# CPC Leadership Discussion 2020-21



## brihard (22 Oct 2019)

Figured I might as well get this ball rolling.

Raitt lost her seat. MacKay and Ambrose are both presently out of federal politics, understandably it would have been uncouth for either to have even hinted at a leadership run prior to the election.

I’m assuming we’ll see a fairly durable minority- we won’t have another election quickly. That gives time for the CPC to do this right, and for a new leader to get settled in as leader of the opposition for quite a while until both the NDP and Bloc decide it’s time for another election.

So, who will it be?


----------



## Remius (22 Oct 2019)

Contenders I could see running:

Of those still in the house, O’Toole maybe. 

Of those who may be lurking just outside the party, Peter MacKay, Rona Ambrose and a few media types have mentioned Christie Clark.

This is assuming that Scheer doesn’t try to stay on.  If he does, it will lead to a very divided party.  CPC rules have it that if he does not step down but lost, a leadership review gets triggered.  That can lead to a leadership race if he fails to get a certain percentage of support.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Oct 2019)

Believe I read somewhere he has a press conference today at 1300 in Regina.  I think we'll have some clarity on the way forward then - whether a graceful step down, or a knife fight at the convention...


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> ... MacKay and Ambrose are both presently out of federal politics, understandably it would have been uncouth for either to have even hinted at a leadership run prior to the election ...


... but after 1300 Regina time?   op:


----------



## Journeyman (22 Oct 2019)

First off, Brihard.... I hate you.  We couldn't even give it a day.   :'(

If I may steal a tweet from that retired army/SOF guy, Mike Day:


> I want to vote for a pty with
> 
> - a leader with the charisma of Singh
> 
> ...


 Can I get a halleluiah?! 


CPC needs to reclaim the centre.  

Stop pandering to extremes.  Leave the haters and racist alt-right to PPC and their ilk.  For the other end of the political spectrum, it will likely prove beneficial... and painful... but the Libs being obligated into a forced child marriage with someone even more left cannot help but provide ammo for the CPC next time;  any coalition with the NDP will inevitably devolve into "it's our turn at the trough -- Canada's economy is now _our_  piggy bank."  The fiscal cost to Jane/Joe Canadian will prove to be a tipping point.

Leadership.  I'm not a card-carry party member... but seriously?  Sheer has the personality of paint drying..._grey_  paint drying.  He was the best the CPC could come up with?  The fact that he couldn't make more headway against a leader as damaged in as many ways as Trudeau speaks volumes (despite Trudeau's masturbatory attempts at being macho with the boxing pics, he was definitely on the ropes).

Party platform.  Maybe produce a series of coherent policies *and get the word out more than a fortnight before the election*.  This ties back to pandering;  if you're afraid to commit to anything because you want to please everyone, you're intellectually bankrupt and you're going to fail.  Make a decision and stick with it.

/rant   :not-again:


Oh well, at least I still have the RWC2019 semi-finals to look forward to this weekend.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Oct 2019)

The good news for the Conservatives is that they have no shortage of talent.

Inside caucus, the obvious front runners are Erin O'Toole and Michele Rempel. I know Erin, personally, and think he would make an excellent PM.

Outside of caucus, the two obvious candidates would have to be Rona Ambrose  and Peter McKay.

The less obvious ones might even be Brad Wall (no french, unfortunately) or Jason Kenney.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Oct 2019)

I'd like Ambrose but wading her bio it doesn't look like she'd be interested in coming back.

I hope Rempel gets a shot, she'd have my vote and a good donation. 

Last time I donated to O'Tool with the intention of voting for him all I got were more call and emails asking for money, him putting his hands up taking himself out of the running then continuing to ask for money.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Oct 2019)

For the first time ever I'm considering joining a political party with the intent of dethroning Justin Trudeau. I have some very strong opinions of this character which are not fit to print.

Good day.


----------



## GR66 (22 Oct 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> First off, Brihard.... I hate you.  We couldn't even give it a day.   :'(
> 
> If I may steal a tweet from that retired army/SOF guy, Mike Day: Can I get a halleluiah?!
> 
> ...



Mirror's my thoughts exactly


----------



## RangerRay (22 Oct 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Of those who may be lurking just outside the party, ... and a few media types have mentioned Christie Clark.



For the love of all that is holy, NO!!!!

For one thing, she is a big “L” Liberal. She sucked up to Tories when she was Premier, but that was only to keep the Liberal-Conservative coalition that is the BC Liberal Party from splintering. 

On her all too brief career as a talk show host (never liked her show, but it kept her out of politics), she had two targets for her vitriol: the BC Teachers Federation, and Stephen Harper. 

Never mind that her premiership was a disaster and she is as ethically challenged as PM Trudeau. 

I referred to her as the Liberal Sarah Palin.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (22 Oct 2019)

Even though Scheer has said he would stay on, a leadership review is mandatory under the CPC constitution.
The CPC did terrible in the central Canada ridings; obviously a leader that can resonate more with Canadians of all stripes is required.
O'Toole would be good, so would McKay. And I always liked Ambrose.
For crying out loud, the CPC has a lot of talent, I'm sure that they can find someone better that Andrew.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2019)

Unbelievable.  Lost to a LPC government weathering six months or so of ongoing scandal and the bag of hammers still thinks he should stay on.

Are there any adults in the CPC to take him out to the shed and explain in short words why he should gracefully bow out, or be kicked out?


----------



## dapaterson (22 Oct 2019)

"This isn't like selling insurance!"


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Oct 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "This isn't like selling insurance!"



Which, apparently, he didn’t do much of.


----------



## TCM621 (23 Oct 2019)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> For the love of all that is holy, NO!!!!
> 
> For one thing, she is a big “L” Liberal. She sucked up to Tories when she was Premier, but that was only to keep the Liberal-Conservative coalition that is the BC Liberal Party from splintering.
> 
> ...



Not to mention she left Provincial politics under a cloud of scandal, as is traditional in BC. She was supposed to be the softer version of Gordon Campbell, who did wonders for BC no matter what left wing types will tell you but was easy to hate.

The CPC need to find the candidates least likely to be susceptible to the ol' Conservative hidden agenda cry. That means no Religious pro life types, no history of speaking about the dangers of gay marriage, etc. If you can only find pro life types find some that are women or at least not pro life for religious reasons. They need a solid climate policy, it doesn't have to be moonshots like everyone else but they need to have solid answers for every criticism of their plan.

I viewed Scheer much like Stephane Dion. Seems like a nice guy. Very capable politician (which is how he got the leadership in the first place) but he doesn't have the personality, intellect, talent with languages, charisma or combination thereof to unseat an incumbent. I think if Scheer had taken over for Harper while they were in power, he may have been non controversial enough to hang on for an election. I think Dion was similar. The best you can say about Scheer was that he prevented a potentially disastrous Kevin O'Leary leadership.

McKay would be a good bet, as would Ambrose. It's too bad Mulroney entered provincial politics because there is no way she is getting the Ford stink off of here. Maybe they can find a francophone who grew up in the Prairies, who is just old enough to appear experienced but young enough to look vigorous and energetic.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (23 Oct 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The less obvious ones might even be Brad Wall (no french, unfortunately) or Jason Kenney.



No Jason Kenney; he is building his little empire in Alberta. 

_Milnet.ca staff: Edit to fix quote format_


----------



## upandatom (23 Oct 2019)

Card Carry CPC Member here, 

The party is sick, IT needs a major clean up. Someone typed earlier, they need to get back to center. 
CPC shouldnt be preaching religion, and having a hardline religious leader was not going to work out well. 

Charisma, was lacking, desperately. Scheer was a cardboard cutout. Best intentions for the party, just could add flair to words, or convey the ideals in a manner that people like to listen to him. I found him dull and boring, Bernier had more flair.  

What really hurt, and I havent heard much about this is- 
1. The BQ snagging up votes, They were a dead party, so this points to one thing, Quebec isnt happy footing the bill for irregular immigration. Which could help Scheer out. 
2. Ford has a big following, they avoided him like the plague. Cons people in Ontario are fairly quiet, because we have jobs. The liberal bought out media is doing a great job at slander campaigns. (ie- the cut to education? there was no cuts, he added 700 million, and just isnt hiring more teachers to replace the teachers that leave, why, because there is 106000 less high school students, there isnt a demand) 

This also shows the election system needs a change. Nationwide elections should not be controlled via one province, This hurt Scheer. 

Back on topic, Ambrose would be my pick, if she came back. They need a strong, female, center lined leader. This would appease a  major demographic, shouldn't of been an issue in this case, however Scheer, with previous women's right to choose issues, is not appealing. 

Although- the CPC did have an interesting candidate, Claire Rattee, she lost, but does not fit the norm of the CPC party. 

I voted for O'toole to be party leader. Bernier dead last, Scheer before Bernier.


----------



## Altair (23 Oct 2019)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Card Carry CPC Member here,
> 
> The party is sick, IT needs a major clean up. Someone typed earlier, they need to get back to center.
> CPC shouldnt be preaching religion, and having a hardline religious leader was not going to work out well.
> ...


No.

Quebec doesn't want pipelines forced down their throat. The energy corridor would do that. Not many Quebecers would go for that. Liberals said they might(they would) intervene with bill 21. That bill has 70 percent support in Quebec, French Quebec wasn't going to go for that.  Singh was the guy that Quebecers said they wouldn't allow to be a teacher or a police officer, they weren't going to make him Prime Minister.

So CPC, out.

LPC, out.

NDP, out.

That leaves the bloc.


----------



## Remius (23 Oct 2019)

With Scheer staying on, it only divides the party.  Not good.  But I guess he decided that he wants to stay in government funded housing a bit longer. 

He needs to step down.  with him at the helm they will not shake the perception that Canadians have of them and Scheer. He is going to keep the CPC right where it is and they will lose again.  

Hopefully a Leadership Review will occur but I have my doubts as the SoCon and western wings of the party will ensure he stays.


----------



## ballz (23 Oct 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Hopefully a Leadership Review will occur but I have my doubts as the SoCon and western wings of the party will ensure he stays.



Apparently its set for April in Toronto... which geographically is probably not in Scheer's best interests...


----------



## dapaterson (23 Oct 2019)

What's the CPC rule for the review? Who has a vote?  If it's weighted by HoC members, he may be well set.


----------



## ballz (23 Oct 2019)

They have a review after any time the lose an election. Whichever delegates show up apparently get a vote...

Trying to remember who was talking about it on Power & Politics, I think it was John Paul Tasker. I don't really understand how the leadership reviews work to be honest, but they were just commenting on how Thomas Mulcair may have passed his leadership review if it was held in Quebec instead of Edmonton because of who shows up.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Oct 2019)

Is it open to all members, including online voting, or to delegates only?  Lots of ways for a vote to go depending on who can vote and how...

But ultimately it's more Reform than Progressive Conservative now - so the Blue Grits are excluded from the tent.  Which is the road to governing.


----------



## ballz (23 Oct 2019)

It sounded like just delegates but I really really don't know much about it, just the 2 sentences that it was spoken about. I guess I'll learn more about it in April as I'll be paying attention.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Oct 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Is it open to all members, including online voting, or to delegates only?  Lots of ways for a vote to go depending on who can vote and how...



Delegates only.

https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/03155337/KXBCNkWf-X3IDtR.pdf


> 10.7 At the first national convention following a federal general election when the Party does not form the government and the Leader has not indicated, prior to the commencement of the national convention, an irrevocable intention to resign, the delegates will vote by secret ballot if they wish to engage the leadership selection process.



The process for selecting a new leader is also included in the constitution as well as who can be delegates at the national convention.


----------



## upandatom (24 Oct 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Is it open to all members, including online voting, or to delegates only?  Lots of ways for a vote to go depending on who can vote and how...
> 
> But ultimately it's more Reform than Progressive Conservative now - so the Blue Grits are excluded from the tent.  Which is the road to governing.



Card Carrying members will get mail- in that there will be a option form, who is running, and you number top to bottom. That is how it as handled in the past.


----------



## brihard (30 Oct 2019)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mackay-scheer-conservative-leadership-1.5341633

Shots fired by MacKay. And so it begins.

If the CPC keep Scheer on past the convention in April, they’re fools.


----------



## Lumber (30 Oct 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mackay-scheer-conservative-leadership-1.5341633
> 
> Shots fired by MacKay. And so it begins.
> 
> If the CPC keep Scheer on past the convention in April, they’re fools.



Just wanted to emphasize this one:



> "Yeah, to use a good Canadian analogy, it was like having a breakaway on an open net and missing the net," MacKay quipped.



Ouch, and totally agree. 

Didn't we all predict this a few years ago? No one will beat Trudeau in 4 years, and it will take 8 years for the Liberals to truly piss of the public, so all the really "good" potential CPC leaders didn't bother showing up? (apologies to Raitt and O'Toole who I think would have been far better than Sheer or Max).


----------



## brihard (30 Oct 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Didn't we all predict this a few years ago? No one will beat Trudeau in 4 years, and it will take 8 years for the Liberals to truly piss of the public, so all the really "good" potential CPC leaders didn't bother showing up? (apologies to Raitt and O'Toole who I think would have been far better than Sheer or Max).



Yup, a MacKay reboot has come up here several times for sure. I think a few of us have our hopes pinned at least in part to that. Not that he would be the only good option, but he stands out.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Oct 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yup, a MacKay reboot has come up here several times for sure. I think a few of us have our hopes pinned at least in part to that. Not that he would be the only good option, but he stands out.



If you think he's a good choice I'll send him and email and put the gears in motion


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Oct 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Didn't we all predict this a few years ago? No one will beat Trudeau in 4 years, and it will take 8 years for the Liberals to truly piss of the public, so all the really "good" potential CPC leaders didn't bother showing up? (apologies to Raitt and O'Toole who I think would have been far better than Sheer or Max).


 :nod:


			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mackay-scheer-conservative-leadership-1.5341633
> 
> Shots fired by MacKay. And so it begins.


Makin' the rounds - more from the same speech here ...


> One-time and possible future leadership contender Peter MacKay says the “stinking albatross” of Andrew Scheer’s social conservative values cost the Conservatives the election.
> 
> He offered the devastating critique of Scheer’s campaign performance during a panel discussion Wednesday hosted by the Wilson Center in Washington.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (31 Oct 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yup, a MacKay reboot has come up here several times for sure. I think a few of us have our hopes pinned at least in part to that. Not that he would be the only good option, but he stands out.



"_Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen._"
                                                 Emperor Palpatine and Remius


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Oct 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Shots fired by MacKay. And so it begins.


But, but, but, he's just trying to help  - from McKay's Twitter feed ...


> I’ve repeatedly said I support @AndrewScheer + I worked v hard to help him in the campaign. Reports of me organizing r false. Recent comments r about our Party’s shortcomings & making the necessary improvements w modern policies + better coms so we can win the next election.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2019)

Without trying to sound too negative, MacKay is a leader from two "generations" ago, leading the Progressive Conservatives into a merger with Reform, and then leaving politics as Stephen Harper took the helm of the Conservative Party.

Scheer is definitely to be faulted for not making massive gains in an election which was clearly his to lose, but on the other hand, did gain 22 seats and a much larger percentage of the vote (even if only concentrated in a few geographical areas). Scheer and the CPC "Brain trust" may believe that standing pat and allowing the Liberals to self destruct was a good strategy, but it obviously failed. Trudeau may be the Prime Minister of Toronto, but Canadian electoral politics does not have a Electoral College, so any political leader in Canada wantng to lead a _national_ party needs to craft and sell a platform which can bridge the various regional gaps and gather votes "efficiently" across Canada.

The CPC (and indeed the NDP as well) have to choose between standing pat or crafting a bold new vision and strategy which can be embraced by Canadians across the nation, and risk failing, or play a defensive game and stand pat, attempting to hold what they have today. Given that the average minority government in Canada only lasts 18 months, there is little time to choose and little time to prepare.

Scheer is likely not the man to lead the CPC in a bold new direction, but I would suggest that Peter MacKay likely isn't either. To tell the truth, I am not aware of any person in Canadian political or public life who would be capable of such a feat, especially in the short time frame between elections, but perhaps there is a person out there. I'd be interested in hearing who that might be.


----------



## mariomike (31 Oct 2019)

This seems to be what they are up against,



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> If you get under 30% of the vote in 80% of the provinces, you'll have extreme difficulty in forming a government.
> 
> If they don't fix this in the '21 election, it may be much worse than Campbell's post-Mulroney collapse.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Oct 2019)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Without trying to sound too negative, MacKay is a leader from two "generations" ago, leading the Progressive Conservatives into a merger with Reform, and then leaving politics as Stephen Harper took the helm of the Conservative Party.



MacKay was a Harper Cabinet Minister who decided not to run for re-election in the 2015 campaign including being the Deputy Leader of the party until 4 Nov 2015. He's not as "out of touch" as you infer.

I'd argue MacKay has a better chance than Scheer simply because the Liberals wouldn't be able to use the media to push a strawman argument of a Tory attack on Abortion/LGBT Marriage.


----------



## QV (31 Oct 2019)

Understood that historically minority governments don't last long, but in this case I think the LPC will go the distance.  They will pander to the Bloc to prop them and the Bloc will do so.


----------



## Remius (31 Oct 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> Understood that historically minority governments don't last long, but in this case I think the LPC will go the distance.  They will pander to the Bloc to prop them and the Bloc will do so.



At least 2 years.  The remaining NDPers that were with the last orange wave want that pension.  So do some CPC types on their second term.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Oct 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> At least 2 years.  The remaining NDPers that were with the last orange wave want that pension.  So do some CPC types on their second term.



You mean 25 years to get a pension, don't you?


----------



## mariomike (31 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You mean 25 years to get a pension, don't you?



6 years.
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/pension-plan/pension-publications/reports/administration-members-parliament-retiring-allowances-act-report/frequently-asked-questions-changes-members-parliament-pension-plan.html


----------



## brihard (31 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You mean 25 years to get a pension, don't you?



Members of Parliament become eligible to receive a pension after six years of service. The formula for the benefit is a mess to figure out, but they receive a very generous pension benefit. They also pay something like 18% of their salary in pension contributions, so at least there’s that.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Oct 2019)

CAF members vest for a pension after two years.


----------



## Haggis (31 Oct 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'd argue MacKay has a better chance than Scheer simply because the Liberals wouldn't be able to use the media to push a strawman argument of a Tory attack on Abortion/LGBT Marriage.



Even though MacKay (or Ambrose) has more charisma and personality that the current cardboard cutout leading the CPC, I doubt any of them can unseat the Trudeau cult in power now.  Any CPC leader tied to even loosely to the Harper era will give rise to the very successful right wing bogeyman messaging we just endured from the Liberal a few short days ago.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Oct 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Any CPC leader tied to even loosely to the Harper era will give rise to the very successful right wing bogeyman messaging we just endured from the Liberal a few short days ago.


Especially any CPC leader who won't look the more extreme right elements of the party straight in the eye and say, "STFU; that isn't who we are."  Waffling by saying "I won't open that can of worms.... but hey, if any back benchers want to, who am I to critique" lost him a bunch of credibility.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Nov 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Especially any CPC leader who won't look the more extreme right elements of the party straight in the eye and say, "STFU; that isn't who we are."  Waffling by saying "I won't open that can of worms.... but hey, if any back benchers want to, who am I to critique" lost him a bunch of credibility.



An interesting article on that right wing/ evangelical Christian thing:


Canada’s marginal ‘Christian right’   

Jonathan Malloy received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to conduct research on this topic. He has an evangelical Christian background but is not affiliated with any of the organizations in this article. 

The political power of the American Christian right naturally leads to interest and speculation about the influence of similar groups in Canada. But social conservatives and evangelical Christians are a marginal force in Canadian politics, even in the Conservative party. And research finds their dynamics here are quite different than in the United States. 

Is there a Canadian Christian right at all? Yes and no. 

The Christian right is closely associated with evangelical Christianity, and perhaps 10 to 15 per cent of Canadians (depending on the survey method) are evangelical Christians. Nearly all are strongly conservative on issues of reproduction and sexuality. But their broader political views vary considerably. Few would support “dominionist” ideas of imposing a theological state. 


http://theconversation.com/canadas-marginal-christian-right-121024


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Nov 2019)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Without trying to sound too negative, MacKay is a leader from two "generations" ago, leading the Progressive Conservatives into a merger with Reform, and then leaving politics as Stephen Harper took the helm of the Conservative Party...



Interesting perspective. You make it sound like MacKay just rolled up and quietly left town. 

Others will view him as having be formative to consolidating center-to-right voters by supporting Harper in a mutually-agreed merge which included an arrangement for Harper to lead the first couple of sessions, but MacKay to lead thereafter for the next couple of sessions of the Cons continued. They did, but Harper reneged on his deal with MacKay, and kept the crown.  MacKay has never done anything other than be a solid supporter of center-near right views and a well-respected Senior Cabinet Minister (Foreign Affairs and Defence)...certainly not a weak skulker who couldn’t live up to expectations. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Nov 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Members of Parliament become eligible to receive a pension after six years of service. The formula for the benefit is a mess to figure out, but they receive a very generous pension benefit. They also pay something like 18% of their salary in pension contributions, so at least there’s that.



Mean while an MPP in Ontario- not even close to the Federal plan or even public servants: https://www.tvo.org/article/the-surprising-reason-you-shouldnt-complain-about-mpps-pension-plans


----------



## mariomike (1 Nov 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Mean while an MPP in Ontario- not even close to the Federal plan or even public servants: https://www.tvo.org/article/the-surprising-reason-you-shouldnt-complain-about-mpps-pension-plans



Members of Toronto Council are enrolled in the City’s pension plan.


----------



## Haggis (5 Nov 2019)

Elizabeth May has stepped down as leader of the Green Party.  Maybe this will prompt Andrew Scheer to step aside as well in the CPC?


----------



## Remius (5 Nov 2019)

Maybe. 

I think he's going to wait until the leadership review in April to decide.  if the Sharks are circling he won't give them the satisfaction.  

The longer he stays on though, the more damage he'll be doing to the party.  It's already starting to show.  The sooner they can reset the dial the sooner they can be ready for the next election.  

Plus he needs time to find a new residence if he steps down.  He's lived in public housing for a very long time.  Finding a home for a family of 6 is not cheap.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Nov 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Elizabeth May has stepped down as leader of the Green Party. * Maybe this will prompt Andrew Scheer to step aside as well in the CPC?*



Hopefully


----------



## RangerRay (5 Nov 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Elizabeth May has stepped down as leader of the Green Party.  Maybe this will prompt Andrew Scheer to step aside as well in the CPC?



Is anyone starting starting a pool on how long it will take before a Liberal government appoints her to the Senate?


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Nov 2019)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Is anyone starting starting a pool on how long it will take before a Liberal government appoints her to the Senate?



She stated she would remain as a Member of Parliament.


----------



## RangerRay (5 Nov 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> She stated she would remain as a Member of Parliament.



...until appointed to the Senate!  

She turned the Green Party into a personality cult and has been carrying water for the Liberals for long time.  I can only see this as her jockeying for an appointment by a Liberal government (might not be this one).

It would also explain why she self-sabotaged her party's campaign on Vancouver Island when the NDP slandered the Green's position on reproduction rights, and she chose to ignore it.  She couldn't possibly be that naive.


----------



## Remius (5 Nov 2019)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Is anyone starting starting a pool on how long it will take before a Liberal government appoints her to the Senate?



As long as she is helping to prop up the LPCs they won't want her gone.  That being said no one steps down without an exit strategy.  I would likely see her get an ambassadorship to Norway or some other eco friendly nation.  The green's have always called for an elected senate.  Taking a patronage senate appointment would show she's a hypocrite on that front and destroy the Green's take on that if she took or lobbied for that.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (5 Nov 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> As long as she is helping to prop up the LPCs they won't want her gone.  That being said no one steps down without an exit strategy.  I would likely see her get an ambassadorship to Norway or some other eco friendly nation.  The green's have always called for an elected senate.  Taking a patronage senate appointment would show she's a hypocrite on that front and destroy the Green's take on that if she took or lobbied for that.



That would mean she would have to have give up her seat which would result in an by-election. Could another another Green member win the seat? May yes, may be no. And considering they only have three seats in Parliament would they risk losing that one?


----------



## brihard (6 Nov 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> As long as she is helping to prop up the LPCs they won't want her gone.  That being said no one steps down without an exit strategy.  I would likely see her get an ambassadorship to Norway or some other eco friendly nation.  The green's have always called for an elected senate.  Taking a patronage senate appointment would show she's a hypocrite on that front and destroy the Green's take on that if she took or lobbied for that.



But she’s not helping prop up the LPC. Mathematically the Greens are non-players in our new Parliament, other than in the exceptionally unlikely case where a confidence matter is left by the BQ AND the NDP as a free vote. Bloody unlikely, given how very strategic election timing is.

Regarding appointments- the government’s reform of federal appointments to require transparency in applications and processes extends to senate seats. The Senate is now a job you apply for just like any other federal commission, tribunal, or board. https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/independent-advisory-board-for-senate-appointments/current-processes.html


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 Nov 2019)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Is anyone starting starting a pool on how long it will take before a Liberal government appoints her to the Senate?



Umm....never.  Senators are no longer "appointed" by the PM


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Nov 2019)

First of all, Senators were never appointed by the PM, they were appointed by the GG, on advice from the Privy Counsel.

And they still are.

The current method is still appointment. The process set up by the Trudeau LPC government to advise them on how to advise the GG is neither grounded in a statute nor in regulation, so it is neither binding, nor has it any statutory right to continue to exist should the LPC change its mind on process at any point.


----------



## Remius (7 Nov 2019)

Looks like Scheer is staying on and looks like he isn't willing to change either. 

The CPC must really like LPC governments...

Hopefully in the spring the party as a whole will vote to get rid of him but I'm not confident that will happen. 

Not sure if anyone saw his press conference when asked if he thought homosexuality was a sin.  His look and avoiding the question is exactly why he will lose again if he runs for PM.


