but that means the Quebec vote needs to be split, or wasted on parties that cannot win, (bloc, NDP). With the bloc a spent force, and the NDP not likely having a leader with as much Quebec Bona Fides as Mulcair and Layton, unless the CPC can compete with the Liberals in Quebec, there is only one way for that vote to go.



This is exactly it. Harper won without Quebec because of the Orange Wave. The Orange Wave died with Jack Layton, and the BQ is in shambles. A uni-lingual CPC leader guarantees the Liberals take all of Quebec and the election.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They changed the way the voting works for the leader, you need broad party support across all regional lines to win. No longer will the big ridings in Alberta hold who the balance of power. If Bernier has Quebec, he'll need Alberta and Nova Scotia support as well to win.



The last time the numbers were published, Max had the most donors in every province except for Ontario where it was a virtual tie (42% Leitch / 40% Bernier). He had 71% of donors in Alberta and 68% of donors in BC.

Max was the front runner, for sure, until O'Leary joined. But, all the previous polls are kind of irrelevant now. O'Leary will cause a giant shake-up because its impossible to tell how many Bernier / Leitch / Riatt voters will change their voting contention now. So, who is the front runner now is anybody's guess.

I am surprised he joined, I thought he was doing a publicity stunt and would eventually endorse Max. I still think, in the end, he ends up endorsing Max.


----------



## Altair (23 Jan 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> This is exactly it. Harper won without Quebec because of the Orange Wave. The Orange Wave died with Jack Layton, and the BQ is in shambles. A uni-lingual CPC leader guarantees the Liberals take all of Quebec and the election.
> 
> The last time the numbers were published, Max had the most donors in every province except for Ontario where it was a virtual tie (42% Leitch / 40% Bernier). He had 71% of donors in Alberta and 68% of donors in BC.
> 
> ...


I think Trump started as a publicity stunt as well until he realized one day that he could win.

Might be the same with O'Leary.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2017)

Just for some shits & giggles, the World Socialist Web Site's take on the Guy Still In Boston:


> *Oligarch investor seeks leadership of Canada’s Conservatives*
> 
> Just days after proposing that the federal government become more of a “profit-center” by selling Senate seats, multi-millionaire investor, reality television star, and inveterate blow-hard Kevin O’Leary announced he is a candidate to lead Canada’s Conservative Party.
> 
> ...


Etc., etc., etc. ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jan 2017)

Some _National Post_ commentary on O'Leary's appeal to Conservatives ...


> ...     Partly this is just human nature: we fixate on what is nearby and recent. Partly, I think, it’s a convenient way for Canadians to feel superior and comfortable — “at least [INSERT PROBLEM] isn’t as bad as in the States.” And I’m convinced the same phenomenon is at play in much of the coverage of Kevin O’Leary’s candidacy for the Conservative leadership. He is constantly compared with Donald Trump and found much more dissimilar than similar … and yet the comparisons keep coming. He’s been on TV, he’s never been a politician, he’s notably braggadocious; someone like that just became president, ergo it’s more plausible O’Leary can succeed.
> 
> Succeed he might. But there are many reasons to think he won’t. The votes are ranked ballots and every riding is weighted equally, which does not benefit a divisive candidate. His pitch that “surfer dude” Justin Trudeau is literally ruining the country will play well among a segment of the party base. But that same segment will be turned off by his stances on CBC (“a premier news gathering organization”), the military (“there’s nothing proud about being a warrior”), peacekeeping (“I don’t want to bomb or get involved in any campaigns … other than keeping the peace”), ISIS (“the last nationality ISIS wants to put a bullet through is a Canadian”), the Senate (why not sell seats for profit?), legalizing marijuana (“a remarkable opportunity”) … well, I’ll stop. Not only is he not particularly conservative, he’s well designed to drive Conservatives batty.
> 
> Trump promised jobs to people who had lost them under both Democratic and Republican administrations; to the extent he violated Republican orthodoxy it was that of the elites, not of the blue-collar voters. O’Leary is promising little of substance while violating various orthodoxies of the Conservative elites and base alike. Loving the military, rolling eyes at peacekeeping, loathing ISIS and CBC — these are the things that kept Conservatives warm at night when Harper was governing not very conservatively. Why would they vote against them? ...


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Feb 2017)

Can't say as how O'Leary appeals to this Conservative.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Feb 2017)

Perhaps a fringe candidate to make the remainder appear more centrist.


Wait, haven't we seen that somewhere before?


----------



## Remius (1 Feb 2017)

I'll be curious to see how Kelly Leitch and Stephen Blais will frame their current strategy in the wake of the Quebec mosque tragedy and events in the US.  Will they be more muted and steer away from their current platforms or will they double down.

Either way Mad Max seems to be winning the fundraising race (although we haven't confirmed Kevin O'Leary's total to date since he joined the race)


----------



## ballz (2 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> I'll be curious to see how Kelly Leitch and Stephen Blais will frame their current strategy in the wake of the Quebec mosque tragedy and events in the US.  Will they be more muted and steer away from their current platforms or will they double down.
> 
> Either way Mad Max seems to be winning the fundraising race (although we haven't confirmed Kevin O'Leary's total to date since he joined the race)



The numbers tell us much more than just dollars...

Max has more donors than Leitch, Scheer, and O'Toole combined (they are #2, #3, and #4 in number of donors). The average donation of each donor is more than half that of Scheer, O'Toole, Chong, and Raitt. The width and depth of his support surpasses everyone of a known quantity... of course, O'Leary remains the unknown for the next little while until some data can be collected.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Feb 2017)

Mr Bernier's latest policy: Equalization is Unfair. Although the tone is very "let's make Quebec better", I can't see how this plays well in QC.


----------



## Remius (3 Feb 2017)

Well some trouble for Dr. Leitch. 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/kellie-leitch-s-campaign-manager-nick-kouvalis-resigns-1.3268975


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Feb 2017)

Different points on the conservative continuum/spectrum ...


> Peter Mackay, one of the people who helped create the modern Conservative Party, says positions on immigration from one leadership candidate may damage the party's brand.
> 
> MacKay was asked what he thought about Kellie Leitch's policy to screen immigrants for what she terms "Canadian values."
> 
> ...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Feb 2017)

Any Conservative leader, if they're smart, should stay the heck away from any policy to do with immigration, religion, etc and focus their 100% attention running a campaign based on a strong economic platform.


----------



## Underway (6 Feb 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Any Conservative leader, if they're smart, should stay the heck away from any policy to do with immigration, religion, etc and focus their 100% attention running a campaign based on a strong economic platform.



So libertarian then?  The guns, god and gays vote is a massive problem that really inhibits the CPC and yet it sustains them.  So much of the active conservative members are keyed into that paradigm and are the easy ones to whip up for party funding and volunteers.  The left libertarians, libertarian and activism voters and pretty much everyone on the bottom of the political compass have no home in Canada, and I think Max might be giving them something to vote for.  If I were a party member he would have my vote for sure.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Feb 2017)

Two thumbs up to Humphrey and Underway.


----------



## Scott (6 Feb 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Any Conservative leader, if they're smart, should stay the heck away from any policy to do with immigration, religion, etc and focus their 100% attention running a campaign based on a strong economic platform.



This. That cultural practices hotline bullshit was what really solidified my vote, a lifelong Conservative one, by the way, for the Liberals. 

Peter MacKay as leader could get me thinking blue again. Leitch or O'Leary would almost ensure my vote staying with the fair haired one.


----------



## Remius (6 Feb 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> This. That cultural practices hotline bullshit was what really solidified my vote, a lifelong Conservative one, by the way, for the Liberals.
> 
> Peter MacKay as leader could get me thinking blue again. Leitch or O'Leary would almost ensure my vote staying with *the fair haired one*.



Trump?  Lisa Raitt?  Trudeau is more of a dark haired type... [Xp

But yes, agreed.  I'm on the same page as you.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Feb 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> This. That cultural practices hotline bullshit was what really solidified my vote, a lifelong Conservative one, by the way, for the Liberals.
> 
> Peter MacKay as leader could get me thinking blue again. Leitch or O'Leary would almost ensure my vote staying with the fair haired one.



Nothing short of a serious, life altering blow to the head could ever compel me to vote for the current PM and crew.  While I wasn't a fan of the cultural practices nonsense either I felt then as I do now that Justin was not (nor ever shall be) ready.  None of the big three got my vote as MacKay wasn't on the table to consider anymore.  I like the economic sense of O'Leary far more than Trudeau.


----------



## Scott (6 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Nothing short of a serious, life altering blow to the head could ever compel me to vote for the current PM and crew.  While I wasn't a fan of the cultural practices nonsense either I felt then as I do now that Justin was not (nor ever shall be) ready.  None of the big three got my vote as MacKay wasn't on the table to consider anymore.  I like the economic sense of O'Leary far more than Trudeau.



He may never be ready, but I feel differently than you do about not voting big three, and so I had a choice to make between them. The math was simple: I felt I needed a change from Harper; I wouldnot/couldnot vote for the beard; and the Libs ran a rookie with pretty decent chops locally in peter's seat. Made it pretty easy.

Much as it pisses some of the angrier Conservatives off, the next Conservative leader will not be trying to woo them. It's voters like you and I they want. And Angry Earl types ain't gonna get me away from Shiny Pony and his dreamy hair.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Feb 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> He may never be ready, but I feel differently than you do about not voting big three, and so I had a choice to make between them. The math was simple: I felt I needed a change from Harper; I wouldnot/couldnot vote for the beard; and the Libs ran a rookie with pretty decent chops locally in peter's seat. Made it pretty easy.
> 
> Much as it pisses some of the angrier Conservatives off, the next Conservative leader will not be trying to woo them. It's voters like you and I they want. And Angry Earl types ain't gonna get me away from Shiny Pony and his dreamy hair.



I agree about the beard, totally.  Quite frankly, I had had enough of all the big three's shit and they were getting SFA from me.  I am in Nottawa right now so could not be back home to see the new models in person.  Mind you, I am at the end of Central Nova's territory before it turns into the Eastern Shore/Sackville (thanks, Paul Martin, for that) and as such the candidates don't come down or give a shit for us (almost) city folks there.  I get it, it's not Pictou or Stellarton etc.  Anyhow, I saw there was an independent running and they got my vote, that way I still was able to vote and fuck off the big three at the same time.  And hopefully the independent got enough votes from guys like me to get their deposit back as I knew there was no way they were getting the seat.  Seeing as how the Liberals have conveniently forgotten already who gave them the Atlantic Provinces, guys like you, Scott, and are treating them with the same indifference as Harper did at the end, I suppose there is no change at all.


----------



## Scott (7 Feb 2017)

Status quo. I am not hurt by anyone ignoring me ;D

I've since moved to Dominic LeBlanc's riding and adopting a wait and see approach. If the Conservatives run someone of substance there, and they have a leader I can take seriously, I would consider throwing my vote back to them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Feb 2017)

Repeating what's been written here many times, but the CPC really needs to get the message: figure out how to satisfy the socon base with respect to religious freedom while making it clear that imposition of religions and religious imperatives (any) across religious boundaries (any) is not going anywhere, and concentrate on engaging the socon base and the moderate right and centre voters with economic development issues.

Also: water under the bridge (prior resolved issues and programs) that have the support of most of the Orange and Red factions probably have 60+% support of the general population, including support inside the Blue faction.  In each case that's at least a weak concensus that shouldn't be disturbed unnecessarily or without preparing the social/civil ground (via incrementalism, not shock).

I often wonder that so many of them (prominent CPC members) can be so ham-fisted and thick-tongued in the public sphere; I can only conclude that they are so deeply inside small bubbles that they really do not understand that some of what they express is deeply offensive even to people who want to support the CPC.

I suspect that most people want to focus on family, friends, communities, and - perhaps - province.  The people who want a federal government with broad and deep powers and responsibilities are not even a large minority; they are merely loud and persistent.


----------



## Scott (10 Feb 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I often wonder that so many of them (prominent CPC members) can be so ham-fisted and thick-tongued in the public sphere; I can only conclude that they are so deeply inside small bubbles that they really do not understand that some of what they express is deeply offensive even to people who want to support the CPC.



Oh boy, this is what I have been trying to get out there (here) for some time. 

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: I do not find the majority of the CPC supporters, or Liberal detractors, here to be even mildly offensive. But the few that are always yelling or just being plain nasty have the effect of completely ruining it for me.


----------



## Lumber (10 Feb 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I suspect that most people want to focus on family, friends, communities, and - perhaps - province.  The people who want a federal government with broad and deep powers and responsibilities are not even a large minority; they are merely loud and persistent.



I'm neither loud nor persistent, but I like the idea of a strong, deep and centralized government.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Feb 2017)

I dislike centralization for what I think is a sufficient condition: it's inefficient.  Different provinces, regions, municipalities, are all going to have different problems, and different priorities for resolving them.  Compelling everyone into one-size-for-all solutions benefits those for whom the problems were a priority, and is an opportunity cost against those for whom the problems were not a priority.


----------



## cavalryman (10 Feb 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm neither loud nor persistent, but I like the idea of a strong, deep and centralized government.


So did Trudeau Sr.  I'm not sure it's worked out all that well for Canada ever since.  Besides, strong, deep and centralized governments aren't historically known to govern with a light touch.  Au contraire.


----------



## Jed (11 Feb 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm neither loud nor persistent, but I like the idea of a strong, deep and centralized government.



You must be in the minority of a minority I guess.  [


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Feb 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> I often wonder that so many of them (prominent CPC members) can be so ham-fisted and thick-tongued in the public sphere; I can only conclude that they are so deeply inside small bubbles that they really do not understand that some of what they express is deeply offensive even to people who want to support the CPC.
> 
> _*Bingo!*_
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Feb 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> ... the few that are always yelling or just being plain nasty have the effect of completely ruining it for me.