----------



## Altair (7 Nov 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Once example: Scheer addressed the abortion topic, that he personally disagrees but would not open it for debate just as the former CPC majority did not when it was in government.  The media kept it alive to smear him.  It doesn't matter how Scheer addressed this or how many times he answered, or that this hasn't been an issue even during Harper... The media kept bringing it up as though Scheer was going to immediately outlaw abortion once in power.  So long as the LPC continues to pump hundreds of millions into the media, and the CPC states they won't, there will be tainted reporting.


Scheer did a lot of work keeping it alive. 

It was in the first week of the campaign that the LPC started to draw attention to CPC candidates who talked about reopening the abortion debate. 

It wasn't until after the first french debate that Scheer mentioned that he was personally anti abortion but wouldn't open it for debate. 

For the 3 weeks that he was asked about it,  repeatedly, he simply said that parliament has settled it,  and the CPC wasn't going to bring it up. 

Which is dodging the question. So the media kept asking about it. Eventually,  the media got an answer,  but the damage had been done. 

And it wasn't just that. He dodged the question on whether he supports gay marriage,  and still does to this day. Also refused to apologize for his comments in the house in 2005 with the how many legs would a dog have if you counted the tail as a leg when talking about legalizing gay marriage. 

He wasn't forthcoming with his history as a insurance broker,   or lack there of. 

He offered a weak defense on his dual citizenship. 

He could have gotten a lot of stuff out of the news cycle by simply answering the questions asked as opposed to hiding behind the party policy.


----------



## Remius (7 Nov 2019)

What Altair just did.  The CPC and Scheer did a lot of damage to themselves by avoiding or seeming to avoid answering.  

Take yesterday and his response to the question about homosexuality being a sin. 

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-question-that-haunts-andrew-scheer/

This article in Macleans hits the nail on the head.  

What I find interesting is that some in the CPC base think it was the media that made them lose.  It was a weak platform, a weak leader and policy plans that did not jive with voters.  It isn't a communications issue, it's an ideas issue.  But until they see that they will lose again.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Nov 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Once example: Scheer addressed the abortion topic, that he personally disagrees but would not open it for debate just as the former CPC majority did not when it was in government.  The media kept it alive to smear him.  It doesn't matter how Scheer addressed this or how many times he answered, or that this hasn't been an issue even during Harper... The media kept bringing it up as though Scheer was going to immediately outlaw abortion once in power.  So long as the LPC continues to pump hundreds of millions into the media, and the CPC states they won't, there will be tainted reporting.



I’ll disagree with your disagreement of my disagreement.

As others have posited, and I will support with a single point, Scheer could have shut it down in a heartbeat by: addressing the criticism ASAP and noted that his view personal/professional literally was no different than of Canada’s Roman Catholic pro-life personal but pro-choice by party policy/Federal legislation Prime Minister.  Done. Full stop. Next....

But he didn’t. Altair and Remius make numerous solid points about Scheer’s shortcomings.  The media, biases and all, kept circling Scheer while he flailed and bled in the water.

Regards
G2G


----------



## garb811 (8 Nov 2019)

The media bias derail has been split and can now be found here:  Media Bias [Merged]

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Remius (8 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Interesting to see "pro life" being called "anti choice" by groups now.



Jarn, I disagree with this (not with your point, but the stance by some groups).  I consider myself pro choice in the sense that I have no place telling anyone what to do with their body and that people can choose one way or the other.  But that does not mean that someone cannot hold the pro life view and still have some validity to their position.   It's when one group or another feels that we should legislate or criminalise one's choice that I have an issue with or that we should just let God or gods decide.

In the end, one can have a humanist approach on both sides of the argument and not be wrong.  

On the other end, we see "cancel culture" enter the fray and if you are not pro life then you are clearly anti-woman, anti-progressive anti-fill in _name here_.  

I'm sure you have seen it.  Where on the left, there is a tendency to shut down reasonable discourse and reasoned arguments.

I don't consider myself very right or very left.  I've argued with some right wing and left wing types.  Most are my friends so we are respectful but I found that those that are more on the left tend to want to shut down the conversation rather than counter the facts they get.  Those on the right that I know tend to want to counter facts with facts but more often than not they are from sources that are less than reliable but it fed their narrative.  Most of the people I know though are willing to accept the facts but it might not change their opinion.   

Scheer's main problem, I will propose (although I am not the first to claim this), is that he has not been able to show that he can separate his religious views from his political views and convince Canadians that he has.   He looks awkward, he avoids directly answering or he answers with something unrelated.  

The pro life stance is an easy one to deal with.  The gay marriage one is not so easy and he hasn't been able to get around that with his answers.  

He still hasn't been able to walk back his dog tail comment.  It's not that he feels gay marriage is akin to a dog, it's that his analogy is that gay marriage is unnatural, unequal despite what the law says because his religion says otherwise. 

While it's ok to say that he won't stop his MPs from bringing forth private members bills on the issue but that he will vote against any attempt to repeal something, would he allow any MP to bring forward any legislation that would repeal equal rights for women or legislation that would repeal civil rights for minorities and still say he would allow them but would vote against it?   I doubt it.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Nov 2019)

Rex Murphy's take on the question:

Rex Murphy: So when will Trudeau and Singh be asked tasteless questions about their religion?

While one may or may not agree with Mr Murphy in general, his question has merit. When will the other leaders be asked the same sorts of questions?


----------



## brihard (8 Nov 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Rex Murphy's take on the question:
> 
> Rex Murphy: So when will Trudeau and Singh be asked tasteless questions about their religion?
> 
> While one may or may not agree with Mr Murphy in general, his question has merit. When will the other leaders be asked the same sorts of questions?



Probably when either of them leads a party that historically has been on the wrong side of history on social issues, and which has voted accordingly?

I don' think may people care much about Andrew Scheer's beliefs because of Andrew Sheer. They care about his beliefs because of his leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, one of two viable contenders for leadership of our legislature, and for his ability to whip the votes of the party as well as to give sanction to private members' bills. 

It's not simply so black and white a matter of 'will they try to roll back abortion / same sex marriage / trans rights / etc?', but also that the government in power has considerable ability to influence things more softly through various executive powers, departmental funding, and so on and so forth. A lot of people fear that an evangelical social conservative, elected chosen by his party to be their leader, could use his power in a way contrary to their interests or the interests of their friends or family.

So that's what the question about Scheer's religion is about. The LPC and the NDP don't carry the same social conservative baggage, so that fear isn't present.


----------



## Remius (8 Nov 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Rex Murphy's take on the question:
> 
> Rex Murphy: So when will Trudeau and Singh be asked tasteless questions about their religion?
> 
> While one may or may not agree with Mr Murphy in general, his question has merit. When will the other leaders be asked the same sorts of questions?



I would argue that neither has demonstrated that their personal religious views interfere with their jobs.  They've both demonstrated that with their actions and their comments. 

He pretty much put that to bed in 2014. 

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/q-and-a-justin-trudeau-in-his-own-words

_Since that moment, I still consider myself and have re-found myself of a deep faith and belief in God. But obviously very aware of the separation of church and state in my political thinking,” said Mr. Trudeau in his October 2014 interview with the Ottawa Citizen. _

This was Singh's response to Scheer's position on gay Marriage.  Taken from the NDP site.

https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-responds-andrew-scheers-comments-same-sex-marriage

_“The resurfacing of Andrew Scheer’s disgusting prejudice against LGBTQI2S+ people and families is very painful for many Canadians. This is exactly why, if Canadians deliver a minority government in October, I will not prop up Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives. We can't trust Mr. Scheer or his caucus to champion the fundamental rights of Canadians."_

Here is the LPC and some of Justin trudeau's actions taken. 

https://www.liberal.ca/lgbtq2/


So compare that with how Scheer has handled himself and one can see why more questions keep coming.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Nov 2019)

Sometimes the obvious isn't official until you bring a consultant to tell you it is.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-party-andrew-scheer-john-baird-2019-1.5353596


> *Conservatives planning a sweeping three-part review of party's 2019 campaign*
> 
> MP says party wants expedited review 'because we don't know how long this Parliament will last'
> 
> ...


----------



## garb811 (9 Nov 2019)

OK folks, I've cleaned up the thread, again. I'm not sure what the problem is with this one, but we are three pages in and it's had to be cleaned up twice.  It's getting tiresome.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2019)

Sorry for bringing it off thread. I'll chalk it up to something else I dont like my taxes paying for.

As long as the CPC has the religious component to it they're going to have abortion and same sex marriage thrown in their face along with a whipped up threat that a Conservative government will all of a sudden ban both of them.


I don't have the source but I read in passing somewhere that in around 20 ridi g's the Conservatives lost to the Liberals by as low as 5% and "stratigic voting" by other party members is being suggested why the Liberals won those.

I think the Liberals had a lot less suport than they're even now being credited with but many, like some on the forum here, blocked their nose and went that way. 

I never heard of Scheer before. Wasn't impressed by him. I did think that Canada would benefit from a more boring leader than our current socks and drama obsessed PM, but Scheer is just TOO underwealming.  

I really like Ambrose and Rempel (even though the former is retired and uninterested) but conservatives saying "we need a woman leader" is just stupid identity politics.


----------



## Remius (9 Nov 2019)

Not this biggest fan of Remple but Ambrose I like.  

Agreed about having a woman leader.  I’m not convinced it makes you more electable.  Women voters are smarter that that.  

They need a more electable leader, boring or not, man or woman.  But, they also need a bit of a challenge culture change in the whole of the party as well. 

I really hope they can get it together for the next one.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2019)

I find Remple really smart and articulate. I especially like her blogs and videos where she just talks and she doesn't sound like she's reading off a script. Compare that to Trudeau trying to talk about water bottles  :

Ambrose's name keeps getting floated about but by the sounds of it she has zero interest in coming back. 

Im considering renewing my party membership just to get a say in any vote.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Nov 2019)

Rona would certainly get my vote. And I think she would be a great PM.

While I don't believe either that the CPC "need a woman leader" any more or less than any other main party, and I believe that to do so for identity politics sake would be wrong, I also believe that this is a key strategic moment for such leader.

Why? Quite simply because Trudeau's Libs would be incapable of attacking her as  person or on personal belief without completely destroying JT's image as a feminist leader. He would be in a serious bind for any kind of attack on such leader. So having a women as leader would be a stroke of genius at this juncture (and because it's 2019!  ;D).


----------



## mariomike (9 Nov 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So having a women as leader would be a stroke of genius at this juncture (and because it's 2019!  ;D).



Or 1993.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Nov 2019)

This just out from Abacus Data ...


> There’s been a lot of talk about whether the Conservative Party of Canada should stick with Andrew Scheer as its leader into the next election, whenever that will be.  The Conservative Party will have a vote to decide whether to hold a leadership race this spring.
> 
> Here’s what our latest polling finds on the question:
> 
> ...


More @ link & attached graphics.


----------



## Remius (29 Nov 2019)

More division on Scheer coming out of the woodwork. 

I think things are going to get worse for him before they get better.

Hard to take on Trudeau when you are being assailed from within.

Liberals must be smiling right now. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-jenni-byrne-conservative-party-1.5377166


----------



## Remius (29 Nov 2019)

And more this time from within the caucus.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senior-conservative-ed-fast-declines-critic-role-over-scheer-s-leadership-1.4708681


----------



## brihard (29 Nov 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> And more this time from within the caucus.
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senior-conservative-ed-fast-declines-critic-role-over-scheer-s-leadership-1.4708681



Wow. That’s a stinging indictment- and a rather confident assertion of the belief that Scheer won’t last as leader.

The sooner Scheer steps down, the better for the party.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2019)

Just in - keep in mind initial reports caveats ...


> Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer is set to resign.
> 
> Global News has learned Scheer will announce imminently that he will be stepping down from the party leadership after losing the last election.
> 
> ...


op:


----------



## cavalryman (12 Dec 2019)

It's on the CBC right now.  Scheer is stepping down.


----------



## Altair (12 Dec 2019)

Bad day for Justin Trudeau.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> Bad day for Justin Trudeau.


Depends who the next Team Blue captain is ...


----------



## Altair (12 Dec 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Depends who the next Team Blue captain is ...


Any chance they are less effective than Scheer?


----------



## Remius (12 Dec 2019)

It will depend on who the CPC chooses as their new leader. 

Glad this is happening and the CPC can really move forward. 

As for Scheer, the school expense thing is just another confirmation of his own hypocrisy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> Any chance they are less effective than Scheer?


Based on who the "popular on social media as contenders," you're right.  Then again, Scheer ended up winning the last time Team Blue picked, too, so ....


----------



## Remius (12 Dec 2019)

Last time the B team was on deck.   I hope that this time the A team of candidates show up.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2019)

Last time, Red Team had just won handily and I can guess many of Blue Team's "A" people chose to sit out Red Team's first re-election bid, thinking it a lost cause.

Now that re-election bid is history, and Red Team is manifestly weaker.  Any ambitious "A" candidate would be foolish to sit out again and pass up a good opportunity to be the next prime minister.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Last time the B team was on deck.   I hope that this time the A team of candidates show up.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Any ambitious "A" candidate would be foolish to sit out again and pass up a good opportunity to be the next prime minister.


Very good points - with the caveat that there not be toooooooooooooooooooooooooo many "A" candidates to split the vote and let a "B" or "C" come up the middle.


----------



## brihard (12 Dec 2019)

Basically it’s playing out pretty much as I remember the discussions here calling it as far back as a few years ago.

Scheer sucked. The CPC now have ample evidence of what doesn’t work, and they should be able to take a pretty good guess at what kind of people they need to elect to really work on attracting my generation- not just for this election, but for future. If they just elect another evangelical Reformer type, they’ll be blowing this opportunity. Elect someone with solid experience, a reasonably progressive pedigree, and without any overly idiotic history of policy positions, and they might set up for success.


----------



## Remius (12 Dec 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> Bad day for Justin Trudeau.




Depends on how you look at it.

On one side, Trudeau knows that any threat to topple the government is an empty one at least until the new leader has some time to get onboard.  That gives Trudeau maybe a year to do a lot of things without too much worry.  After that all bets are off.  He may face someone he can’t beat.  

On the other side, Scheer staying on as interim leader sucks the wind out of their own sails on anything ethics related.  I suspect more stuff will come out about how he’s spent party funds.  And until he’s gone that may hurt the CPC funding drive.  

Scheer has nothing to hide, except that he had dual citizenship, was never really an insurance broker, sent his kids to a religious private school with party funds and truly was never ever a middle class guy just like all of us but he sure wanted us to think that.  


Something tells me Scheer will still face scrutiny in his own party until he is gone.


----------



## Haggis (12 Dec 2019)

Any bets on if Mad Max will return to the Conservative fold?


----------



## Remius (12 Dec 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Any bets on if Mad Max will return to the Conservative fold?



Not a chance.  Too much bad blood and it would not help the party if they want to portray a softer approach on things like immigration.  

Stranger things have happened though.


----------



## brihard (12 Dec 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Any bets on if Mad Max will return to the Conservative fold?



He’ll never be leader, but it’a basically his last gasp at being relevant again. He would be smart to try to. The CPC would be foolish to take him back. His foray into populism has irrevocably tainted him.


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Dec 2019)

Curious to see when Peter MacKay will throw his name in. Rona Ambrose also might (but I think she'd be genuinely a good ambassador to the US).

Scheer's performance was uninspired, but hopefully this failure trickles down to the team around him. If they put in another suit with the same hapless support they are pooched. So many lost opportunities and balls dropped here on things that should have been obvious wins.


----------



## FJAG (13 Dec 2019)

Maybe we should be changing our name back to "Progressive" Conservatives while we're at it. Just plain old "Conservative" seems to scare off Torontonians.

 ;D


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2019)

I think my personal observations of the PCPO are applicable to the Conservatives as well WRT their future direction.

I recall attending the PCPO convention in London where John Tory was attempting to retain his hold on the leadership.(the circumstances of how I got there are another story). While circulating around, I noted the people who were surrounding John Tory. One other lesson I learned is that to even come near a political party is to be on their mailing list forever....

Flash forward and now Tim Hudac is the leader of the PCPO, and I get invitations to see him whenever he is in London. After seeing his performance I note that a large number of the people who surrounded John Tory still surround Hudac. Patrick Brown is next, and lo and behold, a very large fraction of the circle I first noted around John Tory are still there! Brown gets dumped and Doug Ford becomes the new PCPO leader, but more importantly, there is an entirely new cadre of people around him.

We all remember Tory, Hudac and Brown were not particularly successful even against a totally awful Liberal government, and I think part of it is because they were using essentially the same strategy and message, which did not resonate well with Ontario voters.

We will have to see how well Ford does, but he certainly brought a very different message and approach. This is going to be needed for whoever becomes the new Conservative leader. The old messages are not going to work, and attempting to hide like Scheer did (expecting Trudeau to slip on a banana peel) in fear of what the Press might say didn't work either (they are going to accuse the Conservatives of thinking and planning "bad things" regardless of what you say or do, so might as well man up and say Conservative things...)

However, unless the crowd of people who surrounded Scheer go, the replacement may end up being more like Tim Hudac, using and parroting a strategy and message which is already demonstrated not to work. Indeed, the failure may be even more terrible since the Liberals have managed to re open old fissures in Canada's makeup and ignite both toxic regionalism (the Wexit movement and the rebirth of the BQ) as well as regional Populism (the United Conservatives in Alberta, the PCPO under Doug Ford in Ontario and the CAQ in Quebec). Any new Conservative leader will have to carefully rethink the strategy and the message in order to clear these hurdles.

The PPC managed to build a national party and run 338 candidates in just under a year, which tells me there is a national level  of support for some type of populism as well, given more time and coordination it seems entirely possible that the PPC could discover ways to tap into the regional and provincial levels of anger and frustration and convert it into larger scale support (after all, it took almost a decade for Reform to go from one MP to the official opposition, and I don;t remember the Canadian public being anywhere near as polarized then).

So whoever wins will need to do a thourough housecleaning and develop entirely new strategies and messages - a pretty tall order. Best of luck to whoever that becomes.


----------



## Remius (13 Dec 2019)

If anyone thought Mad Max would be back in the fold he tweeted yesterday that there was zero chance and that the CPC was a corrupt party.  That he was sticking with his current movement.


----------



## stellarpanther (13 Dec 2019)

Even though I voted Liberal in this last election I have no loyalties to any of them. If O'Toole was the leader of the CPC I would seriously consider voting for them.


----------



## Remius (13 Dec 2019)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Even though I voted Liberal in this last election I have no loyalties to any of them. If O'Toole was the leader of the CPC I would seriously consider voting for them.



O’Toole might have won the last election.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Dec 2019)

And a former Reg F member, current Honorary Colonel has declared his intent to run for the CPC leadership.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-leadership-race-brulotte-1.5397367

Educated at the Royal Military College, Carleton University, the University of Ottawa and William Howard Taft University in Denver, Brulotte is also a former member of the military who served overseas in both Germany and on United Nations peacekeeping missions with the Royal 22nd Regiment. He's currently the honorary colonel of the Governor General's Foot Guards.


----------



## Remius (18 Dec 2019)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/rona-ambrose-is-thinking-over-a-tory-leadership-bid-source-1.4733773

Fingers crossed that she makes the decision to run.  But I would not blame her one bit if she didn't.


----------



## ballz (18 Dec 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/rona-ambrose-is-thinking-over-a-tory-leadership-bid-source-1.4733773
> 
> Fingers crossed that she makes the decision to run.  But I would not blame her one bit if she didn't.



It's not every day ~50% of the country is basically publicly begging you to step up and be Prime Minister... all the better that she needs to be persuaded, it demonstrates she's likely not interested in doing this for selfish reasons...

A lot of the pundits believe the CPC potentials with any brand value / recognition are all waiting on her, because if she enters, they'll back away.


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Dec 2019)

I'd back Rempell or Bergen for the job, but both being from Alberta there's not a hope in hell.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Dec 2019)

Next up:  Jean Charest, considering or going to run (depending on who you believe more).


			
				Target Up said:
			
		

> ... *both being from Alberta* there's not a hope in hell.


You figure?  And I ask that sincerely - I figured that might give more "rub the PM's nose in it" cachet, but I stand to be corrected.


----------



## expwor (18 Dec 2019)

I know it's not exactly about choosing a new leader but seems more appropriate to post in this thread than to start a new thread. Scheer resigned as party leader for using party funds to pay for his kids schooling...put another way I think it's fair to say he embezzled party funds. Now the party is allowing him to stay on as interim party leader untill a new leader is chosen and he stays in the CPC.
Meanwhile senior party member Dustin van Vugt who signed off on using party funds has been let go by the CPC. If he is let go for both his knowledge and approving of the use of funds then why hasn't Scheer also been let go from the CPC?  After all van Vugt may be a senior Tory but Scheer is not just a senior Tory, but the one who benefited from this embezzlement of funds. I know (sarcastic voice) the CPC need Scheer's seat more than they need integrity. 
Shouldn't Scheer be let go both as party leader (yes pending) and from the CPC and sit as an independent?


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Dec 2019)

Scheer resigned after pondering his future for months. It just so happened that the gotcha journalism of him getting a few thousand a year to top up the cost of private school fees between Regina and Ottawa leaked at the same time. Keep in mind the compensation was all approved above board by the executives who hold the pursestrings, and I read somewhere that it was offered, not asked for by the Scheers.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Dec 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Next up:  Jean Charest, considering or going to run (depending on who you believe more).You figure?  And I ask that sincerely - I figured that might give more "rub the PM's nose in it" cachet, but I stand to be corrected.



An Alberta candidate would kill it out here, where the conservatives kill it already.  The ROC, whether it wants to admit it or not, would be hesitant to have another PM from out here. We just don't "get it".


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2019)

Knowing the CPC mafia, Rona would probably lose to someone most party members have never heard of before.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Dec 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> ... The ROC, whether it wants to admit it or not, would be hesitant to have another PM from out here. We just don't "get it".


Seen - thanks.  With the right candidate, though, I think that's a hurdle that could be overcome.

Meanwhile, could this be a flag being run up the pole to see how many salute?

_*"Diane Francis: Canada needs to pivot, hard, and John Baird is the right man for the job*:  Canada needs a Canadian version of Donald Trump — proud of the country and assertive in its advancement"_


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, could this be a flag being run up the pole to see how many salute?
> 
> _[size=14pt]*Canada needs a Canadian version of Donald Trump *_*
> *


*

It would be an interesting experiment,



			CTV News
July 21, 2019 

Nearly 8 in 10 Canadians prefer Dems over Trump
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/nearly-8-in-10-canadians-prefer-dems-over-trump-sanders-biden-most-popular-poll-1.4517305
A new poll finds that if Canadians could vote in the U.S. election, nearly eight in 10 would choose one of the five leading Democratic presidential hopefuls over Republican President Donald Trump.
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## FJAG (19 Dec 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...Meanwhile, could this be a flag being run up the pole to see how many salute?
> _  "Canada needs a Canadian version of Donald Trump — proud of the country and assertive in its advancement"_



I'm giving it a middle finger salute. 

:nana:


----------



## Remius (20 Dec 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Next up:  Jean Charest, considering or going to run (depending on who you believe more).



I truly believe that Jean Charest is a red tory through and through and a progressive.  But he has so much provincial political baggage I doubt that he would succeed against the likes of Rona Ambrose or Peter McKay.  I'm not even sure that Quebecers would want him.  Not to mention the current investigation he is under. 

I heard a good commentary where they said he would have some good intel into the inner workings of the Liberal party machine though.


----------



## Remius (7 Jan 2020)

So it looks like Pierre Polievre is about to announce his intent to run. 

He also seems to have some big names behind him.  John Baird an Jenny Byrne.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/01/06/pierre-poilievre-to-announce-conservative-leadership-bid-baird-to-chair-campaign.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> I truly believe that Jean Charest is a red tory through and through and a progressive.  But he has so much provincial political baggage I doubt that he would succeed against the likes of Rona Ambrose or Peter McKay.



He's also anti-gun so that might be a point of contention with Conservatives.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Jan 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> So it looks like Pierre Polievre is about to announce his intent to run.
> 
> He also seems to have some big names behind him.  John Baird an Jenny Byrne.
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/01/06/pierre-poilievre-to-announce-conservative-leadership-bid-baird-to-chair-campaign.html



Jenny's his ex-girlfriend.

And if Pierre does manage to win, I am certain that (a) the Liberals will be delighted and (b) he and John will be marching in the Toronto Pride parade the next day.


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And if Pierre does manage to win, I am certain that (a) the Liberals will be delighted and (b) he and John will be marching in the Toronto Pride parade the next day.



Or, maybe something a little more tame like the Pride parade up in Newmarket with Doug.


----------



## brihard (7 Jan 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> So it looks like Pierre Polievre is about to announce his intent to run.
> 
> He also seems to have some big names behind him.  John Baird an Jenny Byrne.
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/01/06/pierre-poilievre-to-announce-conservative-leadership-bid-baird-to-chair-campaign.html



A hearty ‘meh’. He’s a capable pit bull in Parliament, but would just be more of the same as leader, I think. The LPC would love to se the CPC make such an uninspired and easily targetable choice. Nothing about him really jumps out to me as saying “yeah, this is the guy!” With that said, there are no poison pills I’m aware of either, so there’s that... I’m sure whatever’s at the bottom of his laundry hamper will come up in time.

I’m still waiting for Ambrose to make her intentions known.


----------



## Remius (7 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> A hearty ‘meh’. He’s a capable pit bull in Parliament, but would just be more of the same as leader, I think. The LPC would love to se the CPC make such an uninspired and easily targetable choice. Nothing about him really jumps out to me as saying “yeah, this is the guy!” With that said, there are no poison pills I’m aware of either, so there’s that... I’m sure whatever’s at the bottom of his laundry hamper will come up in time.
> 
> I’m still waiting for Ambrose to make her intentions known.



Totally agree.  Plus he’s another career politician.  But at least, I think he hasn’t tried to hide that fact.

But he looks like he might make a good run at it.  Like some have said, the LPC would love him as leader...


----------



## Remius (7 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I’m still waiting for Ambrose to make her intentions known.



Here’s a thought.  Maybe Polievre is making it official because he has inside info that says She isn’t running...


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jan 2020)

Latest name into the ring ...


> Ontario MP Marilyn Gladu is running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, CBC News has learned.
> 
> "I'm ready to lead and I can bring the party together. I can bring a winning strategy. And that's what we need," Gladu told CBC News in an exclusive interview.
> 
> ...


More at link & at her site's bio here.


----------



## ballz (9 Jan 2020)

Tomorrow is the last day to enter and this is a seriously uninspiring cast....


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Jan 2020)

Yep. Duds galore.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jan 2020)

Maybe they should drop the $300,000 entry fee.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Jan 2020)

The fee is intended (in part) to ensure that the party leader is able to fundraise, a necessary part of the job description (like it or not).


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Jan 2020)

If they don't get some decent leadership candidates on the slate, the national party won't be getting any funds from a lot of people.


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The fee is intended (in part) to ensure that the party leader is able to fundraise, a necessary part of the job description (like it or not).



The CPC is a fundraising machine, they could even out-fundraise with Andrew Scheer as leader. It's more to do with not having another race with 13 or 14 candidates and therefore everyone gets at best 20 seconds of air time. The high bar for entry means fewer candidates and *should* mean only "bigger names" since you would have be a pretty well-supposed and well-networked person, either through being a party heavyweight or celebrity-style aka Kevin O'Leery, to raise $300k in such a short amount of time. One of the reasons they had so many last time was because there were a bunch of nobodies who were using the race as a way to boost their own brand, despite having zero chance at winning.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 Jan 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> . . . you would have be a pretty well-supposed and well-networked person, either through being a party heavyweight or celebrity-style aka Kevin O'Leery, to raise $300k in such a short amount of time.



If "Mr. Wonderful" would have no problem "legally" raising such an amount why is there still an open donation page for him on the Conservative Party donation site over two and a half years after dropping out of the CPC leadership race.

https://donate.conservative.ca/donate-kevinoleary/


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Jan 2020)

People believing Pete is gonna run...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/politics/peter-mackay-is-a-100-per-cent-in-for-the-conservative-leadership-race-say-friends/amp

Where is Rona ?  Please come back and lead!


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jan 2020)

Not many people think of it this way, but the next leader of the CPC is the person most likely to be the next PM of Canada after JT.  Now is the time to strike for those serious about that goal.


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Jan 2020)

I can see Ambrose, MacKay or maybe O'Toole being possible options that could actually get the support of the country. Haven't heard of him before, but Mr. Bulotte's brief platform wasn't too bad, so who knows. Pollievre is a love him/hate him kind of guy, but his persona as a Parliamentary attack dog sort of gives him a minion role, not a leader position. It may play well for scoring cheap points for the party, but makes him intensely unlikable at times, and would turn away all kinds of swing voters.

I think though that unless they put forward a socially liberal candidate that is a small c conservative they will continue to be the runner up, and they have a huge mountain to climb with the wreck that the Ontario PCs are making. They need someone that can give them seats outside of Alberta, so MacKay or Ambrose might be the best bets for that, and may even make inroads in some areas of QC.

If nothing else, they need someone that is an effective opposition in the short term; Scheer was kneecapped by the election results and party backlash, and is hard to take seriously when his own party wants him gone.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Jan 2020)

Given Jean Charest's comprador leanings (and a former Clerk of the Privy Council!), what are his odds, even of running?



> Charest advising Huawei in Meng Wanzhou case and on 5G networks
> 
> Former Quebec premier Jean Charest, who is contemplating a run for the Conservative Party leadership, has been acting as a consultant to Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in the Meng Wanzhou extradition case and the tech giant’s efforts to participate in Canada’s 5G wireless networks, a source says.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ballz (11 Jan 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> If "Mr. Wonderful" would have no problem "legally" raising such an amount why is there still an open donation page for him on the Conservative Party donation site over two and a half years after dropping out of the CPC leadership race.
> 
> https://donate.conservative.ca/donate-kevinoleary/



That's an entirely different situation. He already raised way more than $300,000. The problem for him is, you can only put so much personal spending towards your campaign, the rest has to be fundraised. While this is not a "problem" (I agree with those rules), he spent "x" money, much of which was determined was campaign spending, and so now he has to fundraise it... he dropped out of the race.... trying to fundraise for yourself after you've dropped out is quite difficult for obvious reasons.


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Jan 2020)

One out already: https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/bryan-brulotte-no-longer-running-for-conservative-leadership-citing-party-s-rules-1.4766345


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jan 2020)

I really hope this isnt true... 

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/top-candidate-rona-ambrose-will-not-run-for-conservative-leadership-race-reports?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1MycJoGaUvDJxuQ5GNmOmRYbPvPyA8nBSXN6tway_tzymEZdj212JrYX0#Echobox=1579101653

Rona Ambrose will reportedly not run for the Conservative Party’s leadership race, sources have told La Presse.

Conservatives and potential candidates have kept a close watch on the former interim leader of the party — dubbing it “Rona Watch” — waiting for her to decide whether to contest the party leadership before they made a decision.

However, the La Presse report indicates that Ambrose has made no calls to form an organization, amid questions the past few weeks about her potential candidacy. “She will not be a candidate. She should confirm her intentions in the coming days,” a conservative source told the Quebec news outlet.

“Caucus is largely still waiting for Rona,” said one person in December, working on a rival leadership bid. A one Conservative MP said there is a “generalized yearning” for Ambrose‘s time in charge due to her skilful caucus management and almost conflict-free tenure of a year and a half.


----------



## Remius (15 Jan 2020)

I honestly think Polievre threw his name in the ring because he already knew she wouldn't run.  But them's the breaks.

Meanwhile the worst kept secret is out.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/peter-mackay-expected-to-announce-conservative-leadership-bid-1.4768544


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jan 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> ... the worst kept secret is out.
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/peter-mackay-expected-to-announce-conservative-leadership-bid-1.4768544


Confirmed via the Twitter ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jan 2020)

More tea leaves to read? - shared in accordance with  the Fair Dealing provisions of Canada's _Copyright Act_.


> Former prime minister Stephen Harper has resigned from the board of the Conservative Party of Canada Fund, the fundraising arm of the national party, just as the party's leadership race begins in earnest.
> 
> A spokesperson for the party confirmed Harper has stepped back from the position, one he assumed after his party's 2015 electoral defeat. Maclean's magazine was first to report the development Wednesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jan 2020)

If Harper endorses anyone, it would be a fitting gesture to endorse Mackay.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jan 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If Harper endorses anyone, it would be a fitting gesture to endorse Mackay.



Or Jody Wilson-Raybould ...

.... remember, you heard this rumour here first


----------



## brihard (22 Jan 2020)

Ambrose has just formally announced that she will not run. This sucks, probably the closest we’ll ever come to being able to say someone turned down being PM.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-conservative-leader-decision-1.5436775?fbclid=IwAR1jxw8ci1lTe9hQQnSgJpjRw0K0opjLp9EVYboZm2fFJbTWEvPRkVEMDKE


----------



## Remius (22 Jan 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If Harper endorses anyone, it would be a fitting gesture to endorse Mackay.



The fact that Jenny Byrne is going to run Polievre’s campaign should tell you who he is quietly endorsing.


----------



## Remius (22 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Ambrose has just formally announced that she will not run. This sucks, probably the closest we’ll ever come to being able to say someone turned down being PM.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-conservative-leader-decision-1.5436775?fbclid=IwAR1jxw8ci1lTe9hQQnSgJpjRw0K0opjLp9EVYboZm2fFJbTWEvPRkVEMDKE



Not surprised.  I remain convinced that some declared candidates had inside knowledge she was not going to run.


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Jan 2020)

Interesting to see how this turns out; I think the social conservatives lost the last election for the CPC;



> Prominent Tories turn on leadership hopeful who calls being gay a 'choice'
> 
> 'I think LGBTQ is a Liberal term,' Richard Décarie tells CTV



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-leadership-decarie-reaction-1.5437302

I guess at least he's not beating around the bush on what he thinks?  Weird strategy though, as Canadians generally tend to reward fiscally responsible politicians that stay out of the bedrooms. Not sure why they care who gets married but it's a pretty quick trip to losing to open that can up. Weird that someone would put the time and effort into it while committing $300k without understanding that basic concept.

Also looks like Polliviere decided not to run. Didn't know he just had a kid; not sure if that's the main reason he decided against running, but never a bad thing to put your family first.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jan 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> The fact that Jenny Byrne is *was* going to run Polievre’s campaign ...


FTFY as of late this afternoon ...


> Long-time Ontario MP Pierre Poilievre announced today he will not run for the Conservative Party leadership, saying it would be too tough on his family at this time.
> 
> Poilievre was expected to announce his candidacy on Sunday in Ottawa, but in a Facebook post late Thursday he said he would not be joining the race to replace outgoing leader Andrew Scheer.
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (23 Jan 2020)

Peter Mackay is starting to look like the conservative version of Ignatieff.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Jan 2020)

Altair said:
			
		

> Peter Mackay is starting to look like the conservative version of Ignatieff.



Huh?  

He wrote a lot of books? Nope  
Is an academic? Nope  
Was highly sought after by the Establishment, and then screwed over by same?  Not really.  
An untested political newbie?  Not at all.

???


----------



## Remius (24 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> He wrote a lot of books? Nope
> Is an academic? Nope
> ...



You might not recall but when Ignatieff made a bid for the leadership, other potential contenders started dropping until the leadership convention where his election as leader became a formality more than an actual vote. 

I think that is what he was alluding to.


----------



## Altair (24 Jan 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> You might not recall but when Ignatieff made a bid for the leadership, other potential contenders started dropping until the leadership convention where his election as leader became a formality more than an actual vote.
> 
> I think that is what he was alluding to.


Exactly what I was alluding to.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jan 2020)

Good. Without Ambrose, Charest and Polievre in play, perhaps the CPC can focus on what it needs to be to beat the LPC in ‘21.

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jan 2020)

More tea leaves, for what they're worth ....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jan 2020)

That would have been an interesting play. The Liberals have been running against Harper for the past 4 years, even though he wasn't even on the field. 

It would have been mighty curious to see what would have happened if he decided to make a comeback...


----------



## brihard (24 Jan 2020)

Looks like it's increasingly MacKay's to lose. I like O'Toole personally, but he will struggle to compete with MacKay, I think. I don't see anyone else who really looks to be a contender, and several who are outright jokes.


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Jan 2020)

Bilingualism strikes again ... the Cons need a deeper bench.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jan 2020)

On verra si ça sera assez profonde.  Je ne suis pas convaincu qu’il faut les compétences linguistiques de Brian Mulroney.  Je crois que Peter MacKay avait démontré une capacité de communiquer assez bien, soit en français, soit en anglais. 

G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Bilingualism strikes again ... the Cons need a deeper bench.



Why? Show me one leader of any party born outside Quebec who has done well electorally in Quebec in the last 50 years.

It doesn't matter how bilingual a politician is to Quebecers. It matters if they are from Quebec. Maybe the Conservatives need to stop worrying about the language skills part and instead worry about communication skills.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 Jan 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Show me one leader of any party *born outside Quebec* who has done well electorally in Quebec in the last 50 years.



Justin Trudeau  -  born Christmas Day 1971 at the *Ottawa* Civic Hospital.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jan 2020)

Agree fully, SKT. It will only be a factor to those who see it as such. 

The Liberals need to start being very concerned about losing a significant portion of the Maritimes to Peter.  :nod:

:2c:



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Justin Trudeau  -  born Christmas Day 1971 at the *Ottawa* Civic Hospital.



I was going to mention that, Blackadder, but figured there would be those that claim the NCR as ‘essentially non-provincial.’

Further irony is that he was born in the same natal wing of the Civic that the Canadian Government declared Dutch sovereign soil during WWII so that Princess Beatrice could be declared as having been born on Dutch soil and retaining rights to the Dutch Monarchy.  So, Justin was born in Ontario on previously Netherlands territory...  


G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jan 2020)

Mackay stands for what some people miss in the old PC, is perceptibly a moderate, and presumably knows a bit about campaigning in Atlantic Canada.  Unless there's a deep fracture in the CPC, he should be able to lead the party to gains in all regions (except where it already has near-absolute domination).


----------



## brihard (25 Jan 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Mackay stands for what some people miss in the old PC, is perceptibly a moderate, and presumably knows a bit about campaigning in Atlantic Canada.  Unless there's a deep fracture in the CPC, he should be able to lead the party to gains in all regions (except where it already has near-absolute domination).



Yup. And even if he's 'not conservative enough' for some of the prairies, CPC can still afford to lose 15% popular support there and sweep the region. I think CPC focused *too* hard on the prairies in the last few years, well past the point of diminishing returns. They pandered harder to their base than the situation called for, and in doing so drove away a lot of moderates and centrists.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jan 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Justin Trudeau  -  born Christmas Day 1971 at the *Ottawa* Civic Hospital.



Touche. Still, he is viewed with Quebec as a native son. No Calgarian, ever, no matter how bilingual would ever get the same treatment.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yup. And even if he's 'not conservative enough' for some of the prairies, CPC can still afford to lose 15% popular support there and sweep the region. I think CPC focused *too* hard on the prairies in the last few years, well past the point of diminishing returns. They pandered harder to their base than the situation called for, and in doing so drove away a lot of moderates and centrists.



A fair comment and I think the political culture in Canada would be far healthier today if the Conservatives had traded 5 Alberta/Sask seats with the Liberals for 5 GTA seats.


----------



## brihard (25 Jan 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> A fair comment and I think the political culture in Canada would be far healthier today if the Conservatives had traded 5 Alberta/Sask seats with the Liberals for 5 GTA seats.



I think the initial rate of return would be far higher than one for one.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I think the initial rate of return would be far higher than one for one.



I get what you are saying, but I am just saying it would be better to have 5 more western MPs in government and 5 more GTA MPs in opposition, just to moderate positions on both sides.


----------



## brihard (25 Jan 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I get what you are saying, but I am just saying it would be better to have 5 more western MPs in government and 5 more GTA MPs in opposition, just to moderate positions on both sides.



Gotcha. And yeah, for reasons our political health, I agree.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Jan 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That would have been an interesting play. The Liberals have been running against Harper for the past 4 years, even though he wasn't even on the field.
> 
> It would have been mighty curious to see what would have happened if he decided to make a comeback...



He won't, but that also won't stop the Liberals from running against him again.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Looks like it's increasingly MacKay's to lose.


On some other sites I follow, there's a lot of anger towards MacKay from Conservative party members, who seem willing to lose another election rather than having "him" ('MacKay,' said with a sneer) as leader.  Can you say "self-inflicted wound"?


----------



## brihard (26 Jan 2020)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> On some other sites I follow, there's a lot of anger towards MacKay from Conservative party members, who seem willing to lose another election rather than having "him" ('MacKay,' said with a sneer) as leader.  Can you say "self-inflicted wound"?



I’ve seen it too. They can either unify behind an electable leader who can form government, or they can continue to pout impotently in opposition. The CPC’s wunderkind has left them with arguably no more political clout than either the NDP or the Bloc Québecois, either of which suffice to prop up the LPC minority.

There is no longer any welcoming home in Canadian _government_ for social conservatism. It isn’t entirely gone away, but it is not electable, and it is a specific turn off for a lot of us who sit naturally near the political centre and who will happily vote for a pragmatic and rational CPC that stays largely out of social stuff. CPC - with a good leader - can take the election on economic and foreign affairs policy platforms. They don’t need to get stupid and go slumming for votes in the prairies. They may lose a few to the twitching husk of the PPC, or to some new Wexit movement, but it will not substantially threaten their electoral chances, not if they have a solid plan on energy and resources.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> They don’t need to get stupid and go slumming for votes in the prairies.



A point - or more of a question.  When we say "social conservatism," are we using it for shorthand for "religious-driven policy" or "religious politics"?  When we talk about social conservatism, are we really just talking about (predominantly) Christians with strong political views on abortion, marriage, and gender derived from their spiritual interpretations of right and wrong?

If the answer is yes, than I'm not sure why you'd link social conservatism with the Prairies.  For every Brad Trost, there is a Tania Granic Allen, a Faith Goldy, a Charles McVety in Ontario.  In fact, when you look at Canada, the West is generally less religious than Eastern Canada.  "Religiosity" declines as you go East to West.  Although the data is a bit dated, I suspect there hasn't been too much variance since 2011.  The "so what" is that we need to quit thinking of Western Canada as this "religious right" bastion driving the Conservative Party.  Their strength there, I suspect, lies far more in the regional and economic friction that has been a part of Canada from the start.


----------



## mariomike (26 Jan 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> For every Brad Trost, there is a Tania Granic Allen, a Faith Goldy, a Charles McVety in Ontario.



How many voters take them seriously?

Faith ran for mayor of Toronto and only got 3 % ( 3.40 to be exact ) of the vote. 

Since then, she has been banned from Facebook,


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/facebook-faith-goldy-ban-alt-right-1.5088827
> Social media giant says platform can't be used to spread hate


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Jan 2020)

I am not sure that is the way to read that article.

Religious "affiliation" is one thing - it relates to which religion people claim to be from. And while it supports your description, it should be read in conjunction with the " service attendance" figures (with the bar already set low at once a month or more). You can see that nowadays, Ontario, the Maritimes and the prairies are all basically at same "one-person-in-three" level of attendance, while B.C. is somewhat lower and Quebec, at one-person-in-six level of attendance, is blowing every one else out of the water.

I suspect  for the Quebec figures, if one removes the Muslims, Anglicans and Jews attendance which are above average, you'll find out the Pew research results arise from the fact that, while most French-Canadian Quebecers still identify as Catholic because they were baptized (high affiliation figures), they almost all don't practice (attendance figures).

Right now in Quebec, French-Canadians tend to go to church to get baptized, married (but less and less for this one with nearly 60% of weddings being civil only) and buried.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jan 2020)

[quote author=mariomike]

Since then, she has been banned from Facebook,
[/quote]

And yet the Muslim Brotherhood's facebook page is alive and well.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> And yet the Muslim Brotherhood's facebook page is alive and well.



Ummmm

This might be worth a read

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Muslim-Brotherhood/Uprising-and-electoral-success


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jan 2020)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am not sure that is the way to read that article.
> 
> Religious "affiliation" is one thing - it relates to which religion people claim to be from. And while it supports your description, it should be read in conjunction with the " service attendance" figures (with the bar already set low at once a month or more). You can see that nowadays, Ontario, the Maritimes and the prairies are all basically at same "one-person-in-three" level of attendance, while B.C. is somewhat lower and Quebec, at one-person-in-six level of attendance, is blowing every one else out of the water.



Good point.  Here is another data point:

https://www.intrust.org/Magazine/Issues/New-Year-2016/Religious-affiliation-and-attendance-in-Canada

Evangelicals are the most likely to attend regularly,  and French Catholic the least, which supports your statement above (probably a lasting effect of the Quiet Revolution?).


----------



## mariomike (26 Jan 2020)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Religious "affiliation" is one thing - it relates to which religion people claim to be from. And while it supports your description, it should be read in conjunction with the " service attendance" figures



My late mother-in-law paid membership at two synagogues in the Wilson Heights area. 

I asked her, why pay two memberships?

She said, "When I skip, they assume I am at the other."


----------



## dapaterson (26 Jan 2020)

Some old favourite cartoons about Peter...

https://twitter.com/jamespmcleod/status/1221459375015038982


----------



## Haggis (26 Jan 2020)

MacKay will be an easy target for the Liberals should he win the leadership, given his affiliation with the Great Blue Bogeyman and his helicopter antics, just to name those "scandals" that we already know about.   Sadly, those Conservative leadership candidates who could've actually defeated Trudeau's personality cult in the next election have chosen not to run.  I believe it's because they see no chance of Trudeau being beaten by any mainstream party in their current states and they don't want to be the loser in the next election.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Jan 2020)

After Trudeau jr. flew illegally on a civilian helicopter (of the Aga Khan), I don't think he would be in position of calling Mackay on his inappropriate use of a military one.

At least, the military got training and flying hours that count towards preparedness from Mackay's antics.  :nod:


----------



## Haggis (26 Jan 2020)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> After Trudeau jr. flew illegally on a civilian helicopter (of the Aga Khan), I don't think he would be in position of calling Mackay on his inappropriate use of a military one.



The PM was never charged, tried or found guilty. Therefore, your perception of the event differs from his.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> At least, the military got training and flying hours that count towards preparedness from Mackay's antics.  :nod:


  Do you think that will matter?  Or even be mentioned?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Jan 2020)

Jesus Christ himself could run as leader of the Conservatives and he would be tarred by the Liberals for not ensuring that 6 of his disciples were women.

My point is: Doesn't matter who the Conservatives pick: mud will be thown by the Liberals. If Peter Mackay wins the leadership, at least he brings a proven track record as a moderate and is a good communicator who can think on his feet. After that: the chips will fall where they fall.


----------



## FJAG (26 Jan 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...
> The "so what" is that we need to quit thinking of Western Canada as this "religious right" bastion driving the Conservative Party.  Their strength there, I suspect, lies far more in the regional and economic friction that has been a part of Canada from the start.



The social conservatism label for the west comes primarily from the Reform Party which formed as a social conservative alternative to the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives. That led to the Canadian Alliance which begat the Canadian Alliance / Progressive Conservative merger to form the Conservative Party of Canada.

IMHO the CPC dropped the "Progressive" to placate the western Reform elements to ensure conservative unity across the country and by doing so gave too much prominence to the further right Reform elements from the west. Harper kept them in check during his years but the social conservative element (which I agree is more spread out then it used to be but remains more centered in the rural component of the west and western Ontario) has been quite vocal in its advocacy within the CPC. My own MP is one of those - rural, social conservative, pro-life (endorsed by Campaign for Life as were 66 other CPC candidates, 46 of whom won their seats - https://pressprogress.ca/more-than-half-of-andrew-scheers-elected-conservative-mps-were-supported-by-anti-abortion-groups/). 

Like the US, social conservatives are re-surging in Canada. It's hard to form a fiscal conservative party that is capable of generating the votes for defeating the liberals without bringing social conservatives in-house. Remember that the creation of the Reform Party led to the PC debacle in the 1993 election that brought back Chretien and destroyed Kim Campbell.

I think that this movement is dangerous for us fiscal conservatives but we have to recognize that it is deeply rooted in the CPC right now. We are loosing (if we haven't already lost) our agenda. On top of that, the strength of the social conservative movement within the CPC is scaring off the moderate centre that the CPC needs to form a majority in urban Canada. As a start we need to reclaim the term "Progressive" in the party's name and unequivocally affirm a pro-choice and LGBTQ friendly position. That's a hard row to hoe considering the opposition within. I sometimes wonder if it isn't easier to join the Liberals and start making them fiscally responsible  :dunno:.

 :2c:


----------



## Altair (27 Jan 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The social conservatism label for the west comes primarily from the Reform Party which formed as a social conservative alternative to the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives. That led to the Canadian Alliance which begat the Canadian Alliance / Progressive Conservative merger to form the Conservative Party of Canada.
> 
> IMHO the CPC dropped the "Progressive" to placate the western Reform elements to ensure conservative unity across the country and by doing so gave too much prominence to the further right Reform elements from the west. Harper kept them in check during his years but the social conservative element (which I agree is more spread out then it used to be but remains more centered in the rural component of the west and western Ontario) has been quite vocal in its advocacy within the CPC. My own MP is one of those - rural, social conservative, pro-life (endorsed by Campaign for Life as were 66 other CPC candidates, 46 of whom won their seats - https://pressprogress.ca/more-than-half-of-andrew-scheers-elected-conservative-mps-were-supported-by-anti-abortion-groups/).
> 
> ...


I was hoping the PPC could be fiscally responsible and socially liberal,  but sadly they ended up as fiscally conservative,  and socially far right. 

Sadly,  the LPC won't go fiscally responsible. They exist because they encroached on the NDP,  more or less stole their lunch. If they abandon that for the fiscally responsible and socially liberal crowd the NDP will be the main beneficiary.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jan 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The social conservatism label for the west comes primarily from the Reform Party which formed as a social conservative alternative to the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives. That led to the Canadian Alliance which begat the Canadian Alliance / Progressive Conservative merger to form the Conservative Party of Canada.
> 
> IMHO the CPC dropped the "Progressive" to placate the western Reform elements to ensure conservative unity across the country and by doing so gave too much prominence to the further right Reform elements from the west. Harper kept them in check during his years but the social conservative element (which I agree is more spread out then it used to be but remains more centered in the rural component of the west and western Ontario) has been quite vocal in its advocacy within the CPC. My own MP is one of those - rural, social conservative, pro-life (endorsed by Campaign for Life as were 66 other CPC candidates, 46 of whom won their seats - https://pressprogress.ca/more-than-half-of-andrew-scheers-elected-conservative-mps-were-supported-by-anti-abortion-groups/).
> 
> ...



We've taken our eye off of the secularization ball and, as a result, have been successfully assaulted via a religious right flanking, funded by a foreign power:

"Academics and people in general haven’t paid enough attention to the Christian right in American politics. In 2010, Marci McDonald, Canadian journalist and author of The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, noted that some people doubted such groups could impact Canada: “Surely, you don’t think it can happen here. This is a profoundly different country than the United States. Christian right groups in Canada are here to stay. With their stealth manoeuvring, they’ve managed to politically mobilize their members not only through the effort of pastors at the pulpit, but also through think tanks, para-church organizations and other Christian institutions."

https://www.bchumanist.ca/the_rise_of_the_christian_right_in_canada


----------



## mariomike (27 Jan 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> We've taken our eye off of the secularization ball and, as a result, have been successfully assaulted via a religious right flanking, funded by a foreign power:
> https://www.bchumanist.ca/the_rise_of_the_christian_right_in_canada



Interesting link, daftandbarmy,



> Among Christian right organizations, 81 per cent of white evangelicals are credited with helping propel Donald Trump to the White House in 2016.
> 
> The Christian right in Ontario clearly credits itself for Ford’s victory.



Do you think this will have much / any influence on the next generation of CPC leadership?


----------



## FJAG (27 Jan 2020)

Wikipedia gives a good summary of the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right

It's noteworthy that the Progressive Conservatives were influential in the incorporation of a reference to God in the preamble of our Charter of Rights back in 1980/81:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

While some hold that the reference has no legal value, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms one does wonder what could happen if politically activist social conservative judges take hold like they are doing in the US. If it means nothing, it should come out. I take it as one of those "camel's nose under the tent" issues. We all know, however, that no one will have the courage to take it on. The trouble with the religious aspect to social conservatism is that it only works for the Christian Right while they are a majority or an influential minority. What happens when some other religion becomes dominant? My view - get the country secular now, while you still can.

:cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2020)

Next into the ring:  Erin O'Toole ...


> Ontario MP Erin O'Toole confirmed Monday he is joining the race to lead Canada's Conservatives, promising to bring "true blue leadership" to the party as it looks for a successor to Andrew Scheer.
> 
> This is O'Toole's second run for the leadership — he placed third behind Scheer and Maxime Bernier in the 2017 contest, with about 20 per cent of the vote on the final ballot.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Jan 2020)

Good video, well produced.

For the record, I know Erin O'Toole. Not well enough to call him a friend, but well enough.

What Erin says in the video and the way he says it is the way he is in real life: he is not putting on an act for the camera. 

I think he is welcome addition to the leadership race and is worthy of giving his ideas serious consideration.


----------



## FJAG (27 Jan 2020)

I looked at his Campaign Life Coalition evaluation for the last election and he was awarded a "Yellow" category because of his pro homosexual etc rights position, his pro marijuana position, and his "not re-open abortion debate" position (although he was considered "educable" due to his voting in favour of Bill 225 (criminalizing hurting or killing pre-born child while assaulting pregnant mother). 

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/view/level/mp/id/11259/name/erin-o-toole#votes

Seems he's not part of the social conservative cartel.

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard (27 Jan 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I looked at his Campaign Life Coalition evaluation for the last election and he was awarded a "Yellow" category because of his pro homosexual etc rights position, his pro marijuana position, and his "not re-open abortion debate" position (although he was considered "educable" due to his voting in favour of Bill 225 (criminalizing hurting or killing pre-born child while assaulting pregnant mother).
> 
> https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/view/level/mp/id/11259/name/erin-o-toole#votes
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (27 Jan 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I looked at his Campaign Life Coalition evaluation for the last election and he was awarded a "Yellow" category





			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Oh nice, useful website, thanks. Anyone in future elections who gets their 'green light' cannot and will not get mine.



Mines from Toronto, so got an automatic red light.   
https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/level/mp/province/


----------



## FJAG (27 Jan 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Mines from Toronto, so got an automatic red light.
> https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/level/mp/province/



Mine comes from a farm so is quite green not to mention she mentioned her pro-life stance on her web site until just before the election when it magically disappeared.  :waiting:


----------



## mariomike (27 Jan 2020)

^ Timing is everything.


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Jan 2020)

Introducing Dr Leslyn Lewis: not your average CPC leadership candidate. Quite a statement: http://www.leslynlewis.ca/


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Jan 2020)

That's weird, Canadian media keeps telling me that Conservatives are racist and hate immigrants...


----------



## Remius (29 Jan 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's weird, Canadian media keeps telling me that Conservatives are racist and hate immigrants...



Not quite.  But they like pointing out the ones that are.


----------



## mariomike (29 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Introducing Dr Leslyn Lewis: not your average CPC leadership candidate.



Ran and lost by a minus ( - ) 33 % margin in Scarborough - Rouge Park ( Toronto ) as the Conservative candidate in the 2015 federal election.

https://www.elections.ca/Scripts/vis/PastResults?L=e&ED=35097&EV=99&EV_TYPE=6&PC=&PROV=&PROVID=&MAPID=&QID=11&PAGEID=28&TPAGEID=&PD=&STAT_CODE_ID=-1


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Jan 2020)

She’s definitely a rarity, seems like a hard core Tory. Do Cons ever win in Rouge?


----------



## mariomike (29 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> She’s definitely a rarity, seems like a hard core Tory.



She got a Green  light from Campaign Life.

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/view/mp/province//id/12371/name/leslyn-lewis

"GREEN light means the person supports CLC principles and is rated as SUPPORTABLE"



			
				CloudCover said:
			
		

> Do Cons ever win in Rouge?



Conservatives dropped from 27.4 % of the vote in 2015, down to 20.1 % of the vote in 2019.  

https://338canada.com/districts/35097e.htm


----------



## Altair (29 Jan 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's weird, Canadian media keeps telling me that Conservatives are racist and hate immigrants...


If she wins the leadership, that may change the narrative. 

I'm pretty sure a middle aged to old white man will win though.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jan 2020)

Altair said:
			
		

> If she wins the leadership, that may change the narrative.


Yea right.

Black Americans who voted for Trump got called nazis and racists. I'm sure we would follow suit.


----------



## mariomike (29 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Black Americans who voted for Trump got called nazis and racists.



If you want to talk Trump, we have a US Politics forum for that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jan 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> If you want to talk Trump, we have a US Politics forum for that.



No need to be  like that my friend, it's entirely relevant AND you manage to inject Trump comments into just as many topics, if not more, than I do.


----------



## mariomike (29 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> No need to be  like that my friend, it's entirely relevant AND you manage to inject Trump comments into just as many topics, if not more, than I do.



Right you are, my friend. I put my reply in US Politics.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jan 2020)

I'll admit I don't know much, if anything, about MacKay. He's got an Iranian wife who seems pretty entrenched in humanitarian business?

Not to succumb to identity politics but a saucy part of me wants Dr Leslyn Lewis to win just to mess with the Liberals and their _conservative white male racist rwar_ grandstanding. We seen how ineffective Jody Wilson-Rayboulds intersectionality  was when crossing JT so I'm curious what kind of attacks the LPC would make on the good doctor.

Also will she repeal the firearm laws and let us conceal carry assault rifles?  :dunno:


----------



## mariomike (29 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'll admit I don't know much, if anything, about MacKay.



Me neither. Seems like a nice guy. Apparently he wants to march in this year's Pride parade in Toronto. 

If he prefers something a little more tame, there's the Newmarket Pride parade with Doug.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jan 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Me neither. Apparently he wants to march in this year's Pride parade in Toronto. If decides for something a little more tame, there's the Newmarket Pride parade with Doug.



Does someone have to march in the Toronto pride parade for it to count though? Is the pride parade a Toronto or break kind of thing?
What if Peter marched in the Ottawa or Montreal or Calabogie parade?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Does someone have to march in the Toronto pride parade for it to count though? Is the pride parade a Toronto or break kind of thing?
> What if Peter marched in the Ottawa or Montreal or Calabogie parade?



Since he apparently lives in Toronto, it's probably an easier commute.


----------



## mariomike (29 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Does someone have to march in the Toronto pride parade for it to count though? Is the pride parade a Toronto or break kind of thing?



It goes back 39 years to "Operation Soap".  Maybe back in the day it meant more than it does now.

I can assure you nooooobody! ( That's for you, Mayor Mel! He rode a vintage fire truck in it and seemed to have a great time. ) has to march in it to get my vote. Rob used to go to the cottage that weekend. I didn't blame him. There's an awfully funny pic of him at City Hall standing all alone during the flag raising. 

I don't have a strong opinion either way on it. I don't live downtown. 

Chief Blair became the first chief of police in the city's history to personally take part in the parade. He marched alongside politicians of all parties, including several federal and provincial cabinet ministers and Mayor David Miller. I think Mayor Tory marches in it too.

I've worked it when I was mandated to.  

It sets attendance records. That's a lot of voters from across Canada. 

I think in the old days, politicians were maybe more free to go their own way on the Pride parade. 

But, these days, you've got to play ball - if you want to get in and stay in.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jan 2020)

[quote author=mariomike]

But, these days, you've got to play ball - if you want to get in and stay in.
[/quote]

Great insight MM, I couldn't agree more. You gotta play ball.

It doesn't have anything to do with attending *a* Pride parade. It's about attending *thee* Pride parade, which is Toronto.

Anything less that Toronto Pride is considered heresy and, no offense, as you yourself eluded to when Ford wen to Newmarket, something to be ridiculed.

Pride has turned into identity politics. I can't help but smile at the thought of so called progressives being deflated when Peter made this chess move.

Who ever the CPC candidate will be is going to spend the whole time walking on egg shells and catering to this "well what about THIS minefield topic" game.


----------



## mariomike (29 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Who ever the CPC candidate will be is going to spend the whole time walking on egg shells and catering to this "well what about THIS minefield topic" game.



Doesn't mean you've got to believe any of it, or even do anything. Just that you've got to get along and play ball. 

Every married guy must know that.


----------



## FJAG (1 Feb 2020)

I rarely find anything of value in MacLean's (or from Scott Gilmore for that matter) but this one actually has some good points:



> Ten things that would guarantee the new CPC leader is a winner
> 
> Scott Gilmore: So you want to be the next prime minister? Just follow my simple list—or you’re a doomed fool.
> by Scott GilmoreJan 31, 2020
> ...



To see his ten points, go here:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/ten-things-that-would-guarantee-the-new-cpc-leader-is-a-winner/

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike (1 Feb 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> this one actually has some good points:



They are interesting,



> 1 ) Nonetheless, over 70 per cent of the population now lives in a metropolitan area, and that proportion is growing. Not surprisingly, they aren’t voting Tory.
> 
> 2 ) It is no longer a national political party, but a western alienation movement.
> 
> ...


----------



## NotSoWiseKingSolomon (1 Feb 2020)

I find the site useful as well, as I will be looking for green light candidates. Much harder to find a green light candidate vs red ones.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Feb 2020)

Novel approach these days ....

_*"Peter MacKay 'not happy' with tweet needling Trudeau over yoga expenses* -- Conservative leadership candidate says he wants his campaign to have a more 'civilized' tone ..."_


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Feb 2020)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Novel approach these days ....
> 
> _*"Peter MacKay 'not happy' with tweet needling Trudeau over yoga expenses* -- Conservative leadership candidate says he wants his campaign to have a more 'civilized' tone ..."_


Different take on the same angle ....


> ... When questions turned to his leadership campaign, MacKay said he wanted to raise the bar for political discourse.
> 
> “I'm at a point now with some further private sector experience and some reflection that I'd like to do politics a little differently,” he said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Feb 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> It goes back 39 years to "Operation Soap".  Maybe back in the day it meant more than it does now.
> 
> I can assure you nooooobody! ( That's for you, Mayor Mel! He rode a vintage fire truck in it and seemed to have a great time. ) has to march in it to get my vote. Rob used to go to the cottage that weekend. I didn't blame him. There's an awfully funny pic of him at City Hall standing all alone during the flag raising.
> 
> ...



Considering how the Pride organizers here treated the Vancouver PD (who have worked hard to be inclusive)  I would tell them to piss up a rope, until the Pride parade becomes more inclusive and less judgemental of others.


----------



## mariomike (5 Feb 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering how the Pride organizers here treated the Vancouver PD (who have worked hard to be inclusive)  I would tell them to piss up a rope, until the Pride parade becomes more inclusive and less judgemental of others.



Political candidates don't have to attend.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I've only been to the one in Toronto when mandated.
> 
> Nobody can order a political candidate to attend a parade.



No but a certain part of our society sure does villianize politicians for not attending  Pride paradesPride Toronto parades. 

Speaking of which I wonder if Pride Toronto ever released the dollar amount of what it's organizers were stealing.


----------



## mariomike (5 Feb 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> No but a certain part of our society sure does villianize politicians for not attending  Pride paradesPride Toronto parades.
> 
> Speaking of which I wonder if Pride Toronto ever released the dollar amount of what it's organizers were stealing.



I could care less who goes, or doesn't go.   

Not sure why some seem so obsessed with them.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Feb 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Political candidates don't have to attend.



Most members of this site know that "you don't have to attend" is translated as "you're in a world of shit if we don't see you there".


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Feb 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Most members of this site know that "you don't have to attend" is translated as "you're in a world of crap if we don't see you there".



Exactly. Although I could care less if they attend or not, I am not impressed with the exclusionary tactics of that community when it comes to politicians and the police.

Its 2020 now and I think the various Pride communities have to realize that - but then again there's money to be made playing the "victim".


----------



## mariomike (5 Feb 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I could care less if they attend or not,



Exactly.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Feb 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering how the Pride organizers here treated the Vancouver PD (who have worked hard to be inclusive)  I would tell them to piss up a rope, until the Pride parade becomes more inclusive and less judgemental of others.



I've never been in a Pride Parade, but I've had an employee who is gay. And he and his partner have never been in a Pride Parade either. Except, I think, in New Orleans, because: Hell Yeah! 

Me and my staff went to his wedding, and my wife and I signed the register as witnesses because we really wanted to, and we were honoured.

They had us over  for dinner parties frequently and 'Yay!' because they were real gourmets, and we had alot of fun. Heads up, I know other gay people who cook like me so I'm not virtue signalling here...

They hosted an annual party for gays and transsexuals at their house, which we attended regularly. No one there described themselves as 'LGBT2Q' etc ... they were just 'from Victoria', or whatever. There must have been a hundred people or more at these parties, all having a great time without being 'political' or otherwise creepy or self-entitled. On talking to these folks I developed a deep sense of my own incompetence: lots of these folks are simply brilliant, in a variety of ways.

Some of these people are Senior Officers and NCMs in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I was glad to be able to count myself as one of their professional colleagues. I was sad to hear that some of them felt that they would never be promoted because of their sexual orientation which, even though they didn't flaunt it, they felt some had used against them.

We had a great time. Always. I learned alot, and I my general impression is that the more we force the giant 'Pride Parade' shaming thing, the less service we are doing to this amazing group of people.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Feb 2020)

i find that the Gays who are proud of what they do in life and identify as a solider, teacher, sailor, writer , etc, etc who happens to be gay are the happy bunch and have less need in pushing it on other people, particularly other people who aren't threatened by them being gay. That was the equality that the majority wanted, to be able to marry their partner, share benefits and not be physically attacked for it. Most are realistic enough to know the world is imperfect.


----------



## mariomike (6 Feb 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Most members of this site know that "you don't have to attend" is translated as "you're in a world of shit if we don't see you there".



Not with this voter.   

Parades can backfire on politicians.

eg: At the Raptors parade, the prime minister and mayor were cheered. Doug was booed.


----------



## FJAG (13 Feb 2020)

Got another new one endorsed by Campaign Life Coalition.



> Leslyn Lewis, Toronto Lawyer, Running For Conservative Party Leadership
> She has been endorsed by the Campaign Life Coalition.
> 
> OTTAWA — Toronto lawyer Leslyn Lewis has become the first woman approved to run for the federal Conservative party leadership, saying she wants the job to bring courage and compassion back to politics.
> ...



https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/leslyn-lewis-conservative-leadership-race_ca_5e44500ac5b61b84d3443705?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike (13 Feb 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Got another new one endorsed by Campaign Life Coalition.
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/leslyn-lewis-conservative-leadership-race_ca_5e44500ac5b61b84d3443705?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage
> 
> :cheers:





			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Ran and lost by a minus ( - ) 33 % margin in Scarborough - Rouge Park ( Toronto ) as the Conservative candidate in the 2015 federal election.
> 
> https://www.elections.ca/Scripts/vis/PastResults?L=e&ED=35097&EV=99&EV_TYPE=6&PC=&PROV=&PROVID=&MAPID=&QID=11&PAGEID=28&TPAGEID=&PD=&STAT_CODE_ID=-1





> The pro-life group has endorsed her, and she also counts among her supporters Charles McVety, a prominent Christian activist who has called her a “breath of fresh air” as a strong Christian woman who is anti-abortion



Opinions vary. But, a bit of history on the subject. Some of us may remember the late Chief Coroner of Ontario Morton Shulman, 



> In the Sixties, abortion could be legally performed only to save the life of the woman, so there were practically no legal abortions. He stated that the pregnant daughters of the rich were sent to reliable physicians who did abortions for cash. He estimated that these physicians did twenty to thirty abortions per week. Women who were not rich were left to perform an abortion on themselves or go to what he called a "nurse" abortionist. Their method was commonly pumping Lysol into the woman's womb. The mortality rate was high and the infection rate over 50%. He added, "By the time I became Chief Coroner, I had had the unpleasant experience of seeing the bodies of some dozens of young women who had died as a result of these amateur abortions."
> 
> Chief Coroner Morton Shulman decided to publicize deaths from illegal abortions. He instructed his coroners to call a public inquest into each abortion death. He describes one case that he believes was the turning point, that of 34-year-old Lottie Leanne Clarke, a mother of three children, who died of a massive infection in 1964 after an illegal abortion in spite of medical treatment and antibiotics. At the inquest into her death, the jury recommended that the laws about therapeutic abortion be revised. Dr. Shulman added that a federal government committee should review the question of abortion and the law. Newspapers published editorials recommending the reform of the abortion law. In 1965, the Minister of Justice, Guy Favreau, wrote to Dr. Shulman that the recommendation would be considered in the program to amend the Criminal Code. The eventual amendment closely followed the recommendations of the coroners' juries.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada#Chief_Coroner_Schulman





> and in support of traditional marriage.



Guess we won't be seeing her in the Pride parade.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Feb 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Guess we won't be seeing her in the Pride parade.


I don't imagine we'll be seeing her in Parliament.

Another addition to the disarray of the Conservatives, ignoring the moderate centrist voters by appealing to the further right, which tends to only bleed off votes to the Libs/NDP (or abstain).   :not-again:

        :2c:


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2020)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I don't imagine we'll be seeing her in Parliament.
> 
> Another addition to the disarray of the Conservatives, ignoring the moderate centrist voters by appealing to the further right, which tends to only bleed off votes to the Libs/NDP (or abstain).   :not-again:
> 
> :2c:



While this is conventional wisdom, I wonder how true this actually is? The rise of populism around the world is showing that the ole "left/right" divide that we grew up with don't really seem valid anymore, and appeals to voters now need to take many different factors into account.

The other issue is given Canada's regionalism and the re opening of old issues and wounds by the Liberals since 2015 (resulting in the rebirth of Western Separatism, Quebec separatism and a Populist government in Ontario) is probably _more_ divisive for the Conservatives, since the issues which power Wexit, the Ford government, the CAQ and Bloc Quebecois are far different and even at cross purposes. I don't see how these very different issues and voter sets can be harnessed in a national movement or electoral campaign.


----------



## Remius (13 Feb 2020)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I don't imagine we'll be seeing her in Parliament.
> 
> Another addition to the disarray of the Conservatives, ignoring the moderate centrist voters by appealing to the further right, which tends to only bleed off votes to the Libs/NDP (or abstain).   :not-again:
> 
> :2c:



Yep.  Can't argue with that. 

Hopefully they can get through this without too many self inflicted wounds.


----------



## Remius (13 Feb 2020)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While this is conventional wisdom, I wonder how true this actually is? The rise of populism around the world is showing that the ole "left/right" divide that we grew up with don't really seem valid anymore, and appeals to voters now need to take many different factors into account.
> 
> The other issue is given Canada's regionalism and the re opening of old issues and wounds by the Liberals since 2015 (resulting in the rebirth of Western Separatism, Quebec separatism and a Populist government in Ontario) is probably _more_ divisive for the Conservatives, since the issues which power Wexit, the Ford government, the CAQ and Bloc Quebecois are far different and even at cross purposes. I don't see how these very different issues and voter sets can be harnessed in a national movement or electoral campaign.



I would argue that those regional issue are economical in nature.  Also as much as we can say that Ontario voted in a populist government, it was more about ousting a stale and financially irresponsible one.   Conservatives could develop a real fiscal platform, drop the whole social conservatism thing.  Talk about jobs and prosperity.  Getting back to good fiscal health and creating a middle power sphere of influence.  But if they ignore issues like the environment and don't get with the times on other social issues they will implode again.  And next election Trudeau won't have the same scandals hanging over him (mind you there is still time for that but even then they screwed it up last time).


----------



## Journeyman (13 Feb 2020)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I don't see how these very different issues and voter sets can be harnessed in a national movement or electoral campaign.


Mostly agree.  However, the system we're currently using can't just be wished away;  nation-wide parties have always had to contend with differing regional/local priorities.  

I have no magic solution.  :dunno:


----------



## mariomike (13 Feb 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Conservatives could develop a real fiscal platform, drop the whole social conservatism thing.





> 1 ) Nonetheless, over 70 per cent of the population now lives in a metropolitan area, and that proportion is growing. Not surprisingly, they aren’t voting Tory.
> 
> 2 ) It is no longer a national political party, but a western alienation movement.
> 
> ...







			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> , the Ford government,



Unpopular at the provincial level,
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNSAgN894Z8KriG5RDUD8d6r4AONnw%3A1581608566170&ei=dm5FXoyGCpCRggfLsJuwCw&q=%22doug+ford%22+popularity&oq=%22doug+ford%22+popularity&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..395928...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.goSCUfmSWww&ved=0ahUKEwiMmYqG787nAhWQiOAKHUvYBrYQ4dUDCAo#spf=1581608965140

and powers officially removed at the municipal level.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Feb 2020)

You're taking tips from how the CPC should be led from the husband of Catherine McKenna?  :rofl:


----------



## mariomike (13 Feb 2020)

> PuckChaser thought you were Misleading and noted "Partisan hitpiece from the spouse of a senior Liberal party member"





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're taking tips from how the CPC should be led from the husband of Catherine McKenna?



Original Post,



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I rarely find anything of value in MacLean's (or from Scott Gilmore for that matter) but this one actually has some good points:
> 
> To see his ten points, go here:
> 
> ...



FJAG said, "has some good points". 

Considering they lost the last two elections, which points do you disagree with? 





			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Conservatives could develop a real fiscal platform, drop the whole social conservatism thing.



Well said.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Feb 2020)

And in the category of phrases the media has been waiting to say for years, Baird is out.


----------



## FJAG (13 Feb 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> ...
> FJAG said, "has some good points".
> 
> Considering they lost the last two elections, which points do you disagree with?
> ...



None of them, actually.

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Feb 2020)

Ah yes, that list.


> 1 ) Nonetheless, over 70 per cent of the population now lives in a metropolitan area, and that proportion is growing. Not surprisingly, they aren’t voting Tory.
> Yea. Good for them. I wouldn't want to live in a metropolitan city.
> 
> 2 ) It is no longer a national political party, but a western alienation movement.
> ...





**Edited the colour for a very special poster


----------



## mariomike (13 Feb 2020)

> Jarnhamar thought you were Misleading and noted "Sorry brother, thats a shitty article"



Thanks. FJAG posted the original. Reply #210.
https://army.ca/forums/threads/131363/post-1596310.html#msg1596310



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Considering they lost the last two elections, which points do you disagree with?





			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> None of them, actually.
> 
> :cheers:





			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Ah yes, that list.



Have to wait for the next election to see who is right.  

"I wouldn't want to live in a metropolitan city."

That's where the jobs are, especially for anyone who wants to join the emergency services. They come in from far and wide to apply.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Feb 2020)

Ahh, I missed the original post reference. Sorry. We should make an option to rescind +/- millpoints.

But that said I thought posting millpoints comments in the discussion thread was considered bad form?


----------



## mariomike (14 Feb 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Ahh, I missed the original post reference. Sorry. We should make an option to rescind +/- millpoints.



That's ok. I have never deducted a single negative Mil-point from anyone. I like to award positive ones. So, + 300 to you! 



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I thought posting millpoints comments in the discussion thread was considered bad form?



My bad. But, if I have something to say, ( like, "thats a shitty article" ) I do it in the forum. Or, send a PM. That way, the member has a chance to defend themselves.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Feb 2020)

[quote author=mariomike]

That's where the jobs are, especially for anyone who wants to join the emergency services. They come in from far and wide to apply.
[/quote]
It looks like the GTA has the highest unemployment rate by region in Ontario.


----------



## mariomike (14 Feb 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It looks like the GTA has the highest unemployment rate by region in Ontario.



I'm not surprised. There is a long line of qualified out of town applicants for the city emergency services. When I came on, there was a residency requirement. But, now they can - and do - come in to apply from all over Ontario. 

The city is seen as the place to go when you’re looking for work. It attracts a lot of  young people from out of town, and recent immigrants to Canada.

The problem is, once they arrive, finding work - especially work they are interested in - isn’t always as easy as they expected. 

This movie is a classic example of that,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goin%27_Down_the_Road
"Nova Scotia to Toronto with the hope of meeting up with their relatives in the city who might be able to help them find jobs".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Feb 2020)

Lot's of employment opportunities in Vancouver, sadly they don't pay enough to actually live in Vancouver.


----------



## mariomike (14 Feb 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Lot's of employment opportunities in Vancouver, sadly they don't pay enough to actually live in Vancouver.



Right. Even if you get the job you want, the cost of housing must be a challenge for young people trying to buy into the market,



> Feb. 6, 2020
> 
> Toronto house prices are expected to soar by nearly 10 percent in 2020
> https://www.thestar.com/business/2020/02/06/toronto-house-prices-expected-to-climb-nearly-10-per-cent-in-2020.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Feb 2020)

It's so bad I know of several businesses that have closed or moved out to the valley because they can't find employees.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Feb 2020)

Meanwhile...

Victoria has Lowest Unemployment Rate in Canada

https://www.iheartradio.ca/cfax-1070/news/victoria-has-lowest-unemployment-rate-in-canada-1.1999978

#governmenttownheartsndp-greengovernment


----------



## mariomike (15 Feb 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Meanwhile...
> 
> Victoria has Lowest Unemployment Rate in Canada



Also,



> A greater population density than Toronto.
> https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/170208/t001a-eng.htm





> Canada’s most dangerous cities
> https://web.archive.org/web/20120630014856/http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/14/national-crime-rankings-2010/
> 
> WORST CITIES  PERCENTAGE ABOVE THE NATIONAL CRIME SCORE: ( Caps not mine - mm )
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Feb 2020)

Greater Victoria records one of the lowest homicide rates in Canada
https://www.vicnews.com/news/greater-victoria-records-one-of-the-lowest-homicide-rates-in-canada/




> *Greater Victoria recorded two homicides in 2018*, a drop of three from the previous year, according to Statistics Canada.





> Measured by homicides, Winnipeg (population: 816,741) was Canada’s most violent CMA with 2.69 homicides per 100,000. In terms of absolute numbers, the *Toronto CMA (population: 6.27 million) led the way with 142 homicides*, up from 93 in 2017. Overall, Canada recorded 651 homicides or 1.76 homicides per 100,000 population, a drop compared to 2017.