 :nod:


----------



## Lumber (11 Feb 2017)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> So did Trudeau Sr.  I'm not sure it's worked out all that well for Canada ever since.  Besides, strong, deep and centralized governments aren't historically known to govern with a light touch.  Au contraire.



I would add the word compartmentalized; I really believe in our constitutional separation of powers. However, I believe there is some room for improvement and expansion to better determine what should be a provincial prerogative and what should be federal. It should be more clear-cut, and each level of government should have absolute control over their area. The courts can settle the overlaps as they do, but I like the idea of a Federal government who just get's shit done.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I would add the word compartmentalized; I really believe in our constitutional separation of powers. However, I believe there is some room for improvement and expansion to better determine what should be a provincial prerogative and what should be federal. It should be more clear-cut, and each level of government should have absolute control over their area. The courts can settle the overlaps as they do, but I like the idea of a Federal government who just get's shit done.



Lumber - how much difference between jurisdictions will you allow?

Is it permissible for Peterborough to ban grape jelly?  Or Lethbridge to allow open carry of firearms? What Peterborough does doesn't affect Lethbridge, and vice versa.  And I go to Peterborough I should just follow the local laws.

Just to be clear - my own opinion is for the highest degree of what the EU and the Catholic Church describe as "subsidiarity" - something more honoured in the breach.  I believe that power must be granted from the bottom up.  Authority is only the authority that I accept, even when it is imposed.

Once upon a time Jean Chretien was fulminating about equalization payments because Ralph Klein was perturbed about paying while Chretien was cutting.  Chretien said - paraphrasing - he wouldn't accept having Ralph decide on writing Jean a check.  He expected to be able to either command Ralph to write the check, or from another perspective, he would allow Ralph to keep whatever money he thought Ralph required.

My sense of things is that Jean should have been getting the money that Ralph sent to him on my behalf.  If he can't make the case for the money he doesn't get it.  That, in fact is the role, at the federal level, of parliament.  If the government can't make the case for the money to the representatives of the people, it doesn't get it.

The government has no rights except those that are granted it by the electorate and, because Canada is a confederation, its component provinces.


----------



## Underway (11 Feb 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually what I want, and perhaps I'm not a "typical" or "mainstream" Conservative, and I am certainly no kind of social-conservative, at all, in fact I self describe as a social-libertarian ~ which means that I find even a Liberal government too intrusive ~ but what I want is "a federal government with narrow but deep powers and responsibilities."



Are you are saying is that the GoC should retrench and only worry about the things it's really responsible for in the Constitution?  
Like the postal service, the census, the military, criminal law, navigation and shipping, fishing, currency, banking, weights and measures, bankruptcy, copyrights, patents, First Nations, naturalization, foreign affairs and international trade (actually I think that's the whole list).  

Or are you thinking more specifically?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Feb 2017)

It's important to understand that many, many, indeed almost all of the federal _encroachments_ into areas of constitutionally mandated provincial responsibility were made with either the full agreement of the provinces or, in some cases, at the request of the provinces.

I, too, would like to see clearly defined areas of responsibility with taxing powers and rates adjusted accordingly.

(And I appreciate that I am not answering the question ...  :nod: )


----------



## suffolkowner (12 Feb 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> Are you are saying is that the GoC should retrench and only worry about the things it's really responsible for in the Constitution?
> Like the postal service, the census, the military, criminal law, navigation and shipping, fishing, currency, banking, weights and measures, bankruptcy, copyrights, patents, First Nations, naturalization, foreign affairs and international trade (actually I think that's the whole list).
> 
> Or are you thinking more specifically?



So I can expect the province to stop pulling me off the highways and lakes for whatever transgression [


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's important to understand that many, many, indeed almost all of the federal _encroachments_ into areas of constitutionally mandated provincial responsibility were made with either the full agreement of the provinces or, in some cases, at the request of the provinces.
> 
> I, too, would like to see clearly defined areas of responsibility with taxing powers and rates adjusted accordingly.
> 
> (And I appreciate that I am not answering the question ...  :nod: )



Indeed. I suspect that this sort of overreach has more negative consequences than most people imagine. Cities like London now routinely defer maintenance of roads and sewers while waiting for federal or provincial funds to magically arrive into the city coffers, generally ignoring their own mandates, or going the other way (again London) making grandiose plans like a decade long construction project to bring mass transit to London which are otherwise totally unaffordable (and in this particular case, also lacking in any real rational outside of the usual mantras of Progressives like densification and greenhouse gases).

Blurring of jurisdictional lines also results in blurring of accountability, which is probably one of the outcomes that politicians and bureaucrats welcome, being able to finger point when there are no or negative results from their actions or inactions.

And of course, regulatory and spending bloat cripples the economy as a whole (in addition to multiple overlapping programs between jurisdictional boundaries, there are plenty of overlapping programs _within_ the various levels of government (for example, I often receive emails telling me I could be eligible for Federal small business funding from _800 different programs_...).

Strip away the overlap and close down the redundant programs and departments not mandated and the savings would be in the billions to tens of billions of dollar range. Translate that into tax cuts and the average Canadian family of four, which now spends from 40-45% of their income on taxes and government fees might see that figure drop to 30-35% of their annual income. While still a lot, a reduction of that magnitude would act as a 10% raise in people's disposable incomes, which would be energizing to the economy as a whole.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Feb 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... Cities like London now routinely defer maintenance of roads and sewers while waiting for federal or provincial funds to magically arrive into the city coffers, generally ignoring their own mandates, or going the other way (again London) making grandiose plans ... which are otherwise totally unaffordable ...


London is _not_ alone in this.  Another reason maintenance has been offset in the past in some places has been to keep the municipal tax rate down.


----------



## Loachman (13 Feb 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The government has no rights except those that are granted it by the electorate



Governments have no *rights* whatsoever, only _*powers*_.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Feb 2017)

Has anyone found any blogs or sites that summarize the policies of each of the candidates?


----------



## Swingline1984 (13 Feb 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Has anyone found any blogs or sites that summarize the policies of each of the candidates?



Nope, but here's a page that links to each of their websites https://www.conservative.ca/leadership/en/candidates#MaximeBernier


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Feb 2017)

I was watching a YouTube video earlier today which has O'Leary in the lead as best suited to take out the hair, amongst potential voters (not party members) polled by Nanos and another outlet.  The talking heads were surprised by the results.  I'm in the O'Leary camp for sure.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I was watching a YouTube video earlier today which has O'Leary in the lead as best suited to take out the hair, amongst potential voters (not party members) polled by Nanos and another outlet.  The talking heads were surprised by the results.  I'm in the O'Leary camp for sure.




His is the only name most citizens would be able to recognize from the candidate list,  but he's genuinely unlikable and would get buried in a general election.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Feb 2017)

Maybe so, but I would like to see what happened if he got the leadership.  I want the PM to be competent not the Prom King.  We already have a pretty boy at the helm, and his steering skills suck.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2017)

I'll still go with the guy who won the Manning Centre straw poll 

@MaximeBernier 32.4%
@andrewscheer 19.6%

@kevinolearytv & @MichaelChongMP tied 10.1%

@ErinOTooleMP 7.8%
@lraitt 6.1%

@KellieLeitch 5.6%


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Maybe so, but I would like to see what happened if he got the leadership.  I want the PM to be competent not the Prom King.  We already have a pretty boy at the helm, and his steering skills suck.



That's not really the choice though

In reality the choice is if you want:
1.  To nominate someone who you deem to be competent who has no hope of winning and guarantees Trudeau a 2nd term so you have a great Leader of the Opposition?
2.  A potentially less competent candidate that is likable enough to become PM, and then you hope they have bench strength behind them to steer the ship?


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Feb 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> That's not really the choice though
> 
> In reality the choice is if you want:
> 1.  To nominate someone who you deem to be competent who has no hope of winning and guarantees Trudeau a 2nd term so you have a great Leader of the Opposition?
> 2.  A potentially less competent candidate that is likable enough to become PM, and then you hope they have bench strength behind them to steer the ship?



I am mired in quicksand with regards to this.  I don't like the hair and want to see him gone.  The usual suspects of leadership candidates don't inspire me enough to want to see them in the driver's seat either ( I am tired of the same old same old).  The outsider has turned plenty of folks off by his on screen persona as a reality star as requested by said shows that featured him.  Therefore he is deemed unpalatable, but I see him as the most competent to take care of the economy now and in the future for Canadians.  I'm afraid I am in purgatory, politically speaking.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Feb 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 1.  ... be competent who has no hope of winning ...
> 2.  ....less competent candidate that is likable enough.....


Maybe I'm just not seeing this as sufficiently black & white (or further right & centrist), but which names would you put beside those two options?   :dunno:


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2017)

I am afraid that I can't see O'Leary as competent.

He strikes me as the Shopping Channel version of Trump.

Of the current field I continue to put my money on Bernier.  My second choice would be Alexander but I fear that he is forever going to be associated with a kid on a beach. O'Toole and Raitt are my third choices.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Feb 2017)

I can't get past Bernier's past issues with girlfriends who run with bikers and leaving sensitive documents laying around.  He leaves me with trust issues and concerns he lets the little head do the thinking for the big head.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2017)

Can't argue that.  It just depends on how much weight you ascribe to those types of issues.  For me, by and large, it is a relatively minor historical matter.  His current, and his past character, and positions generally have seemed consistent and genuine.  And I suspect him to be mildly disruptive - in a manner fitting for Canada.  We don't do revolutions.

The big issue for me is that believe him to be liberal, in its original sense of being tolerant and espousing freedom, not in its modern sense of espousing the cant of "liberal values".  My position is that if you can define a liberal position on anything then you are not a liberal because to be liberal is to be accepting of different opinions.

And with that - I guess I demonstrate my illiberalism....


----------



## Journeyman (26 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> .... girlfriends who run with bikers ......


You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You say that like it's a bad thing.



Actually I kind of liked his taste







Any excuse....  [


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Feb 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You say that like it's a bad thing.



When it comes to a Minister of the Crown, especially the PM, for me, yes a very bad thing.  I don't want someone who's demonstrated he lets the little head think for the big head, not at that level of responsibility.  However attractive the target.


----------



## Stoker (26 Feb 2017)

We need a female as leader if we have any chance of winning the next election from Trudeau and the only female that has a chance is not running unfortunately.


----------



## ballz (26 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> When it comes to a Minister of the Crown, especially the PM, for me, yes a very bad thing.  I don't want someone who's demonstrated he lets the little head think for the big head, not at that level of responsibility.  However attractive the target.



Couillard's relationships with people in biker gangs ended around 1999... Bernier started dating Couillard in 2007. I really cannot fathom how anyone thinks this part about biker gangs of the "Couillard Affair" matters at all. That piece of her life was almost a decade old by the time the incident occurred and its likely that neither Max nor the party (who was going to get her to run as an MP) knew anything about it.... and why would they? It was quite irrelevant 8-9 years later.

The act itself, leaving the documents at her apartment, is an actual matter of substance. He was doing work in her apartment (not out of the ordinary for someone in a long-term relationship) and f**ked up by leaving them there. He f**ked up again by asking her to destroy the documents instead of just going back and getting them himself because he obviously trusted her to do it. He trusted a woman who he was in a legitimate long-term relationship with and she burned him for it. This has happened to almost every person ever at some point. How this brings his "judgement" into question I don't really know.

What I do know is, he accepted responsibility for it and doesn't make excuses for it. To me, that tells me more good things about his character than the Couillard Affair speaks to him having bad judgement.


O'Leary has surprised me with some of the things he's said since joining the race. I thought he was rather laissez-faire but now realize he just thinks he can do big government better than everyone else. I'm not really sure why Conservatives would want a leader who wants to buy Bombardier. He should have ran for the NDP leadership based on some of the things he's said.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Feb 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> We need a female as leader if we have any chance of winning the next election from Trudeau and the only female that has a chance is not running unfortunately.



Sadly, I believe you're quite right.  Her, or Peter MacKay...

Regards
G2G


----------



## Stoker (26 Feb 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sadly, I believe you're quite right.  Her, or Peter MacKay...
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I agree Peter Mackay would have been a excellent choice.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Feb 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sadly, I believe you're quite right.  Her, or Peter MacKay...



She has been quite cunning - getting good experience, but then handing off to someone who will likely lose the next election, so she will be well positioned for the next leadership race.

As for Peter, my only question is which party he'd merge with this time...


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2017)

DAP, your red tails are trailing..  ;D

I concur with ballz entirely on Bernier.  

With respect to Rona, while I am not convinced the CPC needs a woman to beat the PM, I think he is doing an admirable job himself (Natives, Environmentalists, Civil Servants, NDP voters and Millenials are all looking pretty weak as support just now) I agree that if she were running I'd be looking at her.  But keep in mind that currently she has three advantages - nobody is running against her, everybody in the party wants her to cover over their cracks, the party is paying for her to be out and about carrying the message.  An additional advantage is the press - much derided by me and others but, none the less - the press wants somebody to beat the government with and so they are inclined to give her a bit of a pass.  After all she isn't going to actually be PM.....

On Peter MacKay - he would be a good candidate, if he was in the game.  But he isn't.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Feb 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I agree Peter Mackay would have been a excellent choice.



I'd like to see him come in as a last-minute "re-join."  Smart, good-looking diverse background couple, and he plays a real sport, not just doing some photo-op fisticuffs. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Feb 2017)

I would too, but I think he's still to closely connected to the last government at the moment.  Give it some time for the association to wear off.  Had he run this past election, I fear he would have gone down to defeat regardless of his past performance.


----------



## larry Strong (26 Feb 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Can't argue that.  It just depends on how much weight you ascribe to those types of issues.  For me, by and large, it is a relatively minor historical matter.  His current, and his past character, and positions generally have seemed consistent and genuine.  And I suspect him to be mildly disruptive - in a manner fitting for Canada.  *We don't do revolutions*.
> 
> The big issue for me is that believe him to be liberal, in its original sense of being tolerant and espousing freedom, not in its modern sense of espousing the cant of "liberal values".  My position is that if you can define a liberal position on anything then you are not a liberal because to be liberal is to be accepting of different opinions.
> 
> And with that - I guess I demonstrate my illiberalism....