----------



## mariomike (15 Feb 2020)

> In terms of absolute numbers, the Toronto CMA (population: 6.27 million)



Guess I'm one of the 6,269,858 lucky survivors.  

Since I retired, all I really know about the CMA is our neighbourhood of 11,000.

If we didn't like it, or felt unsafe, we would move to another area of the CMA, or Ontario, or Canada, or the US, or the EU.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Feb 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Meanwhile...
> 
> Victoria has Lowest Unemployment Rate in Canada
> 
> ...



Lowest unemployment but I have no idea what anyone actually does for a living? Outside Seaspan there is no actual industry here.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Feb 2020)

A few things:
1) BC government, as an employer.
2) Greater Victoria and the peninsula have a lot of elderly folks who consume services but don't work.
3) A university.
4) Tourism.

No idea how significant these factors are, but they have to have some influence.


----------



## Remius (15 Feb 2020)

Most of that list are fairly stable industries.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Feb 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> A few things:
> 1) BC government, as an employer.
> 2) Greater Victoria and the peninsula have a lot of elderly folks who consume services but don't work.
> 3) A university.
> ...



5) DND/CAF

Outside of the BC Govt, it is probably the largest employer in Victoria.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (1 Mar 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'll admit I don't know much, if anything, about MacKay. He's got an Iranian wife who seems pretty entrenched in humanitarian business?



I don't know much about him either, but his reputation is that he's very much a "Red Tory" and would take the CPC in a "Liberal Lite" direction. 

That said, he at least seems to have some charisma and I'm willing to listen to what his actual policies are before passing judgement (or submitting my vote for CPC leader).



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not to succumb to identity politics but a saucy part of me wants Dr Leslyn Lewis to win just to mess with the Liberals and their _conservative white male racist rwar_ grandstanding. We seen how ineffective Jody Wilson-Rayboulds intersectionality  was when crossing JT so I'm curious what kind of attacks the LPC would make on the good doctor.
> 
> Also will she repeal the firearm laws and let us conceal carry assault rifles?  :dunno:



First time I heard of her was today, when I read an email Jim Karahalios expressing outrage over Richard Décarie's ejection from the leadership race by the CPC insiders. All I know if Mr. Décarie is that he made some highly controversial comments in the media. So the CPC tossed him because they don't want too much controversy. Reading through this threat I take it that many in the CPC would approve of not allowing a person like that to even run. I personally am more of a fan of "let the people decide" and in my view CPC cowardice and fear of the media has borne no good fruits. The media is going to attack and denigrate the CPC no matter what, so I think a more confrontational and fearless approach is warranted. Cowering in fear just emboldens more attacks and neuters the Party. I believe this was one of the major flaws in Mr. Scheer's approach.

But I digress ... back to Dr. Lewis. I can't really find anything about her other than what I've read in this thread. It does not inspire confidence in me that she couldn't even win her seat locally. She might have great policies (I don't know because her website doesn't say much) but we need a "winner" leading the party.

All that said, I have to admit I agree with you Jarnhammer -- I'd be really interested to see how the "conserative = old white racist" narrative would be handled by the media and the LPC with a lady like her, who goes against their stereotypes, at the helm.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (1 Mar 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Doesn't mean you've got to believe any of it, or even do anything. Just that you've got to get along and play ball.



It's more than merely "playing ball" ... it's become a mandatory requirement. Like offering incense to the Emperor in Ancient Rome, it almost has a religious significance. It's in that vein that I highly object to "playing ball" because it is essentially "coerced speech" insofar as it is coerced public declaration of being in favour of everything LGBT lobby stands for, otherwise you're a pariah. It is essentially an attempt to disqualify social conservatives/Christians from politics. Not sure if the same outrage would ensue if there were a high profile Muslim candidate who refused to march.

And because you're a pariah if you don't, I think it would be difficult for a CPC leader who doesn't march in the parade to win ... but I don't think it's impossible. I think that a leader who took the issue head-on and said "I'm not marching" and gave a principled reason (rather than trying to skirt the issue and give weasel answers like Scheer) could gain respect from the average Canadian. S/he would of course be absolutely reviled by the media, but I think that certain politicians in other countries have shown us that bad press is still press and can be used to advantage. So I'm not convinced that the incense must be offered to Caesar, I think it just needs to be done in the right way.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (1 Mar 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I looked at his Campaign Life Coalition evaluation for the last election and he was awarded a "Yellow" category because of his pro homosexual etc rights position, his pro marijuana position, and his "not re-open abortion debate" position (although he was considered "educable" due to his voting in favour of Bill 225 (criminalizing hurting or killing pre-born child while assaulting pregnant mother).
> 
> https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/view/level/mp/id/11259/name/erin-o-toole#votes
> 
> ...



Not sure what exactly constitutes the "social conservative cartel" ...

For what it's worth, I'm as socially conservative as it gets, but I also understand that politics is the "art of the possible" and that abortion isn't going anywhere. Juries were acquitting abortionists via "jury nullification" and that is what ended abortion as a crime, not anything parliament directly did. Abortion remained a crime "on the books" for years until the Supreme Court ruled the laws unconstitutional. Any law concerning abortion would be at best an exercise in futility because the people would not support it, juries would not convict, and the Supreme Court would strike it down. Therefore, Mr. O'Toole's position re: abortion doesn't bother me.

Regarding marijuana, I frankly think the entire war on drugs has been a failure and a money pit. Re-criminializing marijuana would be stupid. If you don't like marijuana don't smoke it. Prohibition on everything that is fun or makes you feel good isn't even particularly conservative in my opinion. But marijuana in particular is quite benign; I'd actually rather people smoke it to drinking alcohol. So this doesn't trouble me at all ... to the contrary I'd probably not vote for someone who thinks attempting to re-criminalize marijuana would be a good idea.

Re: "pro-homosexual" depends on what that means. I've tried emailing Mr. O'Toole's campaign asking for clarification on some positions and they never answer. So I don't know what exactly his position is. I am socially conservative and I am not in favour of homosexuality BUT I also don't think government should be regulating what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Government should not care who you sleep with so to me "sexual orientation" should be something that's simply outside the scope of government. Leave it alone and let people live their lives. That also cuts the other way -- allow people who aren't pro-homosexuality to hold their own personal or religious/moral beliefs without molesting them and without forcing them to say they're in favour.


----------



## FJAG (2 Mar 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Not sure what exactly constitutes the "social conservative cartel" ...
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm as socially conservative as it gets, but I also understand that politics is the "art of the possible" and that abortion isn't going anywhere. Juries were acquitting abortionists via "jury nullification" and that is what ended abortion as a crime, not anything parliament directly did. Abortion remained a crime "on the books" for years until the Supreme Court ruled the laws unconstitutional. Any law concerning abortion would be at best an exercise in futility because the people would not support it, juries would not convict, and the Supreme Court would strike it down. Therefore, Mr. O'Toole's position re: abortion doesn't bother me.
> 
> ...



Let me say briefly that based on your position you are not a true social conservatist like you may believe. You're positions are entirely too reasonable and believe in "live and let live" in many ways. That's not social conservatism.

The distinction amongst conservatists (boiled down to their simplest) is between fiscal conservatists (who believe in balanced budgets and the like) and social conservatists (who believe that all society must conform to certain standards that they espouse)



> Social conservatism is the belief that society is built upon a fragile network of relationships which need to be upheld through duty, traditional values and established institutions.[1] This can include moral issues.[2] Social conservatism is generally sceptical of social change, and believes in maintaining the status quo concerning social issues such as family life, sexual relations, and patriotism



In Canada that focuses on certain religious norms, rejection of homosexuality as being capable of being a family norm and prohibition of abortion.

My problem with social conservatists in the Conservative Party is that they are trying to hijack the party so that they can push their restrictive agenda. That makes the party unelectable in this country and therefore leaves fiscal conservatives like me out pounding sand in frustration as the Liberals keep up their feel-good cash giveaway.

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Mar 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> My problem with social conservatists in the Conservative Party is that they are trying to hijack the party so that they can push their restrictive agenda. That makes the party unelectable in this country and therefore leaves fiscal conservatives like me out pounding sand in frustration as the Liberals keep up their *feel-good* *get re-elected* cash giveaway.
> 
> :cheers:



The truth will out


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (2 Mar 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Let me say briefly that based on your position you are not a true social conservatist like you may believe. You're positions are entirely to reasonable and believe in "live and let live" in many ways. That's not social conservatism.



I suppose I would say I'm a "pragmatic social conservative" if that's a thing. The quote you gave describing "social conservative" fits me to a tee, I do believe "society is built upon a fragile network of relationships which need to be upheld through duty, traditional values and established institutions" ... although I'm not skeptical of social change since we live in a liberal society, so I'm all for social change in the current milieu.

Where the difference may come is that I do not see "duty" and "traditional values" as something that should or even can be enforced coercively by the state. These are things that need to develop organically in society. As for "established institutions" they definitely play a role but, here's where the "pragmatic" part comes in ... forcing people to live their lives a certain way is nearly impossible to do without creating a dystopian hellhole, doesn't really work, and above all, you can't rule a liberal nation with a conservative government. Politics are downstream of culture, not the other way around. I think this is the biggest problem most "social conservatives" have ... they want to just impose their values on every one by winning an election once every four years and pour their resources into that. Liberals are much wiser -- they try to "win hearts and minds" by focusing on culture.

So I say if social conservatives want a more conservative country, don't vote for a guy who's going to artificially impose your values on other people. Instead, be the change you want to see in the world. Live your life the way you think life should be lived and spread your positive message. Try to win people over instead of trying to control them.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> My problem with social conservatists in the Conservative Party is that they are trying to hijack the party so that they can push their restrictive agenda. That makes the party unelectable in this country and therefore leaves fiscal conservatives like me out pounding sand in frustration as the Liberals keep up their feel-good cash giveaway.
> 
> :cheers:



I agree that any party will be unelectable running on a platform of "we're going to force our conservative values on you". The Liberal can get away with forcing their leftist values because they have the backing of the media, the teachers who are educating the young, and therefore a good chunk of society. 

Also as I noted above, in my view, it would actually do more harm than good to try to impose abortion laws or outlaw homosexuality. There would be a backlash and the social conserve positions would become even MORE unpopular than they are now.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Mar 2020)

>My problem with social conservatists in the Conservative Party is that they are trying to hijack the party so that they can push their restrictive agenda.

The problem is simply that parties have sub-factions, and the more a party tries to extend its reach, the more sub-factions it has.  As long as conservatives have a single party, the tensions are internal.  Without a single party, it doesn't matter whether one is pure Type I or Type II, because neither party will ever gain political power.  

We don't see similar tensions in our other parties because the schism on the left resulted in two permanent political parties long ago.  Democrats in the US are having severe problems right now because their adherents are scattered over an ever-extending range of political ideas; Republicans have no corresponding problem (yet) because their collective adoption of change is much slower (they occupy a narrower slice of "spectrum") and they start with a greater proportion of people who share Type I and Type II beliefs.


----------



## mariomike (2 Mar 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> ... back to Dr. Lewis. I can't really find anything about her other than what I've read in this thread. It does not inspire confidence in me that she couldn't even win her seat locally. She might have great policies (I don't know because her website doesn't say much) but we need a "winner" leading the party.
> 
> All that said, I have to admit I agree with you Jarnhammer -- I'd be really interested to see how the "conserative = old white racist" narrative would be handled by the media and the LPC with a lady like her, who goes against their stereotypes, at the helm.



Or this,



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> I don't imagine we'll be seeing her in Parliament.
> 
> Another addition to the disarray of the Conservatives, ignoring the moderate centrist voters by appealing to the further right, which tends to only bleed off votes to the Libs/NDP (or abstain).   :not-again:
> 
> :2c:


----------



## FJAG (2 Mar 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...The problem is simply that parties have sub-factions, and the more a party tries to extend its reach, the more sub-factions it has....



That's absolutely true. The problem is that when a given faction realizes how important it is to making its selected party electable (as the Tea Party did with the GOP), it starts to develop a level of influence out of all proportion to its actual numbers or the reasonableness of its policies for the country.

The social conservative wing of the GOP has succeeded because the margin between the Dems and Repubs is very narrow and social conservatives could make the difference. In Canada there is a preponderance of social liberals who from time to time can be won over to by a fiscally conservative party but never by a socially conservative one. We need to get back to being "progressive conservatives" but that will probably just end up creating another "reform" party that wants to reform us back eighty years in time.

 :deadhorse:


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Mar 2020)

True, FJAG, but some would rather outlaw abortion and rescind homosexual rights and lose to the Liberals than soften their stance.  They’ll then turn it into an us/them East-Central v. West thing when it lets the LPC get another ‘full-pull’ and claim that they weren’t the ones being unreasonable or socially regressive.  Just wait, MacKay will become leader and the Reform/Alliance crowd will be at it again, failing to truly appreciate it was the socially progressive, fiscally conservative support that turned the tides and ousted Martin/Chretien in 2005. 

‘On verra.’

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Mar 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... MacKay will become leader and the Reform/Alliance crowd will be at it again, failing to truly appreciate it was the socially progressive, fiscally conservative support that turned the tides and ousted Martin/Chretien in 2005 ...


A lot can happen between now & the next federal election, but I'd bet a loonie on this, too.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (3 Mar 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> True, FJAG, but some would rather outlaw abortion and rescind homosexual rights and lose to the Liberals than soften their stance.



As a social conservative myself, I'm forced to agree with this. It's to the point that I don't even discuss politics much anymore with people from church because they can't see this and they just have such tunnel vision on the abortion issue. As I said, _supra_, I am fully pro-life but there is no "political" solution to this ... the Supreme Court would strike down any abortion law and even if it didn't juries would acquit. It's spitting into the wind. We need to look beyond single issues and be a bit more pragmatic. CPC is still way better than LPC and as I keep trying to convince people, the best government is one that just leaves its citizens alone on these social issues because we don't like it when liberal governments force stuff on us. [/rant]



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> They’ll then turn it into an us/them East-Central v. West thing when it lets the LPC get another ‘full-pull’ and claim that they weren’t the ones being unreasonable or socially regressive.  Just wait, MacKay will become leader and the Reform/Alliance crowd will be at it again, *failing to truly appreciate it was the socially progressive, fiscally conservative support that turned the tides and ousted Martin/Chretien in 2005.*



I would say that it was the _combination_ of the social conservative AND the fiscally conservative/socially progressive vote that ousted Martin/Chretien. Neither was able to do it alone prior to that.

I am less sure that there is much motivation to form a breakaway party at this juncture, even if (when) Peter MacKay is proclaimed leader. We saw how spectacularly the PPC failed (although arguable its not a socially Conservative party). I am inclined to think people will stick around. Maybe if the LPC had a slightly less offensive leader there'd be more stomach ... so I'll take the loonie bet on the side that the CPC stays together, albeit with grumbling.

That said, the CPC leadership would have been better off to just let Richard Décarie run for leader, and let him flame-out on his own. By unilaterally denying his bid despite meeting the criteria, they give more fuel to the malcontents who can now say that there's a "conspiracy" of Red Tories running the party from the shadows. I'm still skeptical that any large numbers will bail on the CPC if MacKay becomes leader.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Mar 2020)

>some would rather outlaw abortion and rescind homosexual rights and lose to the Liberals than soften their stance.  

And some would rather vote elsewhere (while pretending that so-cons have some meaningful probability of enacting the so-con agenda) and lose to the Liberals than soften their stance.

To summarize what I've expressed before: it would take a so-con majority to realize the so-con agenda; no such majority exists or could reasonably be elected.  People inclined to vote conservative should just go ahead and vote conservative without fear.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Mar 2020)

That will likely happen, Brad. The shame is there are a small number of Blue Liberals who could be swayed if it weren’t for the ‘I’m not going to not say it isn’t what I wouldn’t support (anti-abortion, etc.) attitude...I think MacKay will capture a few of them anyway this round, so there’s still hope.


----------



## suffolkowner (3 Mar 2020)

I don't think it's possible to overemphasize the impact of the so-cons within the Conservatives or how they are viewed from outside the party. Just look at the last leadership convention to me you have so-con candidates or sympathetic or candidates easily associated with that demographic approaching 70% of the votes in the first round 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (4 Mar 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't think it's possible to overemphasize the impact of the so-cons within the Conservatives or how they are viewed from outside the party. Just look at the last leadership convention to me you have so-con candidates or sympathetic or candidates easily associated with that demographic approaching 70% of the votes in the first round
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election



Was that become social conservatives make up 70% of the CPC voting members, or were people voting for these candidates for other reasons? I think it's interesting to look at where the votes went as candidates dropped out. By the 12th round, those left standing were Maxime Bernier (not socially conservative), Erin O'Toole (not really socially conservative), and Andrew Scheer (social conservative). It was only because the Supply Management/Dairy Farmers threw their weight behind Scheer _en masse_ that he was able to defeat Bernier.


----------



## mariomike (31 Mar 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> I think it would be difficult for a CPC leader who doesn't march in the parade to win ...



To march, or not to march?

They cancelled it this year.


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 Mar 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> [...]
> 
> In Canada there is a preponderance of social liberals who from time to time can be won over to by a fiscally conservative party but never by a socially conservative one. We need to get back to being "progressive conservatives" but that will probably just end up creating another "reform" party that wants to reform us back eighty years in time.
> 
> :deadhorse:



I think you will find that a political party that is fiscally responsible while staying out of people's bedrooms would generally be acceptable to the average Canadian at least until they were impacted by cuts ( see Paul Martin's Liberals). Most people don't have a party affiliation and tend to vote for the least bad option.  For a similar example, look to the UK, where they voted in a bunch of obviously inept, elitist con men because they couldn't bear to see Corbyn in power.

I think with the demographic changes any anti-abortion or anti-homosexuality line is basically a silver bullet for the other guy, as the general level of social liberalism is rising with each generation, especially if Gen Z starts to get out and vote in large numbers (as they are the ones that are starting to hit their early 20s). Scheer was too wishy washy about his views and would give a weasly politician answer, so no one trusted him not to give a voice to the social conservative faction and raise the anti-abortion line again.  Generally speaking I don't trust career politicians much anyway, but that also probably didn't help either. Pretty hard to take criticism of JT's track record seriously from someone who has never really had a job outside of politics (which is a similar problem for Polliviere)

I would hold my decision until I saw the platform, but generally speaking I liked MacKay when I met him, and would have no problem voting for him if he ran on a PC platform. I would guess that there are a big enough chunk of the Canadian populace that would back the same horse.

Total aside, the leader I liked the most in the last election was actually Singh; he seemed to bring common sense to the table, but still couldn't bring myself to vote for the NDP (the local candidate was a token one from the fringe of the party). If his party had a reasonable spending platform they would be a viable alternative. People are looking to vote for a party other than the liberals, but as long as the SoCon elements in the Conservatives keep getting air time, forget it. No one wants to roll back society to the 50s.


----------



## FJAG (31 Mar 2020)

Up until a few days ago when they suspended the campaign I was getting a hockey sock full of ads every day. McKay and O'Toole were pretty much the same and together they outnumbered everyone else by about 10 to 1. Both would send out bursts of information about what their campaign stood for (when not cutting down Trudeau's many failings. 

One other one stands out -- Sloan who keeps asking for donations to help him role back political correctness and make the world safe for Evangelical Christians to speak their minds both inside and outside of parliament.  :brickwall:

No wonder why so many Canadians shake their heads about the CPC.

 :cheers:


----------



## Weinie (31 Mar 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Up until a few days ago when they suspended the campaign I was getting a hockey sock full of ads every day. McKay and O'Toole were pretty much the same and together they outnumbered everyone else by about 10 to 1. Both would send out bursts of information about what their campaign stood for (when not cutting down Trudeau's many failings.
> 
> _*One other one stands out -- Sloan who keeps asking for donations to help him role back political correctness and make the world safe for Evangelical Christians to speak their minds both inside and outside of parliament.  :brickwall:
> *_
> ...



Don't care. Rather this chaos than a system whereby voters actually don't get to discern who they support. Notwithstanding, I would like to see a system where Sloan supporters actually have a vote. It's called democracy. As to shaking their heads, holy crap, there are all kinds of wackos out there, and if you need to see, I will cram your e-mail with nutbars.


----------



## FJAG (31 Mar 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> Don't care. Rather this chaos than a system whereby voters actually don't get to discern who they support. Notwithstanding, I would like to see a system where Sloan supporters actually have a vote. It's called democracy. As to shaking their heads, holy crap, there are all kinds of wackos out there, and if you need to see, I will cram your e-mail with nutbars.



Damn. You'd think I'd know the difference between "role" and "roll" by now. 

I agree. I like seeing my candidates say what they really think. Certainly helps me make my decision. I expect his supporters will have a vote just like I'll have. 

Don't need to see any more wackos or nutbars. Have seen enough since 2016.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (31 Mar 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Don't need to see any more wackos or nutbars. Have seen enough since 2016.  ;D



Only started looking four years ago?


----------



## FJAG (21 Apr 2020)

Sigh  :facepalm::



> A poem for the MP for Sarnia-Lambton and her recent hydroxychloroquine endorsement
> 
> Tabatha Southey: Marilyn Gladu seems to think this medicine could easily get the Canadian economy back on its feet again. How to get through to her? Through poetry, of course.
> 
> ...



https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/a-poem-for-the-mp-for-sarnia-lambton-and-her-recent-hydroxychloroquine-endorsement/

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (24 Apr 2020)

> Conservatives blast MP who asked whether top pandemic doctor 'works for China' as Scheer steers clear
> Scheer refuses to comment on Derek Sloan's words, says it's up to him to explain them
> Kathleen Harris · CBC News · Posted: Apr 23, 2020 2:24 PM ET | Last Updated: 3 hours ago
> 
> ...



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sloan-tam-china-coronavirus-pandemic-1.5542497

Well, all I can say about this is that it doesn't change my opinion of Sloan one bit. It couldn't have been any lower to start with.

:facepalm:


----------



## YZT580 (24 Apr 2020)

Whilst I don't like his slant on the issue he is correct: there are a lot of questions re: our Chinese relationship that need to be addressed.  Way back in early January the talk around the table was all disbelief in what both China and the WHO were saying: remembering SARS etc.  But you don't address an issue by attacking the participants.  The expression don't shoot the messenger is appropriate.  He should have devoted his video to addressing the very real issue of trust.  Instead he shot himself in the foot  He is not mature enough


----------



## Remius (24 Apr 2020)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Whilst I don't like his slant on the issue he is correct: there are a lot of questions re: our Chinese relationship that need to be addressed.  Way back in early January the talk around the table was all disbelief in what both China and the WHO were saying: remembering SARS etc.  But you don't address an issue by attacking the participants.  The expression don't shoot the messenger is appropriate.  He should have devoted his video to addressing the very real issue of trust.  Instead he shot himself in the foot  He is not mature enough




She is of Chinese origin/descent.  That is the reason he made the link and the insinuation.  

Can’t wait to see how this plays out in the leadership campaign...


----------



## dapaterson (24 Apr 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> She is of Chinese origin/descent.  That is the reason he made the link and the insinuation.
> 
> Can’t wait to see how this plays out in the leadership campaign...



Peter and Erin will say nothing; they need Sloan's supporters for the run-off rounds.


----------



## FJAG (24 Apr 2020)

It is disappointing that the "leaders" in the party aren't commenting. It's somewhat heartening to see that some of the rank & file are:

Conservatives blast MP who asked whether top pandemic doctor 'works for China' as Scheer steers clear

 :cheers:


----------



## YZT580 (24 Apr 2020)

FJAG, would you comment?  Given that they most likely or if they don't they should agree that a serious investigation of our actions and in-actions are required, how do you introduce said discussion in this environment without sounding as if you are attacking the CMO.   All you would be doing is opening yourself up to a scathing attack by Justin.  The statement is out there and neither of the front runners are muddied up.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Apr 2020)

Scheer is screwed regardless. He doesn't say anything, he's condoning "racism". If he says something, he's jumping on the train of victim culture where people cannot be called out if they're an ethnic minority because of some sort of loose definition of racism. If this was a pandemic discovered in Russia, its true infectiousness and mortality/morbidity hidden by the Russian Government, would Sloan be called racist if he accused her of working for the Russian government? At no point did Sloan refer to Dr Teresa Tam with anything other than her name.

Remius: You're looking for controversy. So is the media who made the headline and story. You're putting words and insinuations in his mouth that Derek Sloan did not say. His statement was nothing other than accusations that are all over the media, that the WHO covered for China, and that Dr. Tam is either incompetent because she didn't dig deeper past the WHO statements, or was actively working with the WHO and the CCP to contain bad press for China.

The fact that we still have people in this country in positions of power who trust anything coming from the state media/government sources of the CCP in China blows my mind. Every time they parrot something China says, they're being used in a giant information operations game to further the CCP's interests.


----------



## Remius (24 Apr 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Scheer is screwed regardless. He doesn't say anything, he's condoning "racism". If he says something, he's jumping on the train of victim culture where people cannot be called out if they're an ethnic minority because of some sort of loose definition of racism. If this was a pandemic discovered in Russia, its true infectiousness and mortality/morbidity hidden by the Russian Government, would Sloan be called racist if he accused her of working for the Russian government? At no point did Sloan refer to Dr Teresa Tam with anything other than her name.
> 
> Remius: You're looking for controversy. So is the media who made the headline and story. You're putting words and insinuations in his mouth that Derek Sloan did not say. His statement was nothing other than accusations that are all over the media, that the WHO covered for China, and that Dr. Tam is either incompetent because she didn't dig deeper past the WHO statements, or was actively working with the WHO and the CCP to contain bad press for China.
> 
> The fact that we still have people in this country in positions of power who trust anything coming from the state media/government sources of the CCP in China blows my mind. Every time they parrot something China says, they're being used in a giant information operations game to further the CCP's interests.



I'm going to quote Michele Rempel from the link above:

"Alberta MP Michelle Rempel said on Twitter that she couldn't believe she had to publicly explain why Sloan's remarks were "profoundly wrong."

So no, I'm not looking for controversy, Sloan did that himself and I am surprised you are acting as an apologist for this guy.  Like Ms. Rempel said, I am surprised this needs to even be explained.