Actually we have on more than one occasion and I see no reason why we would not again........if pushed far enough........

_".......Both rebellions were motivated by frustrations with political reform. A key shared goal was responsible government, which was eventually achieved in the incidents' aftermath......"_

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_of_1837

https://janetajzenstat.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/canadas-revolution/


Sadly Canadian history is a vanishing subject........




Cheers
Larry


----------



## Remius (26 Feb 2017)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Actually we have on more than one occasion and I see no reason why we would not again........if pushed far enough........
> 
> _".......Both rebellions were motivated by frustrations with political reform. A key shared goal was responsible government, which was eventually achieved in the incidents' aftermath......"_
> 
> ...



The rebellions of 1837-38 are covered quite a bit in French schools.  For obvious reasons.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2017)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Actually we have on more than one occasion and I see no reason why we would not again........if pushed far enough........
> 
> _".......Both rebellions were motivated by frustrations with political reform. A key shared goal was responsible government, which was eventually achieved in the incidents' aftermath......"_
> 
> ...



Fair comment....  Arguably those rebellions married the Catholics and the Presbyterians (and other dissenting non-conformists) against the Anglican establishment exemplified by the Scots Episcopalian Bishop Strachan.  George Brown - of the Globe - was an evangelical Presbyterian and William Lyon MacKenzie also came from a strict Presbyterian background.


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2017)

Sooooo....


Anybody else see Kellie Leitch's video...

 ???


----------



## Lightguns (28 Feb 2017)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Actually we have on more than one occasion and I see no reason why we would not again........if pushed far enough........
> 
> _".......Both rebellions were motivated by frustrations with political reform. A key shared goal was responsible government, which was eventually achieved in the incidents' aftermath......"_
> 
> ...



As an aside, Fort Cumberland where Stephen Harper's ancestor helped save New Brunswick for Canada by defeating the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia patriots (or traitors, depending on your view).  Not sure that was a good thing but........


----------



## Lightguns (28 Feb 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> She has been quite cunning - getting good experience, but then handing off to someone who will likely lose the next election, so she will be well positioned for the next leadership race.
> 
> As for Peter, my only question is which party he'd merge with this time...



Pete is a political dynasty, he will not chance a loss, he will be back when winning is a sure thing.


----------



## Lumber (28 Feb 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sadly, I believe you're quite right.  Her, or Peter MacKay...
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Ok, I'm lost. Who is this "her" that everyone keeps referring to?


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2017)

Rona Ambrose, interim leader.


----------



## Lumber (28 Feb 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Rona Ambrose, interim leader.



Ah. Thanks. Sometimes you guys can be so vague..


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Feb 2017)

Ok, Ok, Ok.  I am less than impressed with Mr. O'Leary ducking in and out of the proceedings like a dog at the fair as it suits him.  You're either in and serious or you're not.  Back to being in limbo for me then. :gloomy:


----------



## Scott (28 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sooooo....
> 
> 
> Anybody else see Kellie Leitch's video...
> ...



Some folks refuse to believe their horse is dead until it thunders in to the dirt. They just keep on flogging it and doubling down.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ok, Ok, Ok.  I am less than impressed with Mr. O'Leary ducking in and out of the proceedings like a dog at the fair as it suits him.  You're either in and serious or you're not.  Back to being in limbo for me then. :gloomy:



Now I can flat out refuse to take him seriously.  rancing:



			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> Pete is a political dynasty, he will not chance a loss, he will be back when winning is a sure thing.



 :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Feb 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Pete is a political dynasty, he will not chance a loss, he will be back when winning is a sure thing.



Yep! You should erect something for that dynasty ... I don't know ... a bridge or something.  ;D


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Some folks refuse to believe their horse is dead until it thunders in to the dirt. They just keep on flogging it and doubling down.



I'm not going to sugar coat it.  It was downright creepy.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> I'm not going to sugar coat it.  It was downright creepy.


She's not on my Christmas List.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ok, Ok, Ok.  I am less than impressed with Mr. O'Leary ducking in and out of the proceedings like a dog at the fair as it suits him.  You're either in and serious or you're not.  Back to being in limbo for me then. :gloomy:



I agree. He's trying to appear like a Rockstar who's above everyone else. He doesn't think anyone on this forum should own AR15s, he can **** right off.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sooooo....
> 
> 
> Anybody else see Kellie Leitch's video...
> ...



Link?


----------



## MARS (28 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> I'm not going to sugar coat it.  It was downright creepy.



lol..woah...that was really weird and...amatuer

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/27/kellie-leitch-video_n_15051746.html


_* fixed the link - G2G_


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Mar 2017)

Wow!

I was reading the backgrounder on her video producer...


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Mar 2017)

You read with your mouth?   :whiteflag:


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Wow!
> 
> I was reading the backgrounder on her video producer...


And you're being WAY too kind here, bud.

Agree or disagree with the content, this is one @#$%^&*('ed up video.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Mar 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> You read with your mouth?   :whiteflag:



LOL, I should have been more clear, JJT...I saw video commentary of her producer going over her script before shooting the video.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Mar 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> LOL, I should have been more clear, JJT...I saw video commentary of her producer going over her script before shooting the video.  ;D



I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist.  Just like with chips as anyone who knows me (and my waistline) can attest.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Mar 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist.  Just like with chips as anyone who knows me (and my waistline) can attest.



It's all good...  ..except her video, of course...it's still just plain disturbing and weird.  :-\


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Mar 2017)

Her whole campaign slant is disturbing and weird.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Mar 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It's all good...  ..except her video, of course...it's still just plain disturbing and weird.  :-\



Poor production, wooden acting and bad video I'll grant. But disturbing and weird? I don't see it like that. She hit her platform pretty square and honest and people that vote for her know what they are getting.

Unlike the current liebrals that have not, satisfactorily, answered a single question in the House, since they've been elected.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Mar 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Poor production, wooden acting and bad video I'll grant. But disturbing and weird? I don't see it like that. She hit her platform pretty square and honest and people that vote for her know what they are getting.
> 
> Unlike the current liebrals that have not, satisfactorily, answered a single question in the House, since they've been elected.



RG, I'm still talking delivery.  I will absolutely grant you that she hits the target for a few people.  In seriousness, I do look at a person's 'body of work' for trend analysis, and Dr. Leitch does not impress me either with her record as an MP, nor with her more recent pseudo-pandering.  The Cons need to do some soul searching to keep fragmentation to a minimum. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Scott (7 Mar 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The Cons need to do some soul searching to keep fragmentation to a minimum.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> ...



Indeed.

I repeat, the CPC is not going to pay much attention to (many of) the folks on this forum as we're known to be just a tad bit Conservative leaning already. They should be after those in their base who fucked off because the bullshit was getting piled too high, the guys who might toss another one towards the hairdo just because of the shit show that their leadership race/candidates have/may have been. That's a few of us, I'd hazard a guess. That's me at this current state.

See, when I listen to Dr. Leitch or Kevin O'Leary, all I circle back to hearing is this:







Hell, that's all I hear when some folks get to prattling on and on about how horrible the hairdo is.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Mar 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> RG, I'm still talking delivery.  I will absolutely grant you that she hits the target for a few people.  In seriousness, I do look at a person's 'body of work' for trend analysis, and Dr. Leitch does not impress me either with her record as an MP, nor with her more recent pseudo-pandering.  The Cons need to do some soul searching to keep fragmentation to a minimum.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> ...



No, no. It's ok. I wasn't shilling for her. I just said her message was on point, for her supporters, even if nothing else in the production, was.

She's not my pick anyway.


----------



## Remius (8 Mar 2017)

She's a one issue candidate.  And it isn't even a good issue either.


----------



## Loachman (22 Mar 2017)

I am leaning towards Maxime Bernier at this point.

I like the idea of somebody who will effectively savage the Sun King, but Mr O'Leary seemed to be a one-issue guy and said some stupid things about the Armed Forces and firearms - my two main interests.

However:

https://thegunblog.ca/2017/03/18/kevin-oleary-changed-his-opinion-of-ar-15-rifle-cssa-reports/

Kevin O’Leary Changed His Opinion of AR-15, CSSA Reports

Kevin O’Leary changed his opinion of the AR-15 after having angered many shooters last year when he said that automatic versions of the popular rifle were used only to kill and should be banned.

O’Leary, one of the leading candidates running to head the Conservative Party of Canada, also said he would repeal the unjust and convoluted Firearms Act if he won the party vote and were then elected prime minister, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association said today in a newsletter. He joins at least three other candidates in pledging to scrap the flawed law.

I’m happy to see the change in words and thrilled that the CSSA is so effective at educating and converting people. I’m also continuing to support a different candidate.

Here’s part of what the Canadian Shooting Sports Association said (bold in original):

Mr. O’Leary said he had tried to read the Act. “It is 144 pages of incomprehensible gibberish” he stated. “If I am elected, I will repeal the entire Firearms Act and replace it with sensible laws Canadians can understand.”

Mr. O’Leary admitted he had made some erroneous comments regarding AR15s but has since changed his position on these firearms. “The AR15 is just a rifle, one of the most common hunting firearms in the world. The unjust restrictions on these ordinary firearms will be changed to permit them to be used for hunting,” said O’Leary.

© 2017 TheGunBlog.ca

I am impressed that he actually read the Firearms Act - few politicians, and even few firearms owners, have done that - and saw it for what it is. That puts him up a lot in my view, and I do not see his winning as a bad thing.

Playing nice has not got us very far in the twenty-two years since that miserable Act was passed.


----------



## Loachman (27 Mar 2017)

As more and more people realize that the Conservatives and New Democrats are not the only leaderless parties:

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2695/conservatives-inch-ahead/

Conservatives Inch Ahead Conservative Majority , March 24th

In a random sampling of public opinion taken by The Forum Poll™ amongst
1029 Canadian voters, the Conservatives have closed the gap, and are now
just ahead of the Liberals by two points.

Amongst decided and leaning voters, Liberal support has decreased by three
points, from 39% on February 26th to 36% now. Conservative are up three
points, from 35% on February 26th to 38% now.

It is worth noting that September 2015 was the last time we recorded a
Conservative lead over the Liberals (September 29, 2015: 34%, and 27%
respectively). New Democrat and Green support has remained steady at 15%
and 4% respectively (February 26th: NDP 15%, Green Party 4%), while the BQ
see a one point decrease to 6% (February 26th: 7%).

In British Columbia the Liberals (35%) are well  ahead of the
Conservatives (29%), who themselves are statistically tied with the New
Democrats (28%).

In the Atlantic region, the Liberals (48%) have seen a decrease in
support, losing eleven points (February 26th: 59%).  The Conservatives
(32%) are up two points (February 26th: 30%). In Québec, both the Liberals
(40%) and Conservatives (20%) are slightly up since February (February
26th: 38%,
and 17% respectively).

The BQ (22%) is down five points (February 26th: 27%). In Ontario, the
Liberals (38%) fall behind the Conservatives (45%) by seven points
(February 26th: 42%, and 39% respectively). The NDP (12%) is down four
points February 26th: 16%). In the prairies, the Conservatives (48%) are
up six points, while the Liberals (19%) are down by ten (February 26th:
42%, and 29% respectively). The NDP (20%) is down by five points (February
26th: 25%).

Conservative Majority Seen If an election were held today, the
Conservatives would win 170 seats, the Liberals 128, the NDP 26, the BQ
13, and 1 for the Green.

“Canadians are not happy with the Liberal budget. The budget is so
unpopular in fact, that we're seeing the leaderless Conservatives gain an
edge in popularity for the first time since 2015,” said Dr. Lorne
Bozinoff, President of Forum Research. Lorne Bozinoff, Ph.D. is the
president and founder of Forum Research.


----------



## YZT580 (27 Mar 2017)

I would hazard a guess that the majority of the Ontario increase is due to the continuing popularity of the provincial liberal party as opposed to any real animosity towards the federal branch.  It is the liberal name rather than any serious protest against the feds.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Mar 2017)

With friends like these ...

_*"Julian Fantino endorses Conservative leadership candidate Kevin O’Leary"*_ (_Toronto Star_)
_*"Julian Fantino endorses Kevin O'Leary for CPC leadership"*_ (ipolitcs.ca)


----------



## Scott (28 Mar 2017)

Some of you will be _thrilled_ to know that I plunked down my money for a CPC membership.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Mar 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Some of you will be _thrilled_ to know that I plunked down my money for a CPC membership.


It's not too late to put your name in for the Leadership!  _PLEASE!!_   :nod:


----------



## Scott (28 Mar 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It's not too late to put your name in for the Leadership!  _PLEASE!!_   :nod:



If some of the folks here aren't thrilled to be _brother and sister_ Conservatives with me, I can only imagine the howling from certain corners if I ever went that far.

Fuck, you might be on to something!  >


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Mar 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It's not too late to put your name in for the Leadership!  _PLEASE!!_   :nod:


What he said!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> I would hazard a guess that the majority of the Ontario increase is due to the continuing popularity of the provincial liberal party as opposed to any real animosity towards the federal branch.  It is the liberal name rather than any serious protest against the feds.




I'll disagree. We know the difference between provincial and federal parties. The majority of the people I know in Ontario reserve just as much, if not more, scorn for Trudeau as they have for Wynne. This is not a mistake of misidentifying the criminals because of their allegiance. It's an allegiance to an organisation borne of deceit, blackmail, bribery, theft, nepotism, kickbacks, falsehoods and dictatorship. Nobody is mistaking the provincial liebrals with the feds. They are an equally hated combination.


----------



## Remius (28 Mar 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll disagree. We know the difference between provincial and federal parties. The majority of the people I know in Ontario reserve just as much, if not more, scorn for Trudeau as they have for Wynne. This is not a mistake of misidentifying the criminals because of their allegiance. It's an allegiance to an organisation borne of deceit, blackmail, bribery, theft, nepotism, kickbacks, falsehoods and dictatorship. Nobody is mistaking the provincial liebrals with the feds. They are an equally hated combination.



TRudeau hasn't angered me enough or even come close to the Wynne government in my mind.  I can assure you that my vote provincially next time will not be based on issues or any type of logic other than: anyone but Wynne.  Federally I'm going to wait and see what the CPC puts forward but it's not looking good given the cast they currently have.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Mar 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> TRudeau hasn't angered me enough or even come close to the Wynne government in my mind.  I can assure you that my vote provincially next time will not be based on issues or any type of logic other than: anyone but Wynne.  Federally I'm going to wait and see what the CPC puts forward but it's not looking good given the cast they currently have.



In the fullness of time, Trudeau will eventually suck in your opinions.  He will fall in favour of anything but him, they all do sooner or later.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Mr. O’Leary admitted he had made some erroneous comments regarding AR15s but has since changed his position on these firearms. “The AR15 is just a rifle, one of the most common hunting firearms in the world. The unjust restrictions on these ordinary firearms will be changed to permit them to be used for hunting,” said O’Leary.



I'm leaning towards Max too (from Erin).

When I heard O'Leary did a rapid 180o turn with his views on AR15s all I saw was a politician who realized he alienated thousands of potential voters and did what politicians do best. Going from only the military and police possessing one to it being the most commonly used hunting rifle is too mealy mouthed for me to believe.

He probably has the most star power to take on Trudeau but I 100% believe firearm issues would slide off his platform the minute he's elected.


----------



## Loachman (28 Mar 2017)

He also stated that he tried to read the Firearms Act and said that "It is 144 pages of incomprehensible gibberish" and "If I am elected, I will repeal the entire Firearms Act and replace it with sensible laws Canadians can understand."

See Reply 743 on this thread at https://army.ca/forums/threads/97393/post-1481159.html#msg1481159.

Intelligent people reassess themselves, learn, adapt, and move forward. He seems to be growing in other areas as well, including learning French.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2017)

I really hope I'm wrong and your faith is well placed.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Mar 2017)

I haven't seen any reason to change my support for Max.  I don't know if he is a "winner" but I understand his positions and generally agree with him.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2017)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> I wonder if there would be any resistance to another leader from "Alberta"......



Not sure about that, but there sure seems to be some resistance about another PM from Quebec.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Mar 2017)

I am leaning towards Erin Otoole.

Got to back a fellow Sea King Tacco...


----------



## Remius (29 Mar 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> In the fullness of time, Trudeau will eventually suck in your opinions.  He will fall in favour of anything but him, they all do sooner or later.



Oh no doubt.  I'm just not there yet.  I predict I might be in the middle of his second term. 

If I had to pick someone right now amongst the inmates currently running for the CPC it would be Maxime Bernier.  So far his positions have been reasoned and he seems to have a good temperament to take on Trudeau or at least hold him accountable.  I don't agree with all of his positions but at least he can outline his opinions in a very effective way.  I truly hope that he can give the Prime Minister a run for his money.  I also hope he can keep his party intact through all of this.


----------



## Lumber (29 Mar 2017)

I predict a Trudeau victory and Liberal majority in 2019, no matter who the Leader of the CPC is.

That leader steps down, and good old Pete is finally ready to enter the ring. CPC victory in 2023.

However, Pete's east coast liberal values are too centre-right for the more conservative-western factions of the party, and the old Alliance factions split from the CPC; NDP victory 2027.... 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll disagree. We know the difference between provincial and federal parties. The majority of the people I know in Ontario reserve just as much, if not more, scorn for Trudeau as they have for Wynne. This is not a mistake of misidentifying the criminals because of their allegiance. It's an allegiance to an organisation borne of deceit, blackmail, bribery, theft, nepotism, kickbacks, falsehoods and dictatorship. Nobody is mistaking the provincial liebrals with the feds. They are an equally hated combination.



Disagree. Most voters are uninformed and ignorant, especially the young ones (and I'm relatively young compared to most). They don't even know what a Federal system of government is, let alone how party politics works between Federal and Provincial levels.

As for the part I highlighted in yellow, which party were you referring to? I feel like you could have been referring to any of them...


----------



## George Wallace (1 Apr 2017)

In this recent interview, Stephen Harper talks about Canada's position with Israel and his opinion of the BDF movement.  Note his comments on the UN, as not being a collection of "Democratic Nations" but a collection of "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNwfZcGeUwk


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Apr 2017)

STOP THE PRESSES  Kevin O'Leary has pulled out and is backing Maxime Bernier.   

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kevin-oleary-drops-out-endorses-bernier-1.4086583


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Apr 2017)

That makes things interesting. A Bernier lock on the leadership, now (as much as I am hoping for O'Toole)?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2017)

That still won't sway me towards Bernier.  Somehow, his Security faux pas still sticks to my mind as being a RISK.


----------



## FSTO (26 Apr 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That makes things interesting. A Bernier lock on the leadership, now (as much as I am hoping for O'Toole)?



I don't think so. I believe that O'Toole, Scheer and maybe even Chong have a better ground game and a chance to really gain on the second ballot.


----------



## Altair (26 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That still won't sway me towards Bernier.  Somehow, his Security faux pas still sticks to my mind as being a RISK.


I'm sure you'll vote for the CPC in an election regardless of whether Bernier is leader or not.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm sure you'll vote for the CPC in an election regardless of whether Bernier is leader or not.



Unlike Diehard Liberals who never seem to change their colours, I have done so several times.  I would prefer to vote for the best member of my Riding than for the Leader.  The Party Platform would be the next qualifier for me; is their Platform more in line with my desires than the other Parties.  If I actually despise a Leader, and I have no other options (Party Platform and Riding candidates), then I confess, I may not vote.


----------



## GAP (26 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That still won't sway me towards Bernier.  Somehow, his Security faux pas still sticks to my mind as being a RISK.



It may not have enough of an impact.....the mail in votes are largely already sent...


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Apr 2017)

I wonder hoe many of the folks that bought memberships on O'Leary are now feeling buyer's remorse and feeling cheated?  I know I would have been royally pissed off if I was one of them.  Especially as I still have my doubts about Maxime as I just can't easily get past his security faux pas, albeit long since past.


----------



## ballz (27 Apr 2017)

GAP said:
			
		

> It may not have enough of an impact.....the mail in votes are largely already sent...



I was told the party wasn't even mailing out the ballots until the end of April and I should receive my ballot the first week of May... by someone at the party HQ when I inquired about my membership status prior to leaving on 28 March.


----------



## GAP (27 Apr 2017)

You might be right....IDK


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Apr 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm sure you'll vote for the CPC in an election regardless of whether Bernier is leader or not.



Needless dig.


----------



## Lightguns (27 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unlike Diehard Liberals who never seem to change their colours, I have done so several times.  I would prefer to vote for the best member of my Riding than for the Leader.  The Party Platform would be the next qualifier for me; is their Platform more in line with my desires than the other Parties.  If I actually despise a Leader, and I have no other options (Party Platform and Riding candidates), then I confess, I may not vote.



Please don't do that, I can never imagine not voting.  Too many have paid too much to not vote.


----------



## Altair (27 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unlike Diehard Liberals who never seem to change their colours, I have done so several times.  I would prefer to vote for the best member of my Riding than for the Leader.  The Party Platform would be the next qualifier for me; is their Platform more in line with my desires than the other Parties.  If I actually despise a Leader, and I have no other options (Party Platform and Riding candidates), then I confess, I may not vote.


My voting history.

2006 LPC

2008 Bloc

2011 Abstained, all the leaders disgusted me.

2015 LPC

So I've only voted LPC twice in 4 elections.

Might have voted CPC in the upcoming 2019, but O'Leary is out now so probably not.

My point wasn't to say you're a CPC diehard, but more to say that I can't see you voting for Trudeau over Bernier or whatever left wing wacko the NDP settles on over Bernier.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Apr 2017)

Bloc.....?   :facepalm:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Apr 2017)

I am not surprised, though I have not done so myself. In 2008, a bloc vote was not a vote for independence in Qc, It was a vote against the scandal ridden Liberal party of the time (remember that is the days following shortly on the heels of the investigation into their financing scandal, still) by those who could still not let themselves swing to the point of voting CPC.


----------



## Altair (27 Apr 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Bloc.....?   :facepalm:


I was still voting QLP and ADQ provincially, not PQ, so don't paint me as a separatist. I couldn't bring myself to vote for the LPC, I had no use for the CPC, the NDP was a non entity in Quebec, so that left the bloc,  who had no power to do anything to promote separatism in Ottawa, but did swing left on issues.


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am not surprised, though I have not done so myself. In 2008, a bloc vote was not a vote for independence in Qc, It was a vote against the scandal ridden Liberal party of the time (remember that is the days following shortly on the heels of the investigation into their financing scandal, still) by those who could still not let themselves swing to the point of voting CPC.


Exactly, and in the days of minority governments the bloc vote actually had some weight at the time.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Apr 2017)

Nothing could compel me to ever vote for a separatist party, provincial or federal.


----------



## Altair (27 Apr 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Nothing could compel me to ever vote for a separatist party, provincial or federal.


And nothing could ever compel me to vote for the communist party of Canada.

If we're sharing parties that we could never be compelled to vote for. I think that's what we're doing, right?


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Apr 2017)

I suppose so, if you like.

I wasn't painting you as a separatist, btw, just the fact that you chose to vote for them and thus give them encouragement to continue.  I've voted NDP in the past, but that doesn't make me a Dipper, just an enabler.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 May 2017)

Donated to Erin otool. Thinking it was a mistake. Their party gave out my email address to all Conservatives (suppose that's normal? ) and  now I'm being bombarded with emails from all candidates spelling my name wrong (even though it's right there in the email) and begging for money incessantly. Fucking annoying that is.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Donated to Erin otool. Thinking it was a mistake. Their party gave out my email address to all Conservatives (suppose that's normal? ) and  now I'm being bombarded with emails from all candidates spelling my name wrong (even though it's right there in the email) and begging for money incessantly. Fucking annoying that is.



Suppertime and 3 robocalls a night on which to hang up.....  :rage:


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 May 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Suppertime and 3 robocalls a night on which to hang up.....  :rage:



Why is Stephen Harper calling you three times a night?


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Why is Stephen Harper calling you three times a night?


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 May 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

>



I was thinking of the "Air Farce" Stephen Harper phoning you nightly.   :nod:


----------



## Journeyman (2 May 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I was thinking of the "Air Farce" Stephen Harper phoning you nightly.   :nod:


I just assumed it was that whole 1-800-POOKSEX thing....    >


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I just assumed it was that whole 1-800-POOKSEX thing....    >



Quiet, you!  D9er doesn't know.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 May 2017)

I get e-mails from both the Conservatives and the Liberals extolling themselves, talking about the threat the other party is and begging for money. Funny how they sound more or less the same.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 May 2017)

Sent in my ballot this morning.

1. Scheer
2. Leitch
3. O'Toole

I saw no reason to respond further with #4 thru #?

I can now send all political junk and spam to the appropriate folder. There's no need for me to read any more political crap until the new CPC leader is chosen.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 May 2017)

Interim leader's apparently heading south ...


> Canadian interim Conservative Party leader Rona Ambrose is leaving politics to join the Washington-based Wilson Center as her party prepares to choose her successor.
> 
> Ambrose, 48, confirmed her departure in a speech Tuesday morning in Ottawa, saying she’ll resign her seat in parliament after the House of Commons adjourns for the summer. She pledged to continue to help the Conservatives recruit more women and didn’t say where she’d go in her “post-partisan life.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott (27 May 2017)

Scheer surprises, I guess!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 May 2017)

I'm a happy camper right now. ;D


----------



## jmt18325 (27 May 2017)

I wonder how all of the people here who mock Trudeau because of his youth feel?


----------



## dimsum (27 May 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I wonder how all of the people here who mock Trudeau because of his youth feel?



I think those people were mocking his lack of political experience and banking on the name, not his age.  Scheer was the Speaker from 2011-2015.


----------



## mariomike (27 May 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Scheer surprises, I guess!



My wife was at the Congress Centre yesterday, and returned today to vote for him. 

The traffic was terrible. There is also an Anime convention in the same building.


----------



## dimsum (27 May 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> My wife was at the Congress Centre yesterday, and returned today to vote for him.
> 
> The traffic was terrible. There is also an Anime convention in the same building.



Cartoon characters and politicians.  There's a joke in there somewhere.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 May 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I wonder how all of the people here who mock Trudeau because of his youth feel?


Pretty damn good. In spades! I can go to bed, now that I have found the most childish AND stupid question (staying with the Trudeau theme) anywhere in the whole ether.  [

I just realized that, maybe, you were serious. If so, I apologize in advance


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 May 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I wonder how all of the people here who mock Trudeau because of his youth feel?



I mock the PM because he's a bubble head and a narcissistic idiot as far as I'm concerned , not because of his age.  For me, he'll still probably be a tool at 70 or 80.  Mind you, by then I'll be dirt napping so I won't give a shit.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 May 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I think those people were mocking his lack of political experience and banking on the name, not his age.  Scheer was the Speaker from 2011-2015.



And Trudeau was an MP and the leader of a party.  I think I might smell some hypocrisy.


----------



## Remius (28 May 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And Trudeau was an MP and the leader of a party.  I think I might smell some hypocrisy.



I have no doubt that some liberals and their supporters here will attack Andrew Scheer with superficial name calling or some other thing.  Hypocrisy works both ways in politics.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (28 May 2017)

Can anyone give us the rundown of how Scheer pulled this out?

I thought Bernier had it in the bag....