----------



## FJAG (24 Apr 2020)

YZT580

I actually don't think Sloan's comments were racist. That's the Liberals and NDP piling on because Sloan is criticising China and Tam, who by heritage, is Chinese.

In my view Sloan is trying to play a poor man's Trump's Nativism/Populism. What he's doing is accusing Tam of being a closet communist because she has dared to say things that the WHO and the UN has said. In his view the WHO and, by strong inference, Tam is a tool of the Chinese Communist Party.

I too have concerns about China. However, when one is dealing with a powerhouse economic entity which continues to be a principle source of many essential (and not so essential) cheap products in this country (just like the US) and a major purchaser of many of our raw materials, one has to walk a narrow line.

I too have concerns about the WHO but my prior experience with the Red Cross has taught me one thing: when you are an agency dealing with numerous international entities who can cause serious harm, you have to be highly diplomatic and gain their trust and cooperation if you wish to achieve anything. The WHO, like the Red Cross, constantly works in that kind of environment. Every once in a while you screw things up or get blind-sided. That doesn't mean that as an entity you have lost all value. It's how you react afterwards that establishes your worth.

I agree that at the Canadian and international government level, there needs to be a broad ranging investigation of this whole Covid-19 situation: everything from how it originated, to how it spread, to how we maintain stockpiles, to how we repatriate vital manufacturing industries, to how decisions that effect everyone's lives are made. At the moment we're up to our butt-holes in alligators and it will take a little time before we can get on with draining the swamp.

Sloan's commentaries, which are an ad hominem attack against a major medical official within our system, are of little positive value and do not advance the dialog. They're a shrill shrieking from the sidelines by someone whose personal belief system I find nauseating. 

Currently he's playing to the social conservatives and trying to be their fair-haired boy.

How would "I" deal with these issues "without sounding like I'm attacking the CMO". Bloody simply by raising the legitimate questions about China and even the WHO, without bringing Tam into the discussion. 

As far as Sloan is concerned, he's a candidate for leadership, albeit a weak one, and every other candidate has an opportunity to point out where Sloan is wrong and hopefully has staff advisors to show him how to do that while keeping and gaining support within the party. If you're afraid to PO the party's social conservatists in this campaign then you are not cut out to be the leader. First of all Sloan will be barking out a lot more social conservative drivel in the future; and second, they will be an issue in the next election unless you can take control now. Scheer couldn't do it and see what it got him at the polls and in the party.

 :worms:


----------



## YZT580 (24 Apr 2020)

300 mil points were well deserved.  Thanks for the clear, concise analysis.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Apr 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Scheer couldn't do it and see what it got him at the polls and in the party.



It got him the party leadership, and hundreds of thousands of dollars from party faithful to pay unknown bills (but what looks a lot to the outside observer like an out of court settlement for something...)


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (30 Apr 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Sloan's commentaries, which are an ad hominem attack against a major medical official within our system, are of little positive value and do not advance the dialog. They're a shrill shrieking from the sidelines by someone whose personal belief system I find nauseating.
> 
> ...
> 
> How would "I" deal with these issues "without sounding like I'm attacking the CMO". Bloody simply by raising the legitimate questions about China and even the WHO, without bringing Tam into the discussion.



I think this is the problem here, by making a personal attack Sloan both weakened his argument and walked right into the "racism" accusations which further cloud the issue and blunt his argument. This was just poorly planned and executed and not a demonstration of great leadership or decision-making in my opinion.

I share your view, raise the questions and attack the issue not specific people involved.


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 May 2020)

Unfortunately one of the major issues of importance in respect to China and Canada, is the sheer scale of Chinese political subterfuge and espionage in our government, economy and politics that our own intelligence agencies warned about prior to being muzzled. As a result, people like Sloan go off half cocked.

I have no doubt there is quietly a thick file building on the WHO matter at both Drake and Olgilvie buildings and that probably contains nothing of interest to report on Tam.


----------



## RangerRay (3 May 2020)

Nothing wrong with criticizing Dr. Tam, the WHO, or the Chinese. But Sloan went WAY overboard in questioning Dr. Tam’s loyalty. It is an anti-Semitic trope applied to a person of Chinese ethnicity. Sloan should know better.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 May 2020)

[quote author=RangerRay] But Sloan went WAY overboard in questioning Dr. Tam’s loyalty]
[/quote]
Why?

Jeffrey Delisle was an officer in the CAF and he sold out to the Russians.

Dr Tam is a highly educated doctor who appears to have blindly followed the WHO's lead and direction. The WHO saying what China wants them to say is hardly a secret.

Was it over board just because of her race?


----------



## RangerRay (3 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> Jeffrey Delisle was an officer in the CAF and he sold out to the Russians.
> 
> ...



If Sloan has evidence that Dr. Tam was disloyal, he had damn well provide evidence. Delisle was prosecuted and convicted in court. Dr. Tam made some questionable decisions based on questionable data provided by the WHO and China. Like I said, there is lots to criticize her on.   But questioning the loyalty of someone who happens to be of Chinese descent, without a shred of evidence, was more than a dog whistle. 

For centuries, anti-Semites of all stripes questioned the loyalty of Jews based on the flimsiest of evidence, if there even was any.  To see a leadership candidate for a party I usually support say this kind of crap makes me sick.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (6 May 2020)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> If Sloan has evidence that Dr. Tam was disloyal, he had damn well provide evidence. Delisle was prosecuted and convicted in court. Dr. Tam made some questionable decisions based on questionable data provided by the WHO and China. Like I said, there is lots to criticize her on.   But questioning the loyalty of someone who happens to be of Chinese descent, without a shred of evidence, was more than a dog whistle.
> 
> For centuries, anti-Semites of all stripes questioned the loyalty of Jews based on the flimsiest of evidence, if there even was any.  To see a leadership candidate for a party I usually support say this kind of crap makes me sick.



I agree that Mr. Sloan went way overboard and that this was an _ad hominem_ attack of questionable prudence and effectiveness. I would expect someone who wants to be leader of the CPC/PM of Canada to exercise better judgement and tactics at the very least.

I am not convinced that this was a racist attack or that it can be equated to antisemitism tropes of the past, I just don't know enough about Sloan to know what his thought process was ... but from what I do know, it seems to me that this was more poor judgement. If Dr. Tam were not of Asian ancestry, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelash, but it still would have been a poor tactic. I think that attacking facts/arguments/actions is going to be more effective than attacking the person ten times out of ten.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (7 May 2020)

Taking this from the gun control debate over here, since I want to segue into a more general CPC leadership discussion ...



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Leslyn Lewis seems like the only Conservative contender to want to make waves about the gun ban.



Leslyn Lewis was a complete unknown to me before this CPC and that's really my main concern is that she's not well known, whereas (for better or worse) Peter MacKay and Erin O'Toole at least have some name recognition. And she hasn't exactly made much of a splash so far, as far as I can tell ... just going by what very little media coverage of the CPC leadership race I've seen, you'd think it was just a three-way race between MacKay, O'Toole, and Sloan.

As mentioned previously I've not been impressed with Sloan. Ms Lewis though, going by her emails that I receive as a CPC member, has been saying stuff I like and she seems to strike a good tone. I really like her "four pillars" of her platform, they are certainly "my kind of conservatism": 1. Upholding family as the cornerstone of society, 2. Protecting our fundamental freedoms of expression, conscience, & religion , 3. Compassion for the vulnerable, and 4. Fiscal Responsibility

I hadn't seen anything to suggest she'd make waves on the firearms front, but this just further pushes me towards voting for her.

I was unimpressed with MacKay and O'Toole's lukewarm responses and when I emailed both of their campaigns for clarification on certain points they have never taken the time to respond.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 May 2020)

> 1. Upholding family as the cornerstone of society, 2. Protecting our fundamental freedoms of expression, conscience, & religion , 3. Compassion for the vulnerable, and 4. Fiscal Responsibility



Wasn't Ms. Lewis one of the candidates giving a stellar passing grade from anti-abortion groups? we all know any CPC candidate will get attacked by the liberals as somehow being the anti-abortion, anti-LBGTQ2+ party no matter what, and unless you have a strong counter to prevent that, you will loose votes,especially in the GTA. I do think some fresh blood, younger blood, will really help the CPC, they need to appeal to younger voters, but more importantly give people a reason to get out and vote for them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 May 2020)

Few good quotes.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/leslyn-lewis-pride-parade-1.5492123



> "I didn't march in the parade before I became a politician," said the Toronto lawyer, who became eligible to run for the leadership late last month. "And I would feel that it's very disingenuous for me to use a particular vulnerable group to advance my political career."





> In fact, Lewis told CBC News she decided to run for the leadership after watching the way Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer was treated during the last election — and what she called the Liberals' "obsession" with Scheer's refusal to attend Pride parades.



Obsession sounds right on the money.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (7 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Wasn't Ms. Lewis one of the candidates giving a stellar passing grade from anti-abortion groups? we all know any CPC candidate will get attacked by the liberals as somehow being the anti-abortion, anti-LBGTQ2+ party no matter what, and unless you have a strong counter to prevent that, you will loose votes,especially in the GTA. I do think some fresh blood, younger blood, will really help the CPC, they need to appeal to younger voters, but more importantly give people a reason to get out and vote for them.



I'm not sure about her getting a stellar grade from anti-abortion groups because I don't follow those groups.

So what's the strong counter, though? We can only select pro-abortion leaders? In my view (and I may well be wrong -- if I had the answers I would probably be a politician not a commentator from the internet peanut gallery) the way forward is to be open and up-front rather than obfuscating like Scheer. Scheer totally playing into the media's hand's with his prevarication on the subject. What I would have done is said straight up "yes, I believe that killing unborn children is wrong BUT I also recognize that Canadians as a whole do not hold this, as evidence by jury nullifications in the 1980s that led to our current lack of laws on this topic. Furthermore, unlike the Honourable Prime Minister, I will not impose my personal views upon Canada. I will not make sharing my personal views a prerequisite to receiving government funding or grants. I will not impose new laws on this topic."

That said, you may be right and only pro-abortion politicians are electable nowadays. One of the big reasons I have not attempted to run as a candidate is that I realize my religious views are "out of step with mainstream society" and therefore I would not be electable. Diversity doesn't really exist if you hold the "wrong" views (even if you're a quasi libertarian who would not impose your views on others).


----------



## mariomike (7 May 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Ms Lewis though, going by her emails that I receive as a CPC member, has been saying stuff I like and she seems to strike a good tone. I really like her "four pillars" of her platform, they are certainly "my kind of conservatism": 1. Upholding family as the cornerstone of society, 2. Protecting our fundamental freedoms of expression, conscience, & religion , 3. Compassion for the vulnerable, and 4. Fiscal Responsibility



She got a Green  light from Campaign Life.

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/view/mp/province//id/12371/name/leslyn-lewis

"GREEN light means the person supports CLC principles and is rated as SUPPORTABLE"

They gave Peter MacKay and Erin O'Toolea Red lights,

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/view/mp/province//id/181/name/peter-mackay

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting+records/view/mp/province//id/11259/name/erin-o-toole

"RED light means the person is NOT SUPPORTABLE"


----------



## MilEME09 (7 May 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about her getting a stellar grade from anti-abortion groups because I don't follow those groups.
> 
> So what's the strong counter, though? We can only select pro-abortion leaders? In my view (and I may well be wrong -- if I had the answers I would probably be a politician not a commentator from the internet peanut gallery) the way forward is to be open and up-front rather than obfuscating like Scheer. Scheer totally playing into the media's hand's with his prevarication on the subject. What I would have done is said straight up "yes, I believe that killing unborn children is wrong BUT I also recognize that Canadians as a whole do not hold this, as evidence by jury nullifications in the 1980s that led to our current lack of laws on this topic. Furthermore, unlike the Honourable Prime Minister, I will not impose my personal views upon Canada. I will not make sharing my personal views a prerequisite to receiving government funding or grants. I will not impose new laws on this topic."
> 
> That said, you may be right and only pro-abortion politicians are electable nowadays. One of the big reasons I have not attempted to run as a candidate is that I realize my religious views are "out of step with mainstream society" and therefore I would not be electable. Diversity doesn't really exist if you hold the "wrong" views (even if you're a quasi libertarian who would not impose your views on others).



The counter needs to be that we live in a diverse society of opposing views and that regardless of the candidates person views, the CPC as a party has voted to not open either of those debates back up. Freedom of expression is a core canadian value, we need to play to that, and that by attacking ones personal values it is attack on our constitution and way of life.


----------



## mariomike (7 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Few good quotes.
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/leslyn-lewis-pride-parade-1.5492123
> 
> Obsession sounds right on the money.



If we are back to the Pride Parade,



> The Toronto Pride Parade is going virtual this year
> 
> https://www.blogto.com/city/2020/05/toronto-pride-parade-going-virtual-year/


----------



## ModlrMike (7 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The counter needs to be that we live in a diverse society of opposing views and that regardless of the candidates person views, the CPC as a party has voted to not open either of those debates back up. Freedom of expression is a core Canadian value, we need to play to that, and that by attacking ones personal values it is attack on our constitution and way of life.



That's all well and good, but both the Liberals and NDP are fond of the phrase "right thinking Canadians." Proving once again that they view 1984 as an instruction manual, not a warning.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (7 May 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> That's all well and good, but both the Liberals and NDP are fond of the phrase "right thinking Canadians." Proving once again that they view 1984 as an instruction manual, not a warning.



This is true, which I think makes the approach MilEME09 seems to be a good one ... it would both set the CPC apart from the other parties as the one that actually embraces diversity and tolerance for those we disagree with, while taking a position that will be very hard for the opposition to assail.

The CPC could even take it to the next level and argue that using the phrase "right thinking Canadians" is discriminatory and narrow-minded because it suggests there is no freedom of thought or expression in the LPC and NDP view, only freedom for views that align with theirs.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The counter needs to be that we live in a diverse society of opposing views and that regardless of the candidates person views, the CPC as a party has voted to not open either of those debates back up. Freedom of expression is a core canadian value, we need to play to that, and that by attacking ones personal values it is attack on our constitution and way of life.



As noted by many previously, the ‘counter’ is, “My views are precisely the same as the Prime Minister’s views. I personally believe, as does he, that pharmaceutical abortions are wrong.  I concur with him as well, that politically, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canadian citizens ASM applicable Federal Legislation supports women’s right to abortions.”

Done.  Next issue...


----------



## MilEME09 (7 May 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As noted by many previously, the ‘counter’ is, “My views are precisely the same as the Prime Minister’s views. I personally believe, as does he, that pharmaceutical abortions are wrong.  I concur with him as well, that politically, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canadian citizens ASM applicable Federal Legislation supports women’s right to abortions.”
> 
> Done.  Next issue...



You and I both know that is unfortunately not how it would play out, I think LittleBlackDevil is on to something with attacking the term "Right Thinking Canadians" as it does basically say that if you don't think the same as the LPC you are wrong.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (7 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> You and I both know that is unfortunately not how it would play out, I think LittleBlackDevil is on to something with attacking the term "Right Thinking Canadians" as it does basically say that if you don't think the same as the LPC you are wrong.



Not merely wrong, but essentially not allowed to hold those views and/or not welcome in Canadian society.

I agree with you that I don't think Good2Golf's tactic would play out the way he's outlined it, I think it would give the appearance of obfuscating and avoiding the question, and the usual accusations of "hidden agenda" which has been the bane of CPC leaders for many election cycles. Despite the fact that the CPC has NEVER done the things they're accused of having hidden agendas on (heck, they don't even do most of the conservative stuff they openly campaign on) this seems to scare voters away time and again. So I think a more direct approach is warranted.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 May 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As noted by many previously, the ‘counter’ is, “My views are precisely the same as the Prime Minister’s views. I personally believe, as does he, that pharmaceutical abortions are wrong.  I concur with him as well, that politically, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canadian citizens ASM applicable Federal Legislation supports women’s right to abortions.”
> 
> Done.  Next issue...



That didn't work for Andrew Scheer or Stephen Harper... they said much of the same thing (minus Prime Minister's part) and all we heard from 2004 to 2015 was SoCon Harper was going to take away everyone's abortions and force people into Churches...


----------



## Remius (7 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That didn't work for Andrew Scheer or Stephen Harper... they said much of the same thing (minus Prime Minister's part) and all we heard from 2004 to 2015 was SoCon Harper was going to take away everyone's abortions and force people into Churches...



It didn’t work for Scheer because he avoided the question for too long and played to his base to his own detriment.  His cookie cutter answer about respecting the law as written was not convincing or addressing the question of his personal beliefs.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That didn't work for Andrew Scheer or Stephen Harper... they said much of the same thing (minus Prime Minister's part) and all we heard from 2004 to 2015 was SoCon Harper was going to take away everyone's abortions and force people into Churches...



Negative.  He dithered worse than Paul Martin.  

His response was way late and wish-washy, like Remius said, and he never said it with the clarity I suggested above.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 May 2020)

Maybe what the Conservative candidate needs is to have a float in the pride parade cheering on someone getting an abortion?


----------



## PuckChaser (7 May 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Negative.  He dithered worse than Paul Martin.
> 
> His response was way late and wish-washy, like Remius said, and he never said it with the clarity I suggested above.



I didn't follow every press conference he did, so I must be missing the background context. Stuff I saw later on he made it pretty clear his personal beliefs on the subject didn't mean he'd challenge Charter rights. It's honestly a stupid question, it's been settled by the Charter and constantly hounding only one side of the political spectrum with questions about it smacks of bias.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 May 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> If we are back to the Pride Parade,



Thank the lawd. 
Conservative politicians better publically state they will be tuning in to the virtual parade.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I didn't follow every press conference he did, so I must be missing the background context. Stuff I saw later on he made it pretty clear his personal beliefs on the subject didn't mean he'd challenge Charter rights. It's honestly a stupid question, it's been settled by the Charter and constantly hounding only one side of the political spectrum with questions about it smacks of bias.



Oh absolutely, when ever the LPC has nothing, or is hurting in the polls, they play the abortion card, or the gay rights card, spread falsehoods and misinformation and make people fear the CPC is coming for their civil rights and freedoms.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's honestly a stupid question, it's been settled by the Charter and constantly hounding only one side of the political spectrum with questions about it smacks of bias.



It is.  But he didn’t snuff it out with any competency...he should have more skillfully addressed it, but he seemed so worried about upsetting a statistically small part of the base, that he set the condition for the LPC to rip him a big one, and he never recovered.  He set the conservative masses (progressive or fundamental) back.


----------



## Remius (7 May 2020)

Yep. He was politically outmanoeuvred.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (7 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I didn't follow every press conference he did, so I must be missing the background context. Stuff I saw *later on* he made it pretty clear his personal beliefs on the subject didn't mean he'd challenge Charter rights. It's honestly a stupid question, it's been settled by the Charter and constantly hounding only one side of the political spectrum with questions about it smacks of bias.



The highlighted "later on" is the key. He waited too long, and his answer when the question came up in the debate I thought was weak and prevaricating, opening himself up for the whole "hidden agenda" and "he's going to take away our abortions!" stuff.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (9 May 2020)

I've read all the emails from the leadership hopefuls, and checked out their respective web pages.
I must admit, (being a long time CPC supporter) to being underwhelmed by the candidates thus far.
Lewis seems to me to have the most thought out policy, most of which I can support.
Sloan is most definitely out of consideration for my vote.
McKay and O'toole have name recognition, but neither one have impressed me so far..........


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2020)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> I've read all the emails from the leadership hopefuls, and checked out their respective web pages.
> I must admit, (being a long time CPC supporter) to being underwhelmed by the candidates thus far.
> Lewis seems to me to have the most thought out policy, most of which I can support.
> Sloan is most definitely out of consideration for my vote.
> McKay and O'toole have name recognition, but neither one have impressed me so far..........



Come on!  What's not to like about a long-time politician who graduated Dalhousie Law School.

(Of course, from that description, the question becomes "which one...")


----------



## FJAG (9 May 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Come on!  What's not to like about a long-time politician who graduated Dalhousie Law School.
> 
> (Of course, from that description, the question becomes "which one...")



One of my old partners graduated from Dalhousie Law School ... I agree with you.

 ;D


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2020)

I _briefly_ dated a Dal Law grad.  That likely has influenced my perception of them...


----------



## FJAG (9 May 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I _briefly_ dated a Dal Law grad.  That likely has influenced my perception of them...



And possibly of all lawyers, too.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 May 2020)

I think I've done one better than you, DP.

For a short time I dated a UVIC environmental law grad.


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> And possibly of all lawyers, too.



Plenty of other lawyers have also shaped my views on lawyers... the one who hated his clients and yelled at them for actions well before his clients were in positions to change things; the one who sent a nice, folksy letter announcing his retirement dated the day before he was disbarred for conspiring with clients to defraud banks.  You know what they say, crooked lawyers give the other 2% a bad name.


----------



## FJAG (9 May 2020)

Just looked it up and found the other contender is a Dalhousie Law grad as well.  :facepalm:

That explains a lot.

 :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 May 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I _briefly_ dated a Dal Law grad.  That likely has influenced my perception of them...



I married a lawyer, now I am in court 24/7 with no appeal.


----------



## MilEME09 (9 May 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I married a lawyer, now I am in court 24/7 with no appeal.



Should file a motion for malicious prosecution then


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 May 2020)

if I lose she wins, If I win, I lose, best just to grunt a lot....


----------



## mariomike (9 May 2020)

^ A good wife always forgives her husband when she's wrong.


----------



## OceanBonfire (18 May 2020)

> *Scheer didn't follow through on renouncing U.S. citizenship*
> 
> Outgoing Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer still holds his U.S. citizenship, after stating during the 2019 federal election campaign that he was in the process of renouncing it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 May 2020)

Good for him.


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Jun 2020)

O'Toole has released his platform and on the Defense front I like he wants to take everything defense procurement related and put it in one department for everything. How that would actually work is any ones guess but not having public works, treasury, and dnd all adding layers of tape may make things easier.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> O'Toole has released his platform and on the Defense front I like he wants to take everything defense procurement related and put it in one department for everything. How that would actually work is any ones guess but not having public works, treasury, and dnd all adding layers of tape may make things easier.



Those layers are relatively straight forward, (but TBS wouldn't be rolled in); when you get over $40 million you get IRBs under ISED, and on something like the NSS, fighter replacement etc there are something like 7 departments involved (with their own Ministers).

Personnel wise the majority involved work on it full time anyway, but all report back up different chains, with all kinds of fingers in the pie. With no single decision maker, it can mean a whole bunch of competing priorities and delays in all the project decisions.

There is enough work there could be a dedicated assistant minister (like a deputy MP) responsible for procurement, but there are so many layers of bureaucracy it would probably take a decade to rejig everything.


----------



## Remius (12 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> O'Toole has released his platform and on the Defense front I like he wants to take everything defense procurement related and put it in one department for everything. How that would actually work is any ones guess but not having public works, treasury, and dnd all adding layers of tape may make things easier.



Things Like SSC and Phoenix were supposed to do?  No thanks.


----------



## FJAG (18 Jun 2020)

So have now watched both the leadership debates and was actually quite surprised at how well Sloan and Lewis came across (well in English anyway) Their platforms don't pull me in at all but they carried themselves much better than I thought they would.

So. As to O'Toole. I'm not too far off his platform but don't really like the man. First I find him divisive in that he seems to take as much time in attacking MacKay as Trudeau. Obviously taking shots at the leader to try to cut him down but it grates on me. His emails have been exactly the same. Hard to come back as a team player with that. Second, I'm amazed at how often he drops the "I'm a veteran" card. I think he can be proud of his service but he makes it sound like he's been at the heart of the nation's defence policy rather than having had a career as a journeyman navigator who has never seemed to hold any significant staff positions. Strikes me as well that while he disputes cuddling up to the social conservatives, he'd be prepared to make a devil's compromise to get them on his side.

MacKay has his past problems but at this point in time seems to be pushing a good broad economic policy. I like both his experience in Defence and his promise to up spending to 2%. (Hopefully he can do that to boost equipment and O&M and no further full-time salaries. - especially at NDHQ/CFHQ  ;D) I liked particularly that notwithstanding OToole's constant barbs, MacKay didn't rise to the bait. He's maintaining a conciliatory tone and his promising to be a unifier of the party.

So. Pretty much made up my mind.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jun 2020)

Someone posted on FB: 

_Quote of the night from Erin O'Toole in the Conservative Leadership debate:

"You can't scare me; I used to fly in Sea Kings!"_


----------



## FJAG (18 Jun 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Someone posted on FB:
> 
> _Quote of the night from Erin O'Toole in the Conservative Leadership debate:
> 
> "You can't scare me; I used to fly in Sea Kings!"_



Yup. He said that. 

 ;D


----------



## Xylric (18 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Yup. He said that.
> 
> ;D



I honestly have to wonder if that would have meaning to any one outside Canada, but that is certainly a blunt way to get the point across!


----------



## brihard (19 Jun 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Someone posted on FB:
> 
> _Quote of the night from Erin O'Toole in the Conservative Leadership debate:
> 
> "You can't scare me; I used to fly in Sea Kings!"_



MacKay didn’t quip about preferring Cormorants?


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jun 2020)

“... who has never seemed to hold any significant staff positions”.   On the other hand, he’s never had any staff positions. This is more of a plus if he’s avoided the NDHQ virus. 

Right now this party needs to get unified more than anything else.  I don’t see another leader who can do that other than McKay. So it makes sense to get McKay in the driver seat for the good of the party, but I don’t feel he can beat Trudeau because: yep, legacy Harper and that’s all the Libs will need to win again. 

Lewis could probably beat Trudeau if the party could get behind her and give her a good campaign team, but it’s likely the dark forces would probably skewer her in the middle of an election.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Jun 2020)

The Machiavellian thing to do would be to go with Lewis. A black, female, successful immigrant. Use the Liberal's playbook against them. She would, of course, be challenged to renounce her birthright citizenship, but that's no great thing.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jun 2020)

I agree but the party and the media will skewer her.


----------



## ballz (19 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Second, I'm amazed at how often he drops the "I'm a veteran" card. I think he can be proud of his service but he makes it sound like he's been at the heart of the nation's defence policy rather than having had a career as a journeyman navigator who has never seemed to hold any significant staff positions.