----------



## GAP (28 May 2017)

He led in 1st 12 ballots but apparently O'Toole supporters came over to Scheer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 May 2017)

Bernier lost Quebec to Scheer when he started taking shots at the marketing boards. I _believe_, Scheer picked up O'Toole's Quebec support. Bernier needed those few votes.

BTW, it was a virtual dead heat, coming down to a difference in a percentage point and thirteen votes.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 May 2017)

Don't know this guy, but I think this is a good outcome overall for the Cons.  Guys like me, who don't trust Maxime's handling of sensitive documents (however long ago) and those on the other side of the spectrum who can't abide Kellie Leach's approach to immigration etc, just might have the middle ground we can all get behind.  Hopefully some Scheer willpower will be able to kick the PM to the side of the HoC he belongs in, the Opposition or better still, back to teaching little kids drama class.


----------



## RocketRichard (28 May 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I mock the PM because he's a bubble head and a narcissistic idiot as far as I'm concerned , not because of his age.  For me, he'll still probably be a tool at 70 or 80.  Mind you, by then I'll be dirt napping so I won't give a crap.


My my, don't sugar coat your analysis 'bubble head, narcissistic idiot and tool' of the PM. Sigh, this name calling doesn't add to intelligent debate. I hope our youth aren't reading these comments from a person much older and, one would assume much wiser than them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 May 2017)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> My my, don't sugar coat your analysis 'bubble head, narcissistic idiot and tool' of the PM. Sigh, this name calling doesn't add to intelligent debate. I hope our youth aren't reading these comments from a person much older and, one would assume much wiser than them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I was being nice, quite frankly and holding back on how I truly feel.


----------



## RocketRichard (28 May 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I was being nice, quite frankly and holding back on how I truly feel.


I see. Enjoy the Sunday. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 May 2017)

And you, as well.


----------



## brihard (28 May 2017)

And so the CPC have elected another anti-abortion, same-sex-marriage opposing, regressive social conservation as leader. While Scheer's entry into politics is post-merger, nonetheless the CPC has leaned reform instead of PC in this one. He's been an MP since he was 25, and even most of his work experience prior to that was in political/constituency offices... I for one am not inspired by this choice. I was hoping they would elect someone who would bring a forward-thinking platform and give Trudeau a run for his money. I do not see that in this result. Trudeau may have just been handed a second term that he may not deserve.

The CPC needs to be courting my generation better. They failed to do so. The old social-regressive dog just don't hunt anymore with us...

**Staff Edit: Abortion opinions below this post moved to - Abortion Issues - Mega Thread [MERGED]**


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 May 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> And so the CPC have elected another anti-abortion, same-sex-marriage opposing, regressive social conservation as leader. While Scheer's entry into politics is post-merger, nonetheless the CPC has leaned reform instead of PC in this one. He's been an MP since he was 25, and even most of his work experience prior to that was in political/constituency offices... I for one am not inspired by this choice. I was hoping they would elect someone who would bring a forward-thinking platform and give Trudeau a run for his money. I do not see that in this result. Trudeau may have just been handed a second term that he may not deserve.
> 
> The CPC needs to be courting my generation better. They failed to do so. The old social-regressive dog just don't hunt anymore with us...



How about you give him a chance?


----------



## Loachman (28 May 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> And so the CPC have elected another anti-abortion, same-sex-marriage opposing, regressive social conservation as leader.



Would you prefer the Trudeau "my-way-or-else" approach? He was the one who forced all prospective candidates to support unfettered abortion, no exception. Stephen Harper was neither the first control freak nor the last (but certainly much more fiscally responsible than either his predecessor or his successor). MPs should be free to support the wishes of their constituents.

There are plenty of Liberal supporters who don't like abortion, either. I don't agree with it, personally.

Regardless, those issues are herrings of a scarlet hue.

Personal opinions do not necessarily translate into action for a number of reasons. No party is likely to raise abortion as an issue in Parliament simply because it is controversial and divisive. No party is going to revisit gay marriage either.

As for Reform, I was a Reform member before that Party was even officially active in Ontario. I found it refreshing. Policy was developed at the lowest levels. Every member had input. Communication within the Party was always bi-directional rather than top-down only as is the case in every other party, regular, and frequent. Opinions on most issues varied, sometimes dramatically, and everybody was free to speak his or her mind. MPs were bound to represent the wishes of their constituents to the Party, not the wishes of the party to their constituents. Core belief was a small but effective government that respected the constitutionally-specified responsibilities of the three levels of government, minimum waste of people's hard-earned money, and personal freedoms tempered with personal responsibility. That generated interest and motivation, which is why the Party grew so rapidly. Yes, some loose cannons were allowed to flourish, and those, of course, attracted most of the attention in the Liberal-leaning media. Not everybody, by any stretch, was a rabid "social conservative". Many were very libertarian.


----------



## Lumber (28 May 2017)

This is possibly the most polite, cordial,  Canadian-esque discussion on politics I've ever seen. 

Thanks you, and have a nice day.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 May 2017)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> The issue of late is labelling people as left/right/con/lib etc. I agree with parts of all parties and disagree with others. Come election time vote as one decides (ideology, party, individual, issue etc) using all info available. This whole right vs left stuff is not on.


Or the approach by some (of all team jersey colours) to politics like favourite sports teams:  my team is never wrong, the other team is never right.

A good municipal politician I knew once said this was the main reason he didn't want to go into provincial or federal politics.  At the municipal level, he felt comfortable being conservative about some issues, liberal about others and even socialist on others.  Not so many shades of grey once parties/partisanism get involved.

Circling back to the newly elected Conservative leader, good on him, and I wish him luck.  Even though some have pointed to his social conservatism, I think he's going to find he's going to have to balance more than _just_ that end of the spectrum in the current Conservative party - something about room in the tent for everybody.  The current PM has more than enough soft spots to successfully exploit, so let's see how it goes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2017)

Aaron Hutchins writing for Macleans:

"However, Scheer took a gamble with rock-ribbed social conservatives by saying he’s with them but would continue Harper’s strategy of keeping hot-button issues from gaining prominence.

“I had some concern about his position on abortion and gay marriage,” says Luc Berthold, one of four Quebec MPs who ultimately endorsed Scheer, despite Scheer’s previous pro-life support and attempts to re-open debate on traditional marriage. “He said he has his personal view on that but he’ll respect the position members took at the last convention. That convinced me I could be okay with him.”"

It might be too early to panic over the attack of the So-con Clones.


----------



## brihard (28 May 2017)

The lot of you raise fair points, and I respect them. I see the social conservatism in the new leader not as a point of concern for policy necessarily- I don't really fear an abortion revisit, and certainly not any attempt to undermine marriage equality. My concern is that Scheer's election, and Trost's concerningly strong showing are a barometer of a sort of ugly undercurrent in the Conservatives. Just as the left has some truly ridiculous champagne socialists and social justice warriors, so too does the right have its front of rednecks, racists, and characters whose social views are more apt to the 1950s.

I have no party loyalty. I voted Conservative in 2006 to throw out the Liberals, and again in 2008, and Liberal in 2011 and 2015 in order to change the diaper again. I want to see a modernize Conservative party that draws strength from the progressive conservative side of the tent. We're there a place I would most naturally fit in our political spectrum, it would probably be that PC section. But I can go either way, and can 'protest vote' elsewhere if I find the options repugnant, as I once did provincially in Ontario.

As someone who falls into the 'millennial' category, so see my generation just now beginning to slowly enter into a more mature political awareness... a lot of us are paying taxes and working professional jobs, our generation has sent a cohort to war of a sort, some are starting to have kids of their own... Demographically we will soon become fairly potent- the 'boom echo' as the baby boomers retire. We're as fragmented as any pet generation on economics, foreign policy, and a myriad of other issues. We lean a bit more in aggregate though, I think, to some of the stuff like abortion, gay marriage, etc that should have been done deals in the 80s or 90s.

Vern- you made a valid point that free votes see members of all parties come out against, for instance, abortion. I do see a distinction between an individual MP having those views, versus one with those views being elected to leadership of the party. Scheer will have a lot of influence in the party's tone, but also just having him there will make it more likely that some issues just won't die as many of us feel they ought to. And it will impact things like foreign aid spending as well.

Anyway- just my thoughts. I'm not impressed. He will have an uphill battle to win my vote absent Trudeau really screwing up. But three years is a long time.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> This is possibly the most polite, cordial,  Canadian-esque discussion on politics I've ever seen.



Also a fair concern. Um. Y'all suck. Pound sand or something. Hosers.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 May 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ... It might be too early to panic over the attack of the So-con Clones.


True dat - the next policy convention will be revealing.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 May 2017)

Just my opinion, but I think the Left has successfully rebranded "conservatism" as "racist/bigot/misogynist/etc", which whether honest or not, eliminate the party from consideration from upwards of 65% of voters.

Until they nominate someone who is socially untouchable on the key hot button topics, they have zero chance of winning a national election regardless of how incompetent "Prime Minister Selfie" is.

Whether national or provincial, it's like the party enjoys shooting off its own toes.   :facepalm:


----------



## Jed (29 May 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just my opinion, but I think the Left has successfully rebranded "conservatism" as "racist/bigot/misogynist/etc", which whether honest or not, eliminate the party from consideration from upwards of 65% of voters.
> 
> Until they nominate someone who is socially untouchable on the key hot button topics, they have zero chance of winning a national election regardless of how incompetent "Prime Minister Selfie" is.
> 
> Whether national or provincial, it's like the party enjoys shooting off its own toes.   :facepalm:


Well I hope you are incorrect in your assessment. I will continue to believe that eventually common sense will prevail and that after a few years of witnessing buffoonery exhibited by Mr. selfy et al and some harder living courtesy of piss poor management by government, the duped Millennial generation will adapt and overcome.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 May 2017)

Scheer was my first choice. Scheer won. That makes me very happy.  ;D

Bitch, whine, complain and predict all you wish. For now, I'm not listening. [


----------



## armyvern (29 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Scheer was my first choice. Scheer won. That makes me very happy.  ;D



Mine too.   :cheers:


----------



## Loachman (29 May 2017)

Mr Scheer was one of my three choices, and the other two also finished in the top three, and I have no complaint.

Conservatives do well when they govern as proper Conservatives, and stop trying to play Liberal-lite. The last government lacked vision, conviction, and direction towards its end and deserved to be put down. This current one never had any of those.

Ontario has been stuck with McWynnety for too long because provincial Conservatives have failed to realize the need to act as Conservatives.

Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Brian Mulroney (in his first few years), Stephen Harper (in his first few years), and Mike Harris did well. Wishy-washy pseudo-Conservatives do not.

I hope that those millennials that voted for the Sun King and McWynnety enjoy the ride. They - and their great-grandchildren - will be paying for it a lot longer than I will, and I'm still paying for Trudeau I's contribution to our national debt.


----------



## Remius (29 May 2017)

Lots to digest with this win.  

As much as people think that social conservative issues like revisiting abortion and gay marriage rights are no longer on the table, there is a certain segment of the party that want them revisited.  

I believe Mr. Scheer when he says he does not want to restart any debate on those issues but he will have pressure from that segment that does.  The policy convention will be interesting indeed and I'm curious to see what will come of that. 

Mr. Scheer has some challenges though.  Keeping his party in line while balancing free speech for members of his caucus will be an interesting one to see him navigate.  Harper essentially had to muzzle some of his caucus and I'm curious if Scheer will ultimately have to do that as well.  He isn't well known to most Canadians and will need to introduce himself in a positive way.  His smiling affable manner though is a good trait but that might only get him so far if his party begins to make statements that will ignite the other parties into fear mongering.  

I see him as basically maintaining the CPC's status quo and will not likely shift too much to the center.  I'm not convinced he can beat Trudeau in the next election so his tenure might be short lived.

Side prediction on my part:  Carolyn Mulroney runs in the next General election.  Scheer loses and steps down and she makes a run for it.  The timing is right as Trudeau will be a spent force by the election that follows.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 May 2017)

@Jed

I hope you are right, but if you actually talk to the Millenials in particular, the majority are completely ignorant of just about everything (no offense to those who have educated themselves), which doesn't provide me much optimism.....


----------



## GAP (29 May 2017)

> I see him as basically maintaining the CPC's status quo and will not likely shift too much to the center.  I'm not convinced he can beat Trudeau in the next election so his tenure might be short lived.



I doubt very much that Scheer can defeat Trudeau in 2019....Liberals tend to stay in power until they totally piss off the populace to the point they are just bat-shit crazy.....then they let the conservatives in for awhile.... :2c:


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 May 2017)

I  have no issue with Sheer and wish him luck but I think he is, was, and will always be destined to be a sacrificial lamb on the alter of the 2019 Federal election. 

I don't think JT is going to be ousted, barring  something drastic.  This country is pretty deeply in love our PM regardless of the facts surrounding his tenure as our PM. 

The real chance to unseat JT is 2024, and I have my doubts that Sheer will lead that campaign.  Watch for Ambrose or McKay to miraculously come out of retirement. 

Just my  :2c:.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 May 2017)

NOt so sure about that, even CBC is starting to question the lovefest, he may be popular for now, but a leader must do more than show off his socks and the world is a busy place and events may easily disrupt his "sunny ways"


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 May 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> And so the CPC have elected another anti-abortion, same-sex-marriage opposing, regressive social conservation as leader. While Scheer's entry into politics is post-merger, nonetheless the CPC has leaned reform instead of PC in this one. He's been an MP since he was 25, and even most of his work experience prior to that was in political/constituency offices... I for one am not inspired by this choice. I was hoping they would elect someone who would bring a forward-thinking platform and give Trudeau a run for his money. I do not see that in this result. Trudeau may have just been handed a second term that he may not deserve.
> 
> The CPC needs to be courting my generation better. They failed to do so. The old social-regressive dog just don't hunt anymore with us...