I find it cringey. He was OFP for three years... calling him a journeyman even seems like a bit of a stretch.


----------



## FJAG (19 Jun 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I find it cringey. He was OFP for three years... calling him a journeyman even seems like a bit of a stretch.



"OFP" ?


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Jun 2020)

Operationally Functional Point. Otherwise know as the point in time where you're qualified in your trade enough to be deployed on operations.


----------



## mariomike (19 Jun 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The Machiavellian thing to do would be to go with Lewis. A black, female, successful immigrant. Use the Liberal's playbook against them.



I'm no political strategist. But, the Machiavellians on Canada Team Red might be hoping that is exactly what Team Blue does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslyn_Lewis#2015_federal_election


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Jun 2020)

I think either socially conservative candidates would be a Liberal party dream; it would almost be an automatic W in the next election. They wouldn't lose any seats that aren't already hard Conservative ridings and would probably pick up enough votes to get back a bunch of the swing ridings.

Wanting to roll back the clock decades on social reforms isn't conservative, that's regressive. Canadians have been pretty loud and clear that there is no interest in going back to only opposite sex marriage or reopening the abortion debate. Scheer lost just for having personal social conservative views and people not trusting they would become policy; openly advocating for social conservative laws would be a nice, comfy ride back to majority for the Liberals. I hate politics, but seems like a no brainer to me that it's better to cut your losses and accept that you won't change some things to enact other policies, rather then stand by a platform that keeps losing.

I'd at least think about voting for a Con party lead by MacKay or O'Toole, with either of the other two I'd be hoping the NDP or Greens ditch the crazier fringe bits and provide a reasonable alternative to the Liberals.


----------



## brihard (19 Jun 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think either socially conservative candidates would be a Liberal party dream; it would almost be an automatic W in the next election. They wouldn't lose any seats that aren't already hard Conservative ridings and would probably pick up enough votes to get back a bunch of the swing ridings.
> 
> Wanting to roll back the clock decades on social reforms isn't conservative, that's regressive. Canadians have been pretty loud and clear that there is no interest in going back to only opposite sex marriage or reopening the abortion debate. Scheer lost just for having personal social conservative views and people not trusting they would become policy; openly advocating for social conservative laws would be a nice, comfy ride back to majority for the Liberals. I hate politics, but seems like a no brainer to me that it's better to cut your losses and accept that you won't change some things to enact other policies, rather then stand by a platform that keeps losing.
> 
> I'd at least think about voting for a Con party lead by MacKay or O'Toole, with either of the other two I'd be hoping the NDP or Greens ditch the crazier fringe bits and provide a reasonable alternative to the Liberals.



100%. I would in all likelihood vote CPC if MacKay (preference) or O'Toole (acceptable) are the leader. Not a chance I'll vote for them if led by one of the social conservatives. Social conservatism, inasmuch as it informs party policy platforms, is on the decline in Canada. It will not be a path to power for the CPC, and there is an opportunity cost in courting those votes.


----------



## ballz (19 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> "OFP" ?



As noted above, Occupational Functional Point... in other words, he was actually fully trained for his position for 3 years. The other 10 were in RMC or in the training system.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jun 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think either socially conservative candidates would be a Liberal party dream; it would almost be an automatic W in the next election. They wouldn't lose any seats that aren't already hard Conservative ridings and would probably pick up enough votes to get back a bunch of the swing ridings.
> 
> Wanting to roll back the clock decades on social reforms isn't conservative, that's regressive. Canadians have been pretty loud and clear that there is no interest in going back to only opposite sex marriage or reopening the abortion debate. Scheer lost just for having personal social conservative views and people not trusting they would become policy; openly advocating for social conservative laws would be a nice, comfy ride back to majority for the Liberals. I hate politics, but seems like a no brainer to me that it's better to cut your losses and accept that you won't change some things to enact other policies, rather then stand by a platform that keeps losing.
> 
> I'd at least think about voting for a Con party lead by MacKay or O'Toole, with either of the other two I'd be hoping the NDP or Greens ditch the crazier fringe bits and provide a reasonable alternative to the Liberals.



Her response on these points https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73btfqnEjPU


----------



## FJAG (19 Jun 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> As noted above, Occupational Functional Point... in other words, he was actually fully trained for his position for 3 years. The other 10 were in RMC or in the training system.



 :facepalm:


----------



## mariomike (19 Jun 2020)

Anyone interested in opinion polling,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election#After_candidate_registration_deadline


----------



## brihard (19 Jun 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Anyone interested in opinion polling,
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election#After_candidate_registration_deadline



Note that support for MacKay is high among 'all Canadians'. You can infer something about the centrist vote from that. The party loyalists will vote the party pretty much regardless; the pressure release valve for the problem children still exists in the form of the PPC. MacKay is the most likely path towards pulling in undecided moderate voters. Probably also the CPC's best bet for building the war chest they'll need for an eventual election.


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Jun 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Her response on these points https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73btfqnEjPU



She's definitely smart, but what I heard was a bunch of sidestep justifications to limit abortion access by placing additional impediments for problems that may not exist, while arbitrarily cutting all overseas funding for abortion. Is that anything related to providers? What about abortion for rape/incest cases overseas? And she repeatedly sidestepped the question about gay marriage, while doing the same dance for the conversion therapy under the guise of the role of parents and family (which usually means the atomic man/woman relationship).

I think she's probably a great lawyer, but I don't think I trust her to create policy without trying to roll back social reforms under the guise of doing it for someone else. The fact that the pro lifers support her means there is more to what she is saying then just what's in her platform, and it's not as straightforward as what she is saying.


----------



## brihard (19 Jun 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> She's definitely smart, but what I heard was a bunch of sidestep justifications to limit abortion access by placing additional impediments for problems that may not exist, while arbitrarily cutting all overseas funding for abortion. Is that anything related to providers? What about abortion for rape/incest cases overseas? And she repeatedly sidestepped the question about gay marriage, while doing the same dance for the conversion therapy under the guise of the role of parents and family (which usually means the atomic man/woman relationship).
> 
> I think she's probably a great lawyer, but I don't think I trust her to create policy without trying to roll back social reforms under the guise of doing it for someone else. The fact that the pro lifers support her means there is more to what she is saying then just what's in her platform, and it's not as straightforward as what she is saying.



I don’t trust her at all not to try to roll back the rights and equality of some people close to me. Being green lighted by the ‘campaign life coalition’ is a huge red flag.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Jun 2020)

I really wish Rona Ambrose would have entered the race.  

I truly think she would have been able to capture the vote rich center of the countries electorate and topple this feeble Liberal party and its leader once and for all.

I have played rugby with and against MacKay many times, shared many beers with him post match.  He is a good man, he is my second, now first, choice.   And I think he will capture some of that center as well, but not as well as Ambrose would have done.


----------



## FJAG (20 Jun 2020)

How to ruin a political party!



> Erin O'Toole camp seeks police probe, accuses MacKay camp of theft
> 
> O'Toole campaign says details of accusations shared with various police forces
> The Canadian Press · Posted: Jun 20, 2020 5:53 AM ET
> ...



 :brickwall:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Jun 2020)

Why would you accuse the Mackay camp? If you think you have been hacked (and I am not doubting the claim), just go to the cops and lay a complaint. You do not have to name a suspect, in a press release.

And this is how we get corrupt Liberal government for decades on end- because the opposition destroys itself.


----------



## Haggis (20 Jun 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And this is how we get corrupt Liberal government for decades on end- because the opposition destroys itself.



Personally I think all four CPC candidates are lacklustre.

MacKay is too "red", O'Toole too "blue", Sloan too "out there" and Lewis too unknown and unpredictable for the centrists.


----------



## Remius (20 Jun 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Why would you accuse the Mackay camp? If you think you have been hacked (and I am not doubting the claim), just go to the cops and lay a complaint. You do not have to name a suspect, in a press release.
> 
> And this is how we get corrupt Liberal government for decades on end- because the opposition destroys itself.



What does O’toole’s internal polling show?  That might be the reason.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jun 2020)

[quote author=Navy_Pete] while arbitrarily cutting all overseas funding for abortion. [/quote]

Are we talking about paying for Canadian citizens to get a ortions while abroad or are we talking about Canada paying for other countries citizens to get abortions?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jun 2020)

I like Lewis, but i know if she gets the leadership, that the left will attack her with unprecedented fury, in their eyes she will be both a race and sex traitor. I am not sure if she is prepared for that much hate. Funny enough another old white guy is more acceptable, but a woman of colour speaking off the 'approved" message is incredibly dangerous to them and must be destroyed. If picked the right must come together and provide complete and utter support to her.


----------



## brihard (23 Jun 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I like Lewis, but i know if she gets the leadership, that the left will attack her with unprecedented fury, in their eyes she will be both a race and sex traitor. I am not sure if she is prepared for that much hate. Funny enough another old white guy is more acceptable, but a woman of colour speaking off the 'approved" message is incredibly dangerous to them and must be destroyed. If picked the right must come together and provide complete and utter support to her.



She won't get it, she'll be out in the second round after Sloan. It's going to hinge on whether O'Toole can pull enough second or third preference votes from the other two to beat MacKay. It also will depend on how many CPC members will ultimately cast their votes based on the candidates' electability federally versus what they would prefer to see as an 'ideal'. Polling data suggests the CPC have a better chance in a federal election under MacKay than under O'Toole. We'll see how much party members decide that matters.


----------



## QV (23 Jun 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I like Lewis, but i know if she gets the leadership, that the left will attack her with unprecedented fury, in their eyes she will be both a race and sex traitor. I am not sure if she is prepared for that much hate. Funny enough another old white guy is more acceptable, but a woman of colour speaking off the 'approved" message is incredibly dangerous to them and must be destroyed. If picked the right must come together and provide complete and utter support to her.



This will happen no matter who the new CPC leader is.  That is just what the left, with MSM support, does now.


----------



## Remius (23 Jun 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> This will happen no matter who the new CPC leader is.  That is just what the left, with MSM support, does now.



Not a 100% in agreement there.  The CPC has given the left and the MSM plenty of time and space to let themselves get beat up using their own hands.


----------



## 211RadOp (23 Jun 2020)

> *Tory MP fires student after allegation of theft from O'Toole campaign*
> 
> Greg McLean's office later confirmed firing was in connection with allegations lobbed by O'Toole campaign
> 
> ...



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/greg-mclean-calgary-student-erin-otoole-peter-mackay-rcmp-theft-1.5623817


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Are we talking about paying for Canadian citizens to get a ortions while abroad or are we talking about Canada paying for other countries citizens to get abortions?



Her specific policy is;


> End funding for international abortions and focusing our foreign aid to promote overall healthcare - a policy that was broadly supported under Stephen Harper’s leadership.


  https://www.leslynlewis.ca/policies

That's pretty generic, so not sure specifically what it means. For example, if you have an organization (like Planned Parenthood) that includes abortion in a suite of overall healthcare policies, do you cut funding to it under the policy, or just have some kind of clause saying it can't be used for abortion? Typically, it's justified as 'not imposing our values', which is a convenient false flag argument to impose your own specific value set on our foreign aid policy.

I think a lot of people specifically voted against the Cons last time round because they didn't trust Scheer not to impose his own values (which I think he probably has) if he was given his values. So if leader with privately held social conservative values gets a kicking when people are genuinely searching for options, can't see how an openly social conservative stands a real chance. It's a minority opinion, and it's polarizing enough that you will mobilize people to actively vote against you.

O'Toole seems to be acting the bit of a fool, and becoming less impressed by his campaign as it rolls on. Actively courting the social conservative vote in his French campaign undermines my trust that he won't try and throw them some policy bones and roll things back, and the public accusations of something that no one outside political rallies cares about seems silly and desperate. Add in the personal attacks and it's not a good look for someone that wants to unite a party and be effective.

I've met MacKay, and my guy was he was a guy I wouldn't mind having a pint with, and was pragmatic enough he could get stuff done. My  :2c: is that anyone not running on a centralist kind of platform has no real pathway to forming the govt, and him being considered 'red' would be an asset.  When you look at some of the previous PC leaders, they were fairly socially progressive, but tying the social and fiscal conservatives together doesn't seem to be like a successful long term strategy.

I'd really like to have an option of voting for a party that could get things done without bankrupting the country and would just stay out of people's bedrooms/marriages. At this point I'd almost be willing to consider some benevolent dictatorship for a bit to reset the system to zero and (figuratively) burn down some of the bureaucratic institutions, but honestly think MacKay is probably their best chance to actually win, as he'd likely capture a lot of votes from outside the party base. They can feel free to elect Scheer 2.0 or a regressive social reformer and fight it out with the NDP and BQ for who will form the opposition I guess, but not sure I see the point.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jun 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I'd really like to have an option of voting for a party that could get things done without bankrupting the country and would just stay out of people's bedrooms/marriages. At this point I'd almost be willing to consider some benevolent dictatorship for a bit to reset the system to zero and (figuratively) burn down some of the bureaucratic institutions, but honestly think MacKay is probably their best chance to actually win, as he'd likely capture a lot of votes from outside the party base. They can feel free to elect Scheer 2.0 or a regressive social reformer and fight it out with the NDP and BQ for who will form the opposition I guess, but not sure I see the point.



It's important to remember that Scheer was everybody's seventh choice (at best) back in 2017.  He never led the transferable vote until the very last ballot when it became apparent that he was everybody's ultimate "anyone but Max" vote.  O'Toole only broke 20% in the penultimate round of voting.  Can he now be a symbol that (a) draws the party faithful to rally 'round the flag and simultaneously (b) draw a wider community in to the party's tent?  Without the former they can't get the vote out; without the latter, they're stuck being a western protest party with a small 905 wing.


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Jun 2020)

I don't know if the 2017 results are a great benchmark; the whole field was a pretty uninspiring collection of fourth liners with all the actual heavy hitters taking a hard pass on participating. Policies aside I think they need a leader with a bit of charisma that can actually excite people. If she wasn't riding the anti abortion train, I think Mrs. (Ms?) Lewis would be a really strong contender, but those are red lines on hard no's for too many people to be a viable alternative.

Maybe they should have stayed separate as the PCs and Reform party? The social conservative policies may have some appeal out west, but it is genuinely a stinking albatross for the majority of Canadians, so not really sure that broad church works. Harper seemed to be able to manage it, but he was a bit of a control freak with a stranglehold on the public messaging, and was doing enough big things on the financial/economic side that those were usually secondary issues, plus was kept busy between the war in Afg and the 2008 financial crash.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (17 Jul 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Note that support for MacKay is high among 'all Canadians'. You can infer something about the centrist vote from that. The party loyalists will vote the party pretty much regardless; the pressure release valve for the problem children still exists in the form of the PPC. MacKay is the most likely path towards pulling in undecided moderate voters. Probably also the CPC's best bet for building the war chest they'll need for an eventual election.



I was going to ask, what good is getting elected if the CPC is led by someone who's basically Liberal-lite?

Then I remembered that Justin Trudeau is the leader of the LPC, and I would take a Liberal of pre-Trudeau years over Mr. Trudeau all day every day.


----------



## RangerRay (17 Jul 2020)

The only real difference between McKay and O’Toole is that O’Toole has adopted an “angry white guy” schtick. They are both solid moderate Tories, in my mind. If O’Toole becomes leader, he may find it difficult to re-tool to become attractive to the great swath of voters that that schtick wears thin on.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jul 2020)

Not really an O'Toole fan but one of his emails, among the plethora of CPC emails getting flooded, was actually pretty good. I'll see if I deleted it or not.

All the emails from various cpc candidates talking about pro-life crap not so much.


----------



## mariomike (17 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> All the emails talking about pro-life crap not so much.



A pro life site gave him a D. Another, a red light.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jul 2020)

Edited my comment. I don't thik O'Toole talked about pro life but did mention some interesting things about conversation therapy and such. I think it was about transgenderisim being pushed on young kids and the disproportionate number of kids in foster home identifying as transexual.

I'm not sure about trans stuff but I firmly believe the in thing for kids now is to brag about having different mental illness.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (17 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Edited my comment. I don't thibk O'Toole talked about pro life but did mention some interesting things about conversation therapy and such. I think it was about transgenderisim being pushed on young kids and the disproportionate number of kids in foster home identifying as transexual.
> 
> I'm not sure about trans stuff but I firmly believe the in thing for kids now is to brag about having different mental illness.



1. Society is fostering an environment where it’s (supposed) to be safe to discuss MH issues.

2. Society is also fostering an environment making kids more susceptible to developing MH issues.

‘Not rocket science about why we hear about things more often/openly, but being the “in thing” isn’t their primary reason for opening up in the majority of cases. Further, the reasons for why MH issues in young persons are on the rise has been discussed in other threads. It’s a complicated mix of several factors, which you know.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jul 2020)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> 1. Society is fostering an environment where it’s (supposed) to be safe to discuss MH issues.



Society is also fostering an environment where everyone wants to be special and unique and one of the ways that plays out is everyone having some kind of mental health illness.
My daughter can name off every mental health illness her schoolmates have and it's not a small class. Lots of self-diagnosing. 



> 2. Society is also fostering an environment making kids more susceptible to developing MH issues.



I'd say a lot of parents issues being pushed on to their kids as well.




> ‘Not rocket science about why we hear about things more often/openly, *but being the “in thing” isn’t their primary reason for opening up in the majority of cases. *


What are you basing this statement on? Mine's just opinion.


----------



## mariomike (17 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I don't thibk O'Toole talked about pro life but did mention some interesting things about conversation therapy and such.



I just know what they say on their sites.

https://www.voteprolife.ca/find/view/mp/province/id/11259/name/erin-o-toole/
"Pro-abortion, pro-LGBT ideology"
Gave him a red light.

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/erin-otoole-record
Gave him a D.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (17 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Society is also fostering an environment where everyone wants to be special and unique and one of the ways that plays out is everyone having some kind of mental health illness.
> My daughter can name off every mental health illness her schoolmates have and it's not a small class. Lots of self-diagnosing.
> 
> I'd say a lot of parents issues being pushed on to their kids as well.
> ...



A combination of personal experience, formal & non-formal post-secondary education, related volunteer experience involving at-risk youths, and informal discussions with a few professionals specializing in child psychology. I can pass along some helpful resources via pm if you’re interested.

My intent isn’t to hijack the thread. I just found your remarks rather narrow about the portion I highlighted. The experiences of one individual in a group of his/her peers often isn’t accurately reflective of   an entire population of that age group.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2020)

Biologically, adolescence is pretty much rigged to produce changes in mental health since the person has to grow from "mind of a child" to "mind of an adult".


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (18 Jul 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I just know what they say on their sites.
> 
> https://www.voteprolife.ca/find/view/mp/province/id/11259/name/erin-o-toole/
> "Pro-abortion, pro-LGBT ideology"
> ...



I am one of those much-maligned evil "social conservatives". I see no meaningful difference between MacKay and O'Toole on these issues and I'm also realistic enough to realize that not only is it very difficult for a "social conservative" to win I also don't believe in forcing my beliefs on others ... I just wish the "non-social conservatives" could give the same consideration.

I've cooled a LOT on O'Toole since the beginning of the race. He was initially my #1 choice. I'm not thinking I may but MacKay down ranked higher than O'Toole, although MacKay's snubbing of the NFA debate didn't ingratiate him to me. I actually like Sloane's platform on firearms the best and of the three in-on that NFA debate. I really liked the fact that Sloane actually answered the questions directly ... his stock rose in my estimation watching that debate but I realize he has zero chance of winning either the leadership race or a general election.

(For those interested that debate is here: https://youtu.be/KShVOViLd-U)

On the whole, I am thinking of giving my vote to MacKay as a guy who has the best chance to win and as noted, I'll take a "Red Tory" over Justin Trudeau's extreme left version of the LPC any day. It's not my ideal but politics "is the art of the possible" and it seems like MacKay is "possible". I think O'Toole might be too, but I just haven't been impressed with him and the angry white guy schtick is tiresome, disingenuous (given his voting record/actual stances on social issues), and won't play well with a broader voting base. 

I have a bit of concern that "social conservative" voters who are short sighted may not vote for MacKay, but on the other hand who is their alternative? I don't even see the PPC as a "release valve" as people have noted here ... PPC doesn't seem socially conservative to me.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jul 2020)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> A combination of personal experience, formal & non-formal post-secondary education, related volunteer experience involving at-risk youths, and informal discussions with a few professionals specializing in child psychology. I can pass along some helpful resources via pm if you’re interested.


Sounds like you have considerable more experience on the subject than me. I'm not convinced I'm wrong but very much open to the possibility I am. My opinion is anecdotal in my case. 



> The experiences of one individual in a group of his/her peers often isn’t accurately reflective of   an entire population of that age group.


That's true. If I was being a bit more accurate I'm basing my opinion off of conversations with my daughter, conversations with/about daughters, my nieces,and friends discussing issues about their children.There's also some conversations with professionals (pediatrician, social workers) but no formal education or training like yourself. I'll keep an open mind that I could be wrong.



> My intent isn’t to hijack the thread.



I don't think it's hijacking at all, bit of a rabbit hole but not a big deal. Children's education, rights, what's deemed acceptable to expose them to and so on is, however, a big political issue. Also seems a hot topic between left and right.

I never heard of conversion therapy until a few months ago. It sounded ghastly when I briefly read about it. The Email from O'Toole touched on some issues surrounding it.


I sort of though pro-life stuff was unfairly being blown out of proportion with conservative candidates. Seems like I was wrong and it's a major part of the candidates platforms, or at least a big issue they need to discuss.

I wish Canadians cared as much about integrity and ethics in their leaders as they do women having abortions.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (18 Jul 2020)

I don’t feel you’re “wrong.” (You’ll note I said it  “...isn’t their primary reason for opening up in the majority of cases.”) But there’s often much more involved with understanding the behaviour of others—in this case a teenage girl—than what we see at the surface, and motivations for any behaviour can be very complicated.

I encourage you to keep having conversations with the professionals you mentioned. Every bit of insight and understanding can be very helpful, and of course, you’ll also receive more feedback related to your personal circumstances.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jul 2020)

Appreciate that, thanks! In the midterm I'll look to the teachings in A-DH-201-000/PT-000 for guidance and comfort.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jul 2020)

>I am thinking of giving my vote to MacKay as a guy who has the best chance to win

Basically, the Buckley Rule: in this case, vote for the most electable conservative leader.


----------



## FJAG (18 Jul 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I am thinking of giving my vote to MacKay as a guy who has the best chance to win
> 
> Basically, the Buckley Rule: in this case, vote for the most electable conservative leader.



I voted today with the exact same thoughts.

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (21 Aug 2020)

And Macleans weighs in on the "MacToole is O'Kay" issue...

https://www.macleans.ca/news/satire/and-the-winner-is-otoole-but-wait-isnt-that-mackay/


----------



## brihard (21 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And Macleans weighs in on the "MacToole is O'Kay" issue...
> 
> https://www.macleans.ca/news/satire/and-the-winner-is-otoole-but-wait-isnt-that-mackay/



Now that’s funny.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2020)

My fearless prediction:. Sloan will be out in the first round, and Lewis in the third.  I'm just not sure whether O'Toole or MacKay will be the second one punted, nor which of the Dal law grads who served in the Harper cabinet and followed in their father's footsteps into politics will come out on top.


----------



## brihard (23 Aug 2020)

90 minute delay in results coming in. Should start seeing things move again around 1930-2000 EST.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Aug 2020)

Regardless of the outcome, what they all have to remember is that while they are (were) competitors, they are not adversaries. Break away from the current political fashion of casting your opponent as an enemy. Take the road less traveled, the high road, and rally around the victor.


----------



## brihard (23 Aug 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Regardless of the outcome, what they all have to remember is that while they are (were) competitors, they are not adversaries. Break away from the current political fashion of casting your opponent as an enemy. Take the road less traveled, the high road, and rally around the victor.



That's crazy talk.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2020)

I have a process question.

A friend told me the reason Scheer got voted in last time wasn't because the majority of people voted for him as a first pick but because he was 2nd (or 3rd) on the majority of voters ballots so because of the voting system we use he got picked (or words to that effect).

Is that accurate or were they wrong?


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2020)

Completely accurate.  The CPC uses a single transferrable vote.  Scheer was in the lead for exactly one round of voting: the final round.  He was few people's first choice, but a majority of people's later choice.

The wikipedia article on the last CPC leadership race has round by round breakdowns of voting.

EDIT to add link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2020)

Thanks I'll check it out.


----------



## brihard (23 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I have a process question.
> 
> A friend told me the reason Scheer got voted in last time wasn't because the majority of people voted for him as a first pick but because he was 2nd (or 3rd) on the majority of voters ballots so because of the voting system we use he got picked (or words to that effect).
> 
> Is that accurate or were they wrong?



Yup... Second or third picks can matter a great deal.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2020)

The actual formula is quite convoluted.  Each riding is assigned 100 points.  All ballots from within that riding are counted and points allocated proportionately to the candidates.  Do that 338 times, count the total points per candidate. and, if no one has 50%+1 of the points, drop the lowest vote getter, and re-tabulate the results after assigning the lowest vote-getters votes to the voters #2 pick.  And repeat until someone has a majority.  There's a good explanation at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-leadership-race-votes-1.5696640


----------



## stellarpanther (23 Aug 2020)

wow... the CPC are having problems with the ballots tonight with the official story being that the envelope machines are cutting through the ballots.  This equipment wasn't tested in advance?  I sense a scandal in the making. Lol... One way or another MacKay is going to be declared the winner tonight!.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Aug 2020)

Turned on CBC live stream, and its Rosemary Barton, a Tor Star columnist and a "journalist" from HuffPo Canada talking about the Conservative Party leadership... Maybe find someone not biased or at least more neutral than those 3? Andrew Coyne craps on everyone but he's only 1 of 4.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Turned on CBC live stream, and its Rosemary Barton, a Tor Star columnist and a "journalist" from HuffPo Canada talking about the Conservative Party leadership... Maybe find someone not biased or at least more neutral than those 3? Andrew Coyne craps on everyone but he's only 1 of 4.