I agree, the CPC is dusting off the same old worn out playbook.  They enjoyed a decade of government mostly due to the damage done by Chretien in the 90s, not because Canadians had dramatically shifted their way of thinking.

Trudeau has helped the Liberals reclaim their position as Canada's "natural governing party".  I don't see Scheer attracting large support in Ontario or Quebec.  I'm a fiscal conservative but the more extreme social conservatives in the CPC scare me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 May 2017)

It's nice seeing everyone follow the liebral script and trying to define Scheer, by all the old stereotypes, before he even steps foot into the job. Butts is watching. If you all scream abortion and open the debate again, they will use that to try divide the party. Mark my words, watch the liebral machine go to work. Dollars to doughnuts, it'll be one of the first teacup tempests the liebrals' MSM propaganda arm rolls out.

I have faith he'll act more in the party's interest rather than his own. When he says he has no intention of revisiting those issues, I'll tend to believe him, until it's proven otherwise.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> I doubt very much that Scheer can defeat Trudeau in 2019....Liberals tend to stay in power until they totally piss off the populace to the point they are just bat-shit crazy.....then they let the conservatives in for awhile.... :2c:



I don't believe I've ever seen a more universal dislike for a sitting PM. His father was hated for ruining the country. Jr. has far outstripped the same hate his father took years to build. Probably because lots of us are still around that watched Sr. perform his social ponzi scam and we know the touchstones and recognise many of them in Jr., that the basement dwellers have never been exposed to.

BTW everyone, my local gypsy supply is currently in a strike position, because of overtime issues created when the MSM bought out entire stocks of fortune telling equipment. If anyone has extras (I KNOW that they exist out there!!  ) can I get a crystal ball? That's all I need, got the cape of many pockets and my zircon encrusted turban already.

Still too happy to care.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's nice seeing everyone follow the liebral script and trying to define Scheer, by all the old stereotypes, before he even steps foot into the job. Butts is watching. If you all scream abortion and open the debate again, they will use that to try divide the party. Mark my words, watch the liebral machine go to work. Dollars to doughnuts, it'll be one of the first teacup tempests the liebrals' MSM propaganda arm rolls out.
> 
> I have faith he'll act more in the party's interest rather than his own. When he says he has no intention of revisiting those issues, I'll tend to believe him, until it's proven otherwise.
> 
> ...



Not attacking Scheer, I just think he doesn't have a hope in hell of knocking off Trudeau in Central Canada.  I'm a Conservative voter but don't see how we can win the next election with this guy at the helm.  He will be painted as the "Reform Party" in disguise and will flop hard.  This experiment has been tried already *cough* Canadian Alliance *cough*.  

I anxiously await to see Scheer pulling up to the cameras on a Seadoo, channeling his inner Stockwell Day:


----------



## Altair (29 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I agree, the CPC is dusting off the same old worn out playbook.  They enjoyed a decade of government mostly due to the damage done by Chretien in the 90s, not because Canadians had dramatically shifted their way of thinking.
> 
> Trudeau has helped the Liberals reclaim their position as Canada's "natural governing party".  I don't see Scheer attracting large support in Ontario or Quebec.  I'm a fiscal conservative but the more extreme social conservatives in the CPC scare me.


With the NDP vote in Quebec sinking even lower than it did for the 2015 election and the bloc still fading away,  the liberals are due to pick up some more seats in that province.

I believed that Bernier would have been competative in Quebec, I'm pretty sure that scheer is going to hand that province to the liberals.

Where a scheer lead conservative party picks up enough seats to make up for that to win in 2019 is  beyond me.

If he sticks around long enough he might be PM in 2023. He has youth on his side in that regard. That said, with only slightly over 50 percent support from his party if he loses in 2019 he may not be allowed to stick around, especially if conservative party big guns come out of retirement after that election.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 May 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> With the NDP vote in Quebec sinking even lower than it did for the 2015 election and the bloc still fading away,  the liberals are due to pick up some more seats in that province.
> 
> I believed that Bernier would have been comparative in Quebec, I'm pretty sure that scheer is going to hand that province to the liberals.



You presume the Conservatives need Quebec in order to form the government. As Mr Harper proved in 2008, they don't. The Liberals, on the other hand, most likely do. Their primary opponents are the NDP and Bloc, who admittedly crapped the bed last time. This is not to say the Torries shouldn't court Quebec, but neither should they get too hung up on gaining seats there.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Where a scheer lead conservative party picks up enough seats to make up for that to win in 2019 is  beyond me.



If you look at the results of the last election, there's a whole lot of red on the board that could be chipped away at. The Torries have the opportunity to turn over a lot of seats in Ontario. At the risk of generalizing, there's lots of immigrant voters who are socially reserved, and don't much like the direction the Liberals are taking us. The task at hand is for the Conservatives to recruit some of those community leaders to stand for election under the blue banner.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> If he sticks around long enough he might be PM in 2023. He has youth on his side in that regard. That said, with only slightly over 50 percent support from his party if he loses in 2019 he may not be allowed to stick around, especially if conservative party big guns come out of retirement after that election.



I'll give you this one, but only if it's an electoral disaster in the next go round. If the Conservatives increase to striking distance, then I think he's pretty much safe. As well, there are some up and coming young Conservatives who could be seasoned in opposition prior to taking the reins for the next big push. Putting them forward prematurely is perhaps not the best idea.


----------



## GAP (29 May 2017)

I think we need to remember that for the most part this run for the leadership of the Conservatives was mostly by the B team......the leading contenders and potentials backed off, knowing 2019 might be a bridge too far...


----------



## Journeyman (29 May 2017)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> This whole right vs left stuff is not on.


In one fell swoop, you kicked a bunch of Politics profs and students to the curb.   ;D

It's merely a theoretical shorthand -- a simplified means to frame a discussion.  However, as noted here and in several other politics threads, some people are intellectually incapable or personally uninterested in "discussing";  they provide nothing more than poorly-argued, repetitive blather.  Problems tend to come from the extreme ends of the political spectrum, where name-calling often substitutes for informed dialogue.

Now, some have stated that they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and I have no problem understanding that stance;  I don't see it as a left/right problem, and personally, I agree with it.  


I try to avoid getting entangled in the politics threads (honestly, I do).  Although I sometimes think to myself "how stupid can one person be?!"   But then, it's as though they hear my thoughts, take it as a challenge, and try to out-stupid previous posts.
      :brickwall:


If this site is your first choice for finding rational and informed political discussions, well.... enjoy your fool's errand.  I'm afraid it's not meant to be.   

I now return you to this latest iteration of    :soapbox:


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 May 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You presume the Conservatives need Quebec in order to form the government. As Mr Harper proved in 2008, they don't ...


... if they're OK with just a _minority_ government (which is better than _NO_ government, but still ...)


			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> ... there's lots of immigrant voters who are socially reserved, and don't much like the direction the Liberals are taking us. The task at hand is for the Conservatives to recruit some of those community leaders to stand for election under the blue banner ...


 :nod:


			
				GAP said:
			
		

> I think we need to remember that for the most part this run for the leadership of the Conservatives was mostly by the B team......the leading contenders and potentials backed off, knowing 2019 might be a bridge too far...


Can't disagree there.


----------



## Altair (29 May 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You presume the Conservatives need Quebec in order to form the government. As Mr Harper proved in 2008, they don't. The Liberals, on the other hand, most likely do. Their primary opponents are the NDP and Bloc, who admittedly crapped the bed last time. This is not to say the Torries shouldn't court Quebec, but neither should they get too hung up on gaining seats there.


 They don't need Quebec to win, true, but it helps them when Quebec is divided. If the LPC can increase their Quebec seat count, which with the collapse of the NDP continuing and the Bloc continuing to stagnate, and the CPC running a candidate that probably wont help them there, the LPC can probably look at increasing their seat count in Quebec. Looking at the numbers right now, they could conceivably go from 40 seats to 55.


> If you look at the results of the last election, there's a whole lot of red on the board that could be chipped away at. The Torries have the opportunity to turn over a lot of seats in Ontario. At the risk of generalizing, there's lots of immigrant voters who are socially reserved, and don't much like the direction the Liberals are taking us. The task at hand is for the Conservatives to recruit some of those community leaders to stand for election under the blue banner.


I'm sure they could chip away at some of the LPC support in Ontario, but I doubt Scheer is the guy who is able to penetrate fortress Toronto. So while I could see them chiping away some red, but would that be enough to offset what the LPC picks up in QC?





> I'll give you this one, but only if it's an electoral disaster in the next go round. If the Conservatives increase to striking distance, then I think he's pretty much safe. As well, there are some up and coming young Conservatives who could be seasoned in opposition prior to taking the reins for the next big push. Putting them forward prematurely is perhaps not the best idea.


Even if Scheer gets within striking distance, I think if Peter Mackay or Jason Kenney starts to organize for 2023 he's pretty much done.


----------



## jmt18325 (29 May 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> NOt so sure about that, even CBC is starting to question the lovefest, he may be popular for now, but a leader must do more than show off his socks and the world is a busy place and events may easily disrupt his "sunny ways"



That's what those of you who dislike him so don't understand - most people are happy with the way he's run things so far.  It's not just personal popularity.


----------



## jmt18325 (29 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't believe I've ever seen a more universal dislike for a sitting PM.



That says more about the company you keep than anything.  If I was running a poll of my town, and only my town, I'd think you were right.  You'd be wrong, as would most of the people in my town.  Trudeau is popular with a pretty large number of Canadians (enough that he has more support than he did on election day) as is his governing style.  It's that simple.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 May 2017)

He has less support now, than on election day when over 60% of Canadians didn't vote for him. Contrary to that which you want to believe, his popularity is dropping like a lead weight in a vacuum.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 May 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That says more about the company you keep than anything.  If I was running a poll of my town, and only my town, I'd think you were right.  You'd be wrong, as would most of the people in my town.  Trudeau is popular with a pretty large number of Canadians (enough that he has more support than he did on election day) as is his governing style.  It's that simple.



Didn't like him before the last election, even less so now.  So, not true he has more support now than then.  Even though I am one person, in my esteem he is doing  a fantastic imitation of a Stuka.  So, his "wow" factor isn't rising with me, and I know I'm not alone.  You should see the billboards just off Sparks St and Elgin, within sight of the Hill.  It's from folks who are disappointed he's not kept his promises of electoral reform.  Smells like dissatisfaction to me..... and I bet they voted team Red last election (mores the fool, them).  His pretty face and hair may have some fooled, but some folks are now looking behind the curtain at the wonderful wizard of Oz.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 May 2017)

This thread is about Andrew Scheer. 
Yes, I also dragged it off topic.

However;............

Justine intrudes enough into our lives already. Let's have just one thread where we can enjoy without hearing about our national despot.


----------



## jmt18325 (29 May 2017)

Trudeau's popularity was relevant to the discussion of Scheer's chances of becoming Prime Minister in 2019.  It could happen, but given history, it's an unlikely occurrence.


----------



## brihard (29 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This thread is about Andrew Scheer.
> Yes, I also dragged it off topic.
> 
> However;............
> ...



Then maybe don't petulantly refer to him as "Justine" and call him a despot? The election of a new leader for the opposition is clearly significant in relation to their electoral chances against the incumbent prime minister. So no, comparing him to the PM is perfectly in play. Arguably, a new leader's chances of beating Trudeau is the *most* significant thing about him. Expecting conversation to exclude reference to the PM is unreasonable and unrealistic.


----------



## Scott (29 May 2017)

What Brihard said. 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> He has less support now, than on election day when over 60% of Canadians didn't vote for him. Contrary to that which you want to believe, his popularity is dropping like a lead weight in a vacuum.



How many Canadians didn't vote for Harper? Really. This forum used to cry out when someone was seen here, or over on rabble, making the exact same statement. Funny how it's come full circle (I know we have had this debate before, but I am making the point about the circle now)

You have far better arguments than this.


----------



## Remius (29 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This thread is about Andrew Scheer.



It is.  I didn't see anyone here attacking him.  His ability to beat Trudeau, keep the party united and away from old losing battles are all relevant.


----------



## Loachman (29 May 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ... Scheer's chances of becoming Prime Minister in 2019.  It could happen, but given history, it's an unlikely occurrence.



Just like that nice President Trump's thrilling victory.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 May 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> It is.  I didn't see anyone here attacking him.  His ability to beat Trudeau, keep the party united and away from old losing battles are all relevant.



Totally agree....


----------



## jmt18325 (29 May 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Just like that nice President Trump's thrilling victory.



Sure - things can happen.  To put it in perspective though, a Canadian government with a majority hasn't failed to secure a second mandate since 1935.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 May 2017)

Yup, ok. I was out of line asking to keep junior out of things. I didn't think that through properly. My apologies to all who rightfully and properly pointed out my error. Those were good points. (learning moment for me  )

If you just wanted to take a shot and unload, oh well. Hope you feel better for it.


----------



## Altair (30 May 2017)

Tim Moen of the libertarian party of canada is willing to step aside as leader to let Maxime Bernier run as leader.

I would vote for that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 May 2017)

I don't know much about Scheer and not a lot of buzz out here about him, the good news is that he can work with a more or less clean slate and acknowledging where Harper disconnected with the people and refusing to follow that path will make look more interesting. JT is bungling stuff and lot's of people are uneasy about his leadership ability, so Scheer needs to show solutions to problems that both Canadians and the CPC can accept and avoid giving the Liberals ammunition to work with.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 May 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Sure - things can happen.  To put it in perspective though, a Canadian government with a majority hasn't failed to secure a second mandate since 1935.



So to keep it in perspective... statistically, we're due for a different outcome then.


----------



## Altair (31 May 2017)

For anyone wondering how Scheer did so well in Quebec over Bernier.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/terence-corcoran-bernier-didnt-lose-the-leadership-it-was-stolen-by-dairy-lobby-fake-conservatives



> Close to half of the Conservative party members who voted Saturday supported Bernier and his relatively moderate libertarian agenda of less government and lower taxes. The official count, based on the ballot-point system, was Andrew Scheer 17,221 points (50.95 per cent) versus Maxime Bernier 16,578 (49.05 per cent).
> 
> That’s close. But if accounts from the frontline are accurate, Bernier would have won the leadership were it not for vote-rigging infiltrators from the farmers’ unions and associated backers of supply management.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 May 2017)

Couldn't have been that well organized a campaign if it took until the 13th ballot to have its effect.


----------



## Altair (31 May 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Couldn't have been that well organized a campaign if it took until the 13th ballot to have its effect.


Dairy farmers who organized via facebook, no probably not very well organized.

Still effective enough though.


----------



## Lumber (31 May 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> For anyone wondering how Scheer did so well in Quebec over Bernier.
> 
> http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/terence-corcoran-bernier-didnt-lose-the-leadership-it-was-stolen-by-dairy-lobby-fake-conservatives



There's no requirement that says you have to be a member of the CPC for "x" number of days/months/years, or have invested "y" amount of effort/interest/thought in the party, before your are eligible to cast a vote.

Regardless of whatever the article may be insinuating, registered members of CPC voted democratically for their new leader.  Period. 

If the most motivated group of people were farmers, then maybe they _should_ have had greater say. 

I myself, not currently a member of any party, was tempted to join the CPC so that I could vote, but I did not, because I have no issues I'm passionate about to give me the motivation to do so. Had I had such passions, as it appears these farmers did, I would have. If I was _really_ passionate about those issues, may I too would have rallied like minded individuals to sign-up and vote.

As far as I'm concerned, the tone of this article is back-a$$wards; these farmers actually demonstrated real democracy.


----------



## Altair (31 May 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> There's no requirement that says you have to be a member of the CPC for "x" number of days/months/years, or have invested "y" amount of effort/interest/thought in the party, before your are eligible to cast a vote.
> 
> Regardless of whatever the article may be insinuating, registered members of CPC voted democratically for their new leader.  Period.
> 
> ...


democracy in the sense of guys who don't care about the CPC, won't vote for the CPC in a election, and will vanish from the CPC now that the leadership contest is done effected the vote and was the deciding factor of who was the leader of the CPC.

Well within the rules, but the group one wouldn't want deciding leadership contests.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 May 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> democracy in the sense of guys who don't care about the CPC, *won't vote for the CPC in a election*, and *will vanish from the CPC now that the leadership contest is done* effected the vote and was the deciding factor of who was the leader of the CPC.


Or even though this guy may not have been top-of-ballot for everyone, enough people had him _somewhere_ on the ballot to make the cut all the way thru.

Curious - what are you basing the bits in yellow on?  Those who buy the "social conservatives as kingmakers" argument would say the opposite of that.


----------



## Altair (31 May 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or even though this guy may not have been top-of-ballot for everyone, enough people had him _somewhere_ on the ballot to make the cut all the way thru.
> 
> Curious - what are you basing the bits in yellow on?  Those who buy the "social conservatives as kingmakers" argument would say the opposite of that.





> Close to half of the Conservative party members who voted Saturday supported Bernier and his relatively moderate libertarian agenda of less government and lower taxes. The official count, based on the ballot-point system, was Andrew Scheer 17,221 points (50.95 per cent) versus Maxime Bernier 16,578 (49.05 per cent).
> 
> That’s close. But if accounts from the frontline are accurate, Bernier would have won the leadership were it not for vote-rigging infiltrators from the farmers’ unions and associated backers of supply management.
> 
> ...



http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/terence-corcoran-bernier-didnt-lose-the-leadership-it-was-stolen-by-dairy-lobby-fake-conservatives


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Couldn't have been that well organized a campaign if it took until the 13th ballot to have its effect.









Total number of dairy farms in Canada - 11,280
Total number of dairy farms in Ontario - 3,731
Total number of dairy farms in Quebec - 5.546
Total number of Agropur dairy members - 3,345

So.....3000 votes.    Large percentage of a small pool.

But that would be collusion.

By the way..... not unhappy with Scheer.  Would have been happier with Max.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 May 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ... But that would be collusion ...


One man's collusion is another's block special-interest voting  ;D


----------



## Loachman (31 May 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> There's no requirement that says you have to be a member of the CPC for "x" number of days/months/years



Yes, there is. There was a publicized cut-off date for new members several months in advance of the vote. Anybody who joined after that was not eligible.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> One man's collusion is another's block special-interest voting  ;D



My conspiracy.  Your plan.  :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jun 2017)

Aaaaaaaaand from the predictably whiny Socialists with the International Committee of the Fourth International ...


> Andrew Scheer was elected last Saturday as the new leader of the Conservative Party, Canada’s Official Opposition, in a membership vote. His victory, largely thanks to appeals to social conservatives and a brazen defence of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s hard-right record, brings an end to a campaign which saw the Conservatives move still further right.
> 
> Scheer, a Saskatchewan MP and former House of Commons Speaker, has cast himself as “Harper with a smile.” On the 13th ballot he secured 51 percent support, in an electoral system that gave each constituency equal weight irrespective of the number of Conservative voters. He defeated Maxime Bernier, a self-avowed libertarian and Harper cabinet minister who had led on all previous 12 ballots.
> 
> ...


A peek into the OPFOR playbook ...


----------



## Lightguns (1 Jun 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Aaaaaaaaand from the predictably whiny Socialists with the International Committee of the Fourth International ...A peek into the OPFOR playbook ...



I wondered where all them copy writers from Pravda went to after the fall of the USSR.  Apparently they emigrated..............


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jun 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I wondered where all them copy writers from Pravda went to after the fall of the USSR.  Apparently they emigrated..............


Not all of them, given Pravda's still around.  That said, these _are_ the guys who've said the NDP isn't _quite_ socialist enough for their liking.


----------



## ballz (1 Jun 2017)

I've been on Maple Resolve so I haven't had a chance to comment in this, here it goes...

Obviously I am very upset with the final results. I did not put anyone else but Max down on my ballot because no one represented my principles, and stuck to those principles, except for him.

I don't understand how anyone can preach free markets, vehemently hate socialism, but defend supply management... one of the most socialist policies we have in Canada which triples the price of staple foods like eggs, having a negative effect on everyone but especially on the poor.

I do think the article about the dairy lobby is correct. Yes, it was within the rules, but if the Liberal Party told 5000 strategically placed members to quit the party for 4 months and vote in the CPC election, it would also be within the rules but would 100% be infiltration.

What we have in the dairy industry is a bunch of socialists that infiltrated the election and effectively changed the vote amongst Conservatives to protect their cartel. Most will not vote CPC in the next election.

The fact that some people are happy about this simply because they didn't want a leader from Quebec, despite his clear principled stance on free markets, makes it hard to take anyone seriously.

In the end, the social conservative wing of the party may have limped across the finish line, but their grip and influence is weakening. We got a libertarian from Quebec to 49% in the CPC. Its a tough loss to swallow, but real tangible change in the direction of our country isn't achieved in one election.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (3 Jun 2017)

The more I read, the more I am baffled that the CPC allowed a special interest group to make protection of supply--side agricultural monopolies as the tipping point in the nomination.

That is just ridiculous .... :facepalm:


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jun 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The more I read, the more I am baffled that the CPC allowed a special interest group to make protection of supply--side agricultural monopolies as the tipping point in the nomination.
> 
> That is just ridiculous .... :facepalm:



In fairness,  I don't think they allowed it.  They just couldn't control it.

The ranked ballot with umpteen candidates simply meant the combinations and permutations were too great for any kind of feasible statistical analysis.  Nobody knew what the outcome was going to be.

The final result - a 50:50 split - is, from my standpoint, less than satisfactory.  It means that Andrew Scheer won the process.


----------



## YZT580 (3 Jun 2017)

At least in Ontario, the vast number of rural ridings vote conservative so a farm vote from there will be followed up with support for the party. From Ontario west to the BC border the same statement is true.  So there is no real one shot vote as implied.  Whether you support it or not it was a demonstration of democracy in action and the people's choice was selected.  Not a huge majority selection but never-the-less a majority selection.


----------



## Loachman (3 Jun 2017)

And it has not divided the party.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And it has not divided the party.



That's a plus.


----------



## brihard (27 Jun 2017)

Anyone else notice that Peter MacKay has had two big mentions published in the Post in the past week including one article of his own? One on free trade with Britain post-Brexit, and one on national securty / anti-terrorism

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-mackay-canada-cannot-afford-to-turn-soft-on-terrorism-it-still-needs-c-51/wcm/aa8c635f-2c57-469c-ad43-b33e76cc4789

http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/canada-should-pursue-free-trade-deal-with-u-k-peter-mackay-says/wcm/bb8991f6-bccf-4bca-b64d-4ba3d39eeed4

I know I'm hardly the first to predict this, but I doubt Scheer can take Trudeau in 2019, and I suspect we're seeing the first steps in a setup for a 2021 MacKay leadership run for leader of CPC as official opposition into election 2023. He got out of federal politics in time before the CPC came crashing down, he's generally liked and respected, and he's from the PC side and not a social conservative, which frankly the CPC really needs right now. I'll be keeping an eye open for any further MacKay mentions in the next year or two..


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jun 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> He got out of federal politics in time before the CPC came crashing down, he's generally liked and respected, and he's ....


He plays rugby.  Say no more.   :nod:


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice that Peter MacKay has had two big mentions published in the Post in the past week including one article of his own? One on free trade with Britain post-Brexit, and one on national securty / anti-terrorism
> 
> http://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-mackay-canada-cannot-afford-to-turn-soft-on-terrorism-it-still-needs-c-51/wcm/aa8c635f-2c57-469c-ad43-b33e76cc4789
> 
> ...



this has long been a theory since he left.  But this is the right time for him to start laying the ground work with some policy positions.  It's just about the halfway mark so be surprised if he and a few others start to put themselves in the public eye.


----------



## Remius (27 Jun 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> That's a plus.



That remains to be seen. 

This is the challenge that Mr. Scheer will be facing:  http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/andrew-scheer-distances-himself-from-kellie-leitch-s-syrian-refugee-tweet-1.3473832

I suspect he will be distancing himself from several comments and tweets in the next little while before he reins the whole thing in.  Not just from Leitch, but others like Cheryl Gallant for example who might do more harm than good with their comments. 

Don't get me wrong I think he has the ability to curtail and control this but the time it takes to do that will only give the Liberals fodder and ammo.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jun 2017)

I think you under estimate JT ability to hang himself by his own socks, even the lapdog media is starting to comment on it, while trying to be hip and cool, he is coming across to many nonaligned voters as "unserious".


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think you under estimate JT ability to hang himself by his own socks, even the lapdog media is starting to comment on it, while trying to be hip and cool, he is coming across to many nonaligned voters as "unserious".



Not at all.  But I doubt it will be enough this time around.  Scheer and the CPC want to change their image. Best they do that now than have someone else inherit a mess when the real contest begins after the next election.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jun 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> That remains to be seen.
> 
> This is the challenge that Mr. Scheer will be facing:  http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/andrew-scheer-distances-himself-from-kellie-leitch-s-syrian-refugee-tweet-1.3473832
> 
> I suspect he will be distancing himself from several comments and tweets in the next little while before he reins the whole thing in.  Not just from Leitch, but others like Cheryl Gallant for example who might do more harm than good with their comments.



Cheryl Gallant's comments are little party grenades.

Besides those Syrian refugees are more economic migrants than refugees. Some of them had to sell property before being convinced to come to Canada.


----------



## Loachman (28 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Some of them had to sell property before being convinced to come to Canada.



My neighbours did not have that concern.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jun 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> My neighbours did not have that concern.



Were the coming directly from Syria or one of the UN refugee camps do you know? I remember when the Liberals vowed to take 30'000 (I believe it was) a story came out that thousands (close to 30'000?)were contacted and something like less than 3000 showed an interest in coming to Canada, they wanted different countries for various reasons. That's where I read some of them needed to sell property before coming here, which I found weird.


----------



## Loachman (28 Jun 2017)

They spent a few years in at least one camp, and are very happy to be here, and are very appreciative. Their English has improved a lot (from nothing), but is not yet to the point of being able to easily discuss complex matters.

The father and two oldest boys are all working, plus taking English lessons and doing their best to improve their educations. They just bought a car as well.

Being privately-sponsored by a very, very supportive group certainly helped, but they are also determined to make their own way.

Great neighbours, and a very good family.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Cheryl Gallant's comments are little party grenades.


Well put -- she hasn't been doing Team Blue a lot of image favours during her time in office - although she _does_ keep getting elected.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jun 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Well put -- she hasn't been doing Team Blue a lot of image favours during her time in office - although she _does_ keep getting elected.



Have you seen the competition?


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Jun 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> They spent a few years in at least one camp, and are very happy to be here, and are very appreciative. Their English has improved a lot (from nothing), but is not yet to the point of being able to easily discuss complex matters.
> 
> The father and two oldest boys are all working, plus taking English lessons and doing their best to improve their educations. They just bought a car as well.
> 
> ...



That's cool and good news.  Much like the Haddad family in Antigonish of the Peace by Chocolate fame.  The very kind of new Canadians I want to see here.  Unlike the lot from Hamilton that were covered in a video by, The Rebel.  They're trash and ungrateful to say the least.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Well put -- she hasn't been doing Team Blue a lot of image favours during her time in office - although she _does_ keep getting elected.



Likely because she actually listens and fights for her constituents. As opposed to the animatronic voting robots on the other side of the aisle. You know the ones. Pull the string and get the same Gerald Butts non answer from any one of them. Team Trudeau has not provided a single, on topic answer to any question put to them since they took power.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jun 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Have you seen the competition?


Not in that part of the world, no - hence my wondering.


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Likely because she actually listens and fights for her constituents ...


That _would_ do it - document handling skills notwithstanding ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jun 2017)

Loachman]

Great neighbours said:
			
		

> Well put -- she hasn't been doing Team Blue a lot of image favours during her time in office - although she _does_ keep getting elected.



I honestly considered voting other than conservative because of her. She is very active and fights for her members but some of the stuff she says is pretty out there. The local Liberal candidate seemed like a really good dude with good views. I think a big reason she keeps getting elected is because military members are predisposed to vote conservative. She lucked in with her riding thats for sure  ;D

Between the crooks at the NFA getting gun owners personal information and me being harassed constantly through emails and phone calls for money, despite repeated attempts to stop them, I won't be supporting the conservatives financially for a long time.


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2017)

I tend to agree with you Jarnhamar.  There are certain ridings that anyone could run in and still win.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I honestly considered voting other than conservative because of her. She is very active and fights for her members but some of the stuff she says is pretty out there. The local Liberal candidate seemed like a really good dude with good views. I think a big reason she keeps getting elected is because military members are predisposed to vote conservative. She lucked in with her riding thats for sure  ;D
> 
> Between the crooks at the NFA getting gun owners personal information and me being harassed constantly through emails and phone calls for money, despite repeated attempts to stop them, I won't be supporting the conservatives financially for a long time.



Pembroke had a very good Liberal MP, Len Hopkins, the longest serving member in his day.  Unfortunately, then along came Hec and after one term in Parliament, it was the end of a long Liberal Red Riding.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jun 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Pembroke had a very good Liberal MP, Len Hopkins, the longest serving member in his day.  Unfortunately, then along came Hec and after one term in Parliament, it was the end of a long Liberal Red Riding.


That can happen, too -- looooooooooooong timer, then change, then another looooooooong timer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Jun 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Likely because she actually listens and fights for her constituents. As opposed to the animatronic voting robots on the other side of the aisle. You know the ones. Pull the string and get the same Gerald Butts non answer from any one of them. Team Trudeau has not provided a single, on topic answer to any question put to them since they took power.



To be fair, CPC lost 2 seats here in Vancouver, because the MP played very well at being lapdogs, well Weston showed a few signs of independent thinking, but Saxton was a trained poodle.


----------



## Remius (29 Jun 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> To be fair, CPC lost 2 seats here in Vancouver, because the MP played very well at being lapdogs, well Weston showed a few signs of independent thinking, but Saxton was a trained poodle.



And who can forget this example of "animatronics" lol.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/07/30/video-shows-conservative-mps-reading-from-identical-script.html

However I will grant the fact and respect that Gallant speaks her mind (I just can't respect what she spouts sometimes).  A good example of her standing up for what she believes in is her being the only sitting MP (and only CPC member) to not vote in support of the Paris accord which otherwise was supported by all parties and members except her.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> And who can forget this example of "animatronics" lol.
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/07/30/video-shows-conservative-mps-reading-from-identical-script.html
> 
> However I will grant the fact and respect that Gallant speaks her mind (I just can't respect what she spouts sometimes).  A good example of her standing up for what she believes in is her being the only sitting MP (and only CPC member) to not vote in support of the Paris accord which otherwise was supported by all parties and members except her.



Do you suppose that your example, from the Red Star, is equal to the liebrals? Since it came to power this time, the liebral caucus, including the PM have been nothing but puppets mouthing those nonsensical platitudes penned by Gerald Butts. They have made a mockery of debate and sincerity. The modus operandi of answering questions has been to launch on an unrelated tirade of how Harper ruined everything, how Harper left them a deficit, when it was a surplus. They pass the answer sheet around and everyone gets a chance to read it verbatim. You simply cannot compare your example to the outright contempt for the Canadian people that the clown prince and his gaggle of trained seals has shown since being elected.


----------



## Remius (29 Jun 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Do you suppose that your example, from the Red Star, is equal to the liebrals? Since it came to power this time, the liebral caucus, including the PM have been nothing but puppets mouthing those nonsensical platitudes penned by Gerald Butts. They have made a mockery of debate and sincerity. The modus operandi of answering questions has been to launch on an unrelated tirade of how Harper ruined everything, how Harper left them a deficit, when it was a surplus. They pass the answer sheet around and everyone gets a chance to read it verbatim. You simply cannot compare your example to the outright contempt for the Canadian people that the clown prince and his gaggle of trained seals has shown since being elected.



Actually it is originally from the Broadbent institute but was the first thing that showed up in a google search but I had a good chuckle back then when it came out.  It's actually refreshing to see the CPC in opposition because some of their members are able to speak more freely and actually show the talent they have.  Yes I can compare them.  Trudeau and his liberals are heading in the exact same direction the CPC was.  The CPC were all reading from the same prepared script and the exact same lines and prepared statements verbatim.  Just because they are of a different colour doesn't mean they aren't the same.   The fact is that video shows that back then, the CPC were just as much the trained animatronic seals the Liberals are now.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2017)

Missed the point entirely. You're a smart lad. Go back and figure it out.


----------



## Remius (29 Jun 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Missed the point entirely. You're a smart lad. Go back and figure it out.



Don't take this personally but your response was a bit discombobulated and turned into a rant about Liberals and Gerald Butts (I have no doubt that he is behind the messaging btw just like Ray Novak was Harper's puppet master).  My assumption was that we were comparing the Liberals and Conservatives as trained animatronic trained seals.  My point was that they are exactly the same and answered your question about that comparison.  I'll assume you also missed my point entirely as well but being the smart old timer that you are I'm sure you'll go back and figure it out as well.  ;D 

If we are moving on to discussing Liberals and their current governing style I am more than happy to engage.  I posted something in the Politic 2017 thread about my concerns with the Liberals.   Their true colours are starting to come out but not enough to sway most people in two years I think.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Jun 2017)

The Key for Scheer and the CPC is to give his MP latitude to address topics and guidance on how to address key issues like abortion, gay marriage and make clear to everyone all the time what the view of the party is on those “hot issues”. So he can be seen as allowing dissent and varying opinions without the party turning into a herd of cats. He can then paint the Libs as Harper 2.0


----------



## Remius (29 Jun 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Key for Scheer and the CPC is to give his MP latitude to address topics and guidance on how to address key issues like abortion, gay marriage and make clear to everyone all the time what the view of the party is on those “hot issues”. So he can be seen as allowing dissent and varying opinions without the party turning into a herd of cats. He can then paint the Libs as Harper 2.0



That's exactly what I've been saying previously.  Pasrt of the issue is that everyone will pounce on those issues when they are brought up by someone or an individual in the party and claims of secret agendas and fear mongering will come to the fore.  I think though that Scheer's demeanour, smiling, soft spoken will help cushion that in Way Stephen Harper couldn't.  Time will tell.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Don't take this personally but your response was a bit discombobulated and turned into a rant about Liberals and Gerald Butts (I have no doubt that he is behind the messaging btw just like Ray Novak was Harper's puppet master).  My assumption was that we were comparing the Liberals and Conservatives as trained animatronic trained seals.  My point was that they are exactly the same and answered your question about that comparison.  I'll assume you also missed my point entirely as well but being the smart old timer that you are I'm sure you'll go back and figure it out as well.  ;D
> 
> If we are moving on to discussing Liberals and their current governing style I am more than happy to engage.  I posted something in the Politic 2017 thread about my concerns with the Liberals.   Their true colours are starting to come out but not enough to sway most people in two years I think.



I don't consider a review of facts as a rant. I also did not miss your point. I've considered it but I'm just not interested in it. You go ahead and believe that the CPC is as bad as the liebrals because of some instances that are comparable. While the liebrals and their chief liar Trudeau, use the tactic non stop, every time they open their mouths, and have since election. Even his Pravda network agrees with that now and is going after him. So you can keep complaining Harper was the same, but we really know he's not. No different than all the lies he told at his latest conference before shutting down. Nothing is his fault, it's all those dastardly, evil conservatives against his MAJORITY government. He's an irresponsible twit, ruining the country and I find it completely unfathomable how supposedly intelligent people can possibly agree with the way this dipshit ruining the country. Now, those are my personal feelings on Ali Babba and his forty thieves. I don't expect all to agree with me, so be it. However, if you think Trudeau is the second coming and you believe his massive line of bullshit, save your breath responding, because I'm not interested in someone who is in agreement with him to sell our country out.


----------



## Remius (29 Jun 2017)

Clearly this subject is upsetting you.  I realise as well that my attempts at a balanced approach can be offputting.  

To be fair, I don't think Trudeau is the second coming.  Quite the opposite.  I find it strange that agreeing with some of your points sets you off though.  Just because I criticize the Blue team does not mean I am for the Red team and vice versa.  Both teams are hypocrites.  The blue for complaining about the red for using the same tactic so they used and the red for using the tactics they cried about.  

Another thing and I know you don't care because you will likely say so at some point, but go back and reread your last post.  It's full of ad hominem attacks and does nothing to help the already degraded tone here.

For someone who has requested on several occasions to respect his opinion you rarely if ever respect others that might disagree with or call you on what you say.  It works both ways.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2017)

I'll save you the trouble of trying to shoehorn me into a mold that I'm not from. I respect what others say, up to a point, then I can stop listening, especially when it's misleading, off topic or if it becomes a test of one upmanship. Trust me, you are not upsetting me. I'm an asshole and act like this all the time. I don't sugar coat things or attempt to be coy and hedge my conversations. I can be bruske, profane, vulgar, angelic or devilish, as I see fit. I get on here and post drunk, then have to apologize after I see it. I fuck up on a constant basis. My difference is I'm not afraid to admit it and will wear it each and every time. I don't do hours of research to back my points. Much of what I post has been from my observations of life over the last 64 years and 37 years service and my ever expanding gut. I'm cynical, sarcastic and have an extremely low tolerance for idiots that don't have a mental ailment, but act like they just climbed down from the trees. I try read everything that is posted when I'm in the discussion. I respect them all, but I reserve the right to disagree vehemently if I wish. So don't get your shit all tied in a knot. People don't agree with me sometimes simply because of my delivery. I hate Trudeau with a passion, I hate his party (not liberals as a whole), I vote conservative because they are the closest to what I want to see. Not because they are ideal. They aren't perfect either, but for now, there's not much choice. The greens and dippers just take up room and oxygen. Disagreeing is not disrespecting an opinion, quite the opposite and I won't apologize for it. Love to stay and chat some more but I've got things to do.

HAGO  

Sorry for the tangent all.


----------



## Remius (29 Jun 2017)

oh don't worry.  I don't have to shoehorn you into anything nor would I try.  

I don't do hours of research either.  i tend to pay attention though and have a long memory at times.  Most things are easy to find if you look for them.  Takes a few minutes of perusing really.  Not sure why that would be a bad thing. I will read a few things a bit more in depth at times to get a bigger picture purely from interest.

I prefer to discuss the issues though and legitimately respect your candour.  But if I see something, like you do, I will comment, present a differing opinion or try to add a different perspective.  It has nothing to do with one upmanship.

Anyways, enjoy the evening.  It's pissing rain here.


----------



## Loachman (29 Jun 2017)

Peace and Kumbaya, Honoured Brethren, Peace and Kumbaya.

Same side 'n' all.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jun 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Peace and Kumbaya, Honoured Brethren, Peace and Kumbaya.
> 
> Same side 'n' all.



Didn't want to do with sunny days? 
 >


----------



## Loachman (29 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Didn't want to do with sunny days?
> >



Screw that BS.

Them's just fighting words.

Now my blood pressure's exploding and my mouth frothing.


----------



## Remius (29 Jun 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Screw that BS.
> 
> Them's just fighting words.
> 
> Now my blood pressure's exploding and my mouth frothing.



Sunny days are fine.  Sunny ways though....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jun 2017)

Part of the problem in modern politics is much of the staff supporting the politicians were all trained in the same schools by the same Profs and they think alike. In fact staffers may end up working for both parties in their career, being rather mercenary. Then the big cheeses surround and  themselves with very smart people who may be a bit to smart for their own good and won't make a sound moral choice, when there is a political way to slide out of something. The Mike Duffy affair to me is a classical example of this mindset. There was a simple and moral solution and had they gone that route, they would have come out looking much better than they did. I get donation pleas from both the Libs and the CPC, basically they are are exactly the same wording, just change the name of the party. Part of this is driven by the fact that the majority of voters exist in a fairly narrow range near the centre of the political spectrum. So neither the Libs or the CPC can stray to far from band before losing votes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jul 2017)

China's doesn't appear happy with Scheer's position on a potential free trade deal -- this from the CHN Communist Party's paper online ...


> Canada's Liberal government is in exploratory talks with China over possible negotiations on a free trade deal, but the country's opposition Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer said in a recent interview that he would not hold free trade talks with China if his party was in government, citing concerns about human rights, labor standards and the environment. The opposition leader's statement shows nothing but his arrogant and biased attitude toward China.
> 
> "There are so many concerns with the Chinese government - their human rights record, the way their economy works. We don't want to see Canadian manufacturers, Canadian workers put on a completely uneven playing field," Scheer said, according to a Global News report on Sunday. He also mentioned that the differences in the two countries' labor standards would put many Canadian companies at a huge disadvantage to Chinese competition under a free trade deal.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (4 Aug 2017)

Free trade with China?  Do we still have any manufacturing for them to take over?  Maybe they will put a few Canadian owned factories in Mexico out of business.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Aug 2017)

Next up:  the shadow cabinet - list attached.

Some interesting choices:  fmr VAC minister Steve Blaney as VAC Critic (_"why didn't you do what you're asking for now?"_) and former PA for NatDef as Defence Critic (see above in yellow).

Former TB Chair Tony Clement is listed for Public Services and Procurement Critic.

"Inner" shadow cabinet:  Lisa Raitt (Deputy Leader), Alain Rayes (QC Political LT), Candice Bergen (House Leader), Mark Strahl (Whip), Chris Warkentin (Deputy House Leader), John Brassard (Deputy Whip), Diane Finley (Caucus-Party Liaison)


----------