PC, thanks for the chuckle.  It got me wondering who would watch the leadership coverage on CBC? :rofl:


----------



## suffolkowner (23 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Turned on CBC live stream, and its Rosemary Barton, a Tor Star columnist and a "journalist" from HuffPo Canada talking about the Conservative Party leadership... Maybe find someone not biased or at least more neutral than those 3? Andrew Coyne craps on everyone but he's only 1 of 4.



watching the same while waiting for the hockey game, and agreeing with Andrew Coyne on his ideas about responsible leadership as he's pushing for the caucus to have a greater role in leadership selection


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Aug 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It got me wondering who would watch the leadership coverage on CBC? :rofl:



I blame DAP for posting the CBC link, but at least I gave them a shot right?

Edit: Oh God CTV is even worse. Tom Muclair and a Liberal strategist as the "panel". Could the 2 major news agencies in Canada not find a single CPC member to talk about the race?


----------



## brihard (23 Aug 2020)

I was watching Mercedes’ coverage on Global. They’ve had a good mix of commentators including several CPC members and strategists.


----------



## stellarpanther (23 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Could the 2 major news agencies in Canada not find a single CPC member to talk about the race?



They might be too busy remarking ballots for MacKay.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I was watching Mercedes’ coverage on Global. They’ve had a good mix of commentators including several CPC members and strategists.



Yeah switched there, much easier to listen to.


----------



## stellarpanther (23 Aug 2020)

When Trump hears about this problem he is going to have a field day with it.  Considering he's been saying there will be all kinds of problems with mail in ballot's, he'll use this as yet another reason of what can go wrong.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Aug 2020)

It's good that there are so few questionable things Trump actually does that people have the time to obsess over things they make up.


----------



## stellarpanther (23 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yeah switched there, much easier to listen to.



You're probably right... On CBC right now, Andrew Coyne just called what's going on with the ballot's "amateur hour".


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2020)

From his farewell speech, Andrew Scheer would have been more at home in the Reform party.  Writing off the PC side of the merger is what sandbagged the CPC and likely cost them (at the very least) a minority in 2019.

Hopefully his successor is able to draw the PC wing back, otherwise they'll have to get comfortable in Stornoway for a long time.


----------



## stellarpanther (23 Aug 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It's good that there are so few questionable things Trump actually does that people have the time to obsess over things they make up.



What?


----------



## Remius (23 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You're probably right... On CBC right now, Andrew Coyne just called what's going on with the ballot's "amateur hour".



Perhaps a coloured pine cone system would work better...

At the end of the day a leader will still be chosen.  Maybe at the end of tomorrow.   Either way.  Someone will be ready when parliament resumes.  Unless it’s MacKay, who does not have a seat.  But whatever.


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Perhaps a coloured pine cone system would work better...
> 
> At the end of the day a leader will still be chosen.  Maybe at the end of tomorrow.   Either way.  Someone will be ready when parliament resumes.  Unless it’s MacKay, who does not have a seat.  But whatever.



Or Dr. Lewis. No different then Jagmeet Singh winning the NDP leadership previously. I'm sure there were other party leaders who weren't MPs when they were elected by the party but can't think of any off the top of my head.


----------



## stellarpanther (23 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Perhaps a coloured pine cone system would work better...
> 
> At the end of the day a leader will still be chosen.  Maybe at the end of tomorrow.   Either way.  Someone will be ready when parliament resumes.  Unless it’s MacKay, who does not have a seat.  But whatever.



I'm embarrassed; I didn't realize MacKay hadn't won his riding and never really thought about it.  I recall in the past asking a Conservative MP what would happen during an election if a particular Party won the election but the leader lost.  The answer I received was that there is nothing that states the Party leader must have won their riding but it wouldn't look good and they would most likely have a quick leadership vote to find a new leader from those who did win.  Wow...


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2020)

A few details:

1. Peter MacKay did not run in the 2015 or 2019 elections, so he naturally does not have a seat.

2. Past practice in most parties is to have a current MP in a safe seat resign to permit the leader to get into the House of Commons.  

3. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the confidence of the House of Commons.  No seat in the HoC = not the PM.

4. In the past, leaders had to have the confidence of their caucus; this has been replaced in most (if not all) federal parties by the leader having the confidence of their party membership.  This significantly weakens the caucus and their ability to force change, and has reinforced the centralization of power in the PMO.  Ironically, in many ways, the democratic ideal of universal suffrage to select leaders results in less accountable leadership.


----------



## Remius (23 Aug 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Or Dr. Lewis. No different then Jagmeet Singh winning the NDP leadership previously. I'm sure there were other party leaders who weren't MPs when they were elected by the party but can't think of any off the top of my head.



Hence my whatever comment.

Hopefully MacKay wastes no time getting a seat.  Singh didn’t do him or his party any favours by not seeking a seat sooner.


----------



## suffolkowner (23 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 3. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the confidence of the House of Commons.  No seat in the HoC = not the PM.



I don't think this is true. I'm pretty sure we've had a few PM's that did not have a seat in the H0fC

From wikipedia 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada#:~:text=The%20prime%20minister%2C%20along%20with,on%20behalf%20of%20the%20monarch.&text=However%2C%20in%20rare%20circumstances%20individuals,the%20position%20of%20prime%20minister.

While there is no legal requirement for prime ministers to be MPs themselves, for practical and political reasons the prime minister is expected to win a seat very promptly.[15] However, in rare circumstances individuals who are not sitting members of the House of Commons have been appointed to the position of prime minister. Two former prime ministers%u2014Sir John Joseph Caldwell Abbott and Sir Mackenzie Bowell%u2014served in the 1890s while members of the Senate.[16] Both, in their roles as Government Leader in the Senate, succeeded prime ministers who had died in office%u2014John A. Macdonald in 1891 and John Sparrow David Thompson in 1894. That convention has since evolved toward the appointment of an interim leader from the commons in such a scenario.

Prime ministers who are not MPs upon their appointment (or who lose their seats while in office) have since been expected to seek election to the House of Commons as soon as possible. For example, William Lyon Mackenzie King, after losing his seat in the 1925 federal election (that his party won), briefly "governed from the hallway" before winning a by-election a few weeks later. Similarly, John Turner replaced Pierre Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party in 1984 and subsequently was appointed prime minister while not holding a seat in the House of Commons; Turner won a riding in the next election but the Liberal Party was swept from power. Turner was the last prime minister to not occupy a House of Commons seat while in office as prime minister.


----------



## brihard (23 Aug 2020)

What a gong show...


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't think this is true. I'm pretty sure we've had a few PM's that did not have a seat in the H0fC



Nope.  The PM must be a MP as they are the head of government.


https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/topics/structure/machinery-government/westminster-government.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system


EDIT: An MP is a Member of Parliament, which includes the Senate.  But Senators have only been named PM under exceptional circumstances; it is normally a member of the House of Copmmons.


----------



## FJAG (23 Aug 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't think this is true. I'm pretty sure we've had a few PM's that did not have a seat in the H0fC



From wikipedia Prime_Minister_of_Canada



> While there is no legal requirement for prime ministers to be MPs themselves, for practical and political reasons the prime minister is expected to win a seat very promptly.[15] However, in rare circumstances individuals who are not sitting members of the House of Commons have been appointed to the position of prime minister. Two former prime ministers - Sir John Joseph Caldwell Abbott and Sir Mackenzie Bowell - served in the 1890s while members of the Senate.[16] Both, in their roles as Government Leader in the Senate, succeeded prime ministers who had died in office - John A. Macdonald in 1891 and John Sparrow David Thompson in 1894. That convention has since evolved toward the appointment of an interim leader from the commons in such a scenario.
> 
> Prime ministers who are not MPs upon their appointment (or who lose their seats while in office) have since been expected to seek election to the House of Commons as soon as possible. For example, William Lyon Mackenzie King, after losing his seat in the 1925 federal election (that his party won), briefly "governed from the hallway" before winning a by-election a few weeks later. Similarly, John Turner replaced Pierre Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party in 1984 and subsequently was appointed prime minister while not holding a seat in the House of Commons; Turner won a riding in the next election but the Liberal Party was swept from power. Turner was the last prime minister to not occupy a House of Commons seat while in office as prime minister.



 :cheers:


----------



## stellarpanther (23 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nope.  The PM must be a MP as they are the head of government.
> 
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/topics/structure/machinery-government/westminster-government.html
> ...



So assuming Mackay wins, what right does he have to sit in the HoC during question period if he is not an MP?


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> What a gong show...



Yeah, running mail-in ballots as the only option during a pandemic with the largest voter turnout in party history was something they totally could plan for... a bunch of unpaid volunteers put envelopes wrong in a machine, poop happens. No one is going to care in 48 hours about any technical issues.

It's not like their online voting was hacked or anything....


----------



## ballz (23 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nope.  The PM must be a MP as they are the head of government.



I'm not even sure what this argument is trying to assert. The PM is the head of the executive branch of the government, and MPs belong to the legislative branch. They can easily be separate, they are in the US and it works great (better than our current system IMO). It's only by custom in our system that the PM is an MP.


----------



## Remius (23 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> What a gong show...



Certainly taking the air out of this...

The CBC explained, to their credit, that due to COVID, they could only have a certain amount of counters and verifiers in the same room, hence why it’s slow going.

Also they underestimated the amount of actual ballots they got.  175K.  That is quite something for a leadership race.

Still a gong show though but I can cut them a little slack.


----------



## ballz (23 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> So assuming Mackay wins, what right does he have to sit in the HoC during question period if he is not an MP?



He doesn't... he'll run in a by-election and by custom because he is Leader of the Opposition, the other parties won't even contest it.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> So assuming Mackay wins, what right does he have to sit in the HoC during question period if he is not an MP?



None.


----------



## MilEME09 (24 Aug 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> He doesn't... he'll run in a by-election and by custom because he is Leader of the Opposition, the other parties won't even contest it.



So Toronto center?


----------



## ballz (24 Aug 2020)

It's an option, it might be an interesting move to do so because 1) it's a Liberal strong-hold and 2) if the Liberals planned on putting Mark Carney in there....


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Aug 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> It's an option, it might be an interesting move to do so because 1) it's a Liberal strong-hold and 2) if the Liberals planned on putting Mark Carney in there....



Its definitely a high risk, high reward move. They'd have to be pretty sure they'd win the riding to do that.


----------



## X Royal (24 Aug 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> He doesn't... he'll run in a by-election and by custom because he is Leader of the Opposition, the other parties won't even contest it.


That would depend on where he runs.
If it is a Liberal stronghold he will face strong opposition.
If a Conservative gives up his/hers seat in a Conservative strong hold than it wouldn't be contested too hard by the Liberals. But if out West, Wexit would contest it as best they can. Winning a seat would give the Party a big boost. In Alberta if the NDP were the number 2 party in the last election than the NDP would also try for the seat hoping the Conservatives and Wexit split the right vote.


----------



## ballz (24 Aug 2020)

I think it would be more of a bind to put the Liberals in... I don't think the Liberals would want to break a custom almost as old as politics when they can just have one of their sitting MPs step aside for Mark Carney.

Plus at the same time, every seat in Parliament right now is pretty value given that it's a minority government.

If the Liberals contested it with Mark Carney I don't think any Conservative would stand a chance.


----------



## ballz (24 Aug 2020)

X Royal said:
			
		

> That would depend on where he runs.
> If it is a Liberal stronghold he will face strong opposition.



Like I said, there's a longstanding custom that when a new leader is selected for the Opposition party, that the seat is not contested so as to allow the Leader into the House so he can do his job.

So what you're saying is not a given, in fact it'd be an anomaly. But we do live in interesting times...


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

With a minority situation I doubt the LPC will give up any of “their” seats or riding.

I see someone stepping down to make room.


----------



## stellarpanther (24 Aug 2020)

To not contest a seat is a tradition that never should have started, IMO.  Every seat should be contested if they have the ability to do so.


----------



## Kilted (24 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nope.  The PM must be a MP as they are the head of government.



There is nothing in our constitution thats says that the PM has to be a MP. The only requirement is that they are a leader who enjoys the confidence of the House. So technically they don't even have to be a Canadian citizen, they could be a ten year old, or even a dog if the party felt like it.


----------



## Kilted (24 Aug 2020)

I think if Mackay wins I can't see anyone stepping down to offer him a seat before the confidence vote.


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

So after the first ballot, MacKay looks to be in trouble.

Leslyn Lewis did really well.  

Sloan eliminated.


----------



## Kilted (24 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> So after the first ballot, MacKay looks to be in trouble.
> 
> Leslyn Lewis did really well.
> 
> Sloan eliminated.




I feel like those who picked Sloan first are more likely to have voted for O'Toole.


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

Yeah, I think maybe most most of Sloan’s vite may have gone to Lewis but probably enough of that also went to O’Toole over MacKay.


----------



## Kilted (24 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Yeah, I think maybe most most of Sloan’s vite may have gone to Lewis but probably enough of that also went to O’Toole over MacKay.



MacKay is the only Red Tory in the race, it's going to go to. The thrid ballot, but I think that OToole might actually take it.


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

MacKay has a slim chance now.  O’Toole likely has this unless Lewis makes major gains and rides up the middle.

Both those scenarios are unlikely though.


----------



## Kilted (24 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> MacKay has a slim chance now.  O’Toole likely has this unless Lewis makes major gains and rides up the middle.
> 
> Both those scenarios are unlikely though.



I would love to see liberals try and call Lewis racist when she disagrees with them on something.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> MacKay has a slim chance now.  O’Toole likely has this unless Lewis makes major gains and rides up the middle.
> 
> Both those scenarios are unlikely though.



Same system that let Scheer run up the middle in the last vote.


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

O’Toole wins.


----------



## stellarpanther (24 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> O’Toole wins.



Now I'll need to take a closer look at the CPC.  I hoping he's still interested in CANZUK and those countries are as well.


----------



## stellarpanther (24 Aug 2020)

So I stayed up watching O'Toole's speech and it was a good one.  He said all the right things with me sitting here telling myself that I could maybe see myself voting for the CPC with him as the leader.  At the end I became a little ticked off and maybe I'm a bit obsessed with wearing masks but I didn't like seeing everyone come up on stage shaking hands with no masks at the end.  Keep the damn things properly on your face is my message to him.  Also, the thing to do now is touch elbow's, not fist bumps.
I don't think there will be an election anytime soon so I have time to think about what I'll do in the future.


----------



## FJAG (24 Aug 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Same system that let Scheer run up the middle in the last vote.



Yup. The numbers from round to round tell the tale.

https://www.conservative.ca/leadership/  

https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/24003224/6a2fd06b9518d0a.pdf

The 'make me your number two or three choice' plea to the Socons did the trick for him. Of roughly 11,800 Socon points in round one, 3,200 went to MacKay and 8,600 went to O'Toole in the last round. All the scared centrist votes are going Liberal again in the next election unless O'Toole can pull a rabbit out of his butt.

 :brickwall:


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Yup. The numbers from round to round tell the tale.
> 
> https://www.conservative.ca/leadership/
> 
> ...



You may be right.  O’Toole tried to woo them over and it worked.  How it works at the national level in an election is to be seen.  For now he’s the leader and I guess we’ll see how he does.

He would not have been my first choice but I would have picked him over the other two. 

Time will tell.


----------



## brihard (24 Aug 2020)

Surprising and interesting result. Erin’s a good guy and I think he’ll do well, but he very much has his work cut out for him. He’s gonna have to quickly pivot away from the SOCONs and back to centrist appeal if he wants to win an election. The LPC will desperately be looking for ‘fears’ that they can hang their hat on. If he can steer clear of social issues and unambiguously give the necessary answers on urstions like gay marriage and abortion, he may have a chance. Maybe.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2020)

[quote author=Brihard] give the necessary answers on urstions like gay marriage and abortion, he may have a chance. Maybe.
[/quote]

Don't forget a solemn vow to March in Toronto's Pride parade.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Don't forget a solemn vow to March in Toronto's Pride parade.



I'll suggest that Scheer's refusal to participate or signal that the CPC was open to the LGBTQ likely cost them 10-20 seats in the GTA, and another dozen or so in QC - take the first bunch of seats fro mthe LPC, and the second bunch from the Bloc, and we could be under a minority CPC government right now.

A big part of leadership is just showing up.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (24 Aug 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Yup. The numbers from round to round tell the tale.
> 
> https://www.conservative.ca/leadership/
> 
> ...



This is just good tactics/politics on O'Toole's part and if you want to bang your head against a wall or blame someone, blame MacKay for not at least acknowledging SoCon concerns and trying to woo some of their vote.

Frankly, I don't even know what kind of a campaign MacKay ran. I never heard or saw anything from him during the whole leadership whereas I received lots of correspondence in various formats (snail mail, email, and phone calls) from the other three campaigns, especially the O'Toole campaign. O'Toole seemed to run the most aggressive and active campaign as far as I could see so ... again, you want to blame SoCons and the "system" or maybe MacKay just didn't do a great job. Maybe MacKay wouldn't have been the best man to run a federal election either. Discussing the leadership with some friends yesterday we struggled to articulate how a MacKay-run CPC would differentiate itself from the LPC.

For those CPC members who hate the SoCons so much, can you explain to me why you don't just join the LPC instead and advocate for Chretien/Martin era fiscal responsibility combined with the current "social awareness"?


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

Eric Grenier breaks it down.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-conservative-leadership-how-otoole-won-1.5697358


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> For those CPC members who hate the SoCons so much, can you explain to me why you don't just join the LPC instead and advocate for Chretien/Martin era fiscal responsibility combined with the current "social awareness"?



To be honest some have and will. 

The key isn’t about losing CPC voters.  It’s about wooing middle of the road centrists that could go one way or the other.  

The leader has to expand the base because the base can’t win on its own.

Can O’Toole do it?  Time will tell but I look forward to see if he can provide a solid alternative.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> To be honest some have and will.
> 
> The key isn’t about losing CPC voters.  It’s about wooing middle of the road centrists that could go one way or the other.
> 
> ...



I am one of those CPC voters.  I will vote either Lib or CPC but will lean Lib if I think the CPC leader is a religious wing nut who doesn't respect other people's personal rights.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Aug 2020)

I was at 443 Sqn at around the same time Erin was at 423 Sqn, so I knew him in passing then and know him well enough today to say hello to him.

Erin is a good guy, at heart. He does not strike me as any kind of radical. I think he would make a fine Prime Minister. The question is: can he assemble a broad enough coalition to attract enough Canadians to defeat the Liberals?


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (24 Aug 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I am one of those CPC voters.  I will vote either Lib or CPC but will lean Lib if I think the CPC leader is a religious wing nut who doesn't respect other people's personal rights.



Honest question ... why is it more acceptable to you to have a leftist wing nut who doesn't respect other peoples' personal rights, than a "religious wing nut" who doesn't respect a different group of other's peoples' personal rights?

It's not as if the Liberals under Justin Trudeau's leadership are social libertarians. They just disrespect the rights of different groups. Yet this is somehow acceptable to most.


----------



## observor 69 (24 Aug 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I was at 443 Sqn at around the same time Erin was at 423 Sqn, so I knew him in passing then and know him well enough today to say hello to him.
> 
> Erin is a good guy, at heart. He does not strike me as any kind of radical. I think he would make a fine Prime Minister. The question is: can he assemble a broad enough coalition to attract enough Canadians to defeat the Liberals?



And how is his French?  McKay was putting a lot of effort into his French recently.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Aug 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I am one of those CPC voters.  I will vote either Lib or CPC but will lean Lib if I think the CPC leader is a religious wing nut who doesn't respect other people's personal rights.



Newsflash for you Humphrey: unless you are part of a very small, anointed, ideologically pure and woke “in group” within the Liberal Party of Canada, your “rights” mean nothing. The LPC is running Canada solely as a benefit to them: everyone else be damned.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Honest question ... why is it more acceptable to you to have a leftist wing nut who doesn't respect other peoples' personal rights, than a "religious wing nut" who doesn't respect a different group of other's peoples' personal rights?
> 
> It's not as if the Liberals under Justin Trudeau's leadership are social libertarians. They just disrespect the rights of different groups. Yet this is somehow acceptable to most.



Whose rights have they disrespected?  Ok, firearms owners, but that's personally less important to me than same-sex marriage and abortions.

I am not happy about the Liberals firearms policies but am even less happy about Andrew Scheer and the SoCons not accepting that abortion and same-sex marriage is a right in this Country.

It personally affects relatives of mine and my family, so yah, if they want to play that card, they can lose my vote to team Red.  I will never vote for someone that shows any inkling that they may allow the debate on same-sex marriage and abortion to be reopened.

As for economic policies, the Cons need to show me they can do more.  They talk a big game but last time they were in power, they got basically nothing done other than create false savings by royally screwing over the Civil Service (thanks SSC and Phoenix) in attempts to show a "balanced budget" oh and they bailed out a bunch of big Corps post 2008.

They talked a lot about supporting the Energy Industry but  never even got one thing done or built.  The Libs got Trans Mountain built and they might also get Keystone done as well.  Even while professing themselves as "Greenies".


----------



## dapaterson (24 Aug 2020)

So, my forecast was off, but it is interesting to note that in round 2 Dr Lewis got the plurality of votes, but the system-so-weird-only-a-polisci-student-could-like-or-understand-it somehow gave her the least points.  Erin and Peter barely budged in their vote totals from round 1 to round 2, while Dr Lewis' count spiked, taking ~70% of Derek Sloan's votes. 

This suggests that the current CPC still lies to the right of the old PCs.  The new leader will have to figure out how to expand the appeal of the party without alienating core constituencies (although this time it wasn't dairy farmers taking him over the top, so perhpas Canada could still end up with a rational, coherent agriculture policy).


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Honest question ... why is it more acceptable to you to have a leftist wing nut who doesn't respect other peoples' personal rights, than a "religious wing nut" who doesn't respect a different group of other's peoples' personal rights?
> 
> It's not as if the Liberals under Justin Trudeau's leadership are social libertarians. They just disrespect the rights of different groups. Yet this is somehow acceptable to most.



Are you talking about gun rights groups or some other groups whose rights Trudeau has disrespected?  That isn’t on par with women’s rights and gay rights if that is what you are getting at.   Especially when religious dogma drives it .

That is what people are wary of.  

I could vote either way but the moment “god” comes into the equation I tune out. 

Hopefully O’Toole can present something good to Canadians that will present a viable alternative.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Are you talking about gun rights groups or some other groups whose rights Trudeau has disrespected?  That isn’t on par with women’s rights and gay rights if that is what you are getting at.   Especially when religious dogma drives it .
> 
> That is what people are wary of.
> 
> ...



Please point to a single, credible piece of evidence where a Conservative government would remove abortion or same sex marriage as a right. I seem to recall 10 years under Harper (remember that big, scary social conservative?) where that did not happen.


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

Where did I say they did?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, my forecast was off, but it is interesting to note that in round 2 Dr Lewis got the plurality of votes, but the system-so-weird-only-a-polisci-student-could-like-or-understand-it somehow gave her the least points.  Erin and Peter barely budged in their vote totals from round 1 to round 2, while Dr Lewis' count spiked, taking ~70% of Derek Sloan's votes.
> 
> This suggests that the current CPC still lies to the right of the old PCs.  The new leader will have to figure out how to expand the appeal of the party without alienating core constituencies (although this time it wasn't dairy farmers taking him over the top, so perhpas Canada could still end up with a rational, coherent agriculture policy).



I would be much happier if all political parties in Canada went back to a system of caucuses electing leaders. I think it would result in much better leadership and much less chance of political parties being hijacked by well funded, single interests.


----------



## Haggis (24 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'll suggest that Scheer's refusal to participate or signal that the CPC was open to the LGBTQ likely cost them 10-20 seats in the GTA, and another dozen or so in QC - take the first bunch of seats fro mthe LPC, and the second bunch from the Bloc, and we could be under a minority CPC government right now.
> 
> A big part of leadership is just showing up.



My CPC MP is openly gay and I couldn't care less about his orientation. He's doing a damn good job as my MP.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Where did I say they did?



In the quoted bit above, my read of it Was that you implied that the Conservatives are driven by religious dogma. I disagreed, as the record from 2005-2015 implies otherwise. If that is not what you meant, then I apologize.


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> My CPC MP is openly gay and I couldn't care less about his orientation. He's doing a damn good job as my MP.



Not everyone shares that opinion though.  But having O’Toole as the leader lessens that sort of attack against the CPC.  The LPC will need a fresh line of attack. The CPC will need to make sure O’Toole resonates.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-convention-saturday-votes-1.3604990

Note O’Toole’s comments back then.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Aug 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I would be much happier if all political parties in Canada went back to a system of caucuses electing leaders. I think it would result in much better leadership and much less chance of political parties being hijacked by well funded, single interests.



Can I get a hallelujah?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Can I get a hallelujah?



Selecting Party leaders by popular ballot in a Westminster style democracy perversely leads to much less democratic outcomes, as the caucus feels that they cannot hold the party leader to account (hello Liberals, I am looking at you) and power gets centralized in the PMO.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Aug 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Selecting Party leaders by popular ballot in a Westminster style democracy perversely leads to much less democratic outcomes, as the caucus feels that they cannot hold the party leader to account (hello Liberals, I am looking at you) and power gets centralized in the PMO.



Centralization of power in the PMO is not unique to any one party; the current PM's predecessor was equally guilty of that.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (24 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Are you talking about gun rights groups or some other groups whose rights Trudeau has disrespected?



Off the top of my head, anyone who disagrees with the LPC on the question of abortion would be another group, which would cover a large percentage of Christians (cf. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/pro-life-group-says-liberals-violating-rights-by-forcing-it-to-endorse-abortion-for-summer-grant). This is "disrespecting rights" because it is treating people unequally solely because of their lack of adherence to an ideology the ruling party espouses.

It is also compelled speech, which, "is totalitarian and as such alien to the tradition of free nations like Canada" in the words of Mr. Justice Beetz in _National Bank of Canada_ v. _Retail Clerks’ International Union et al._, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 269 at p. 296. He went on to note that the _Charter_ "guarantees to every person the right to express the opinions he may have: a fortiori they must prohibit compelling anyone to utter opinions that are not his own." As such, I would argue that compelling speech is a serious "disrespect" of the rights of people you disagree with.

Also, unlike the CPC, the LPC has as a requirement that you be pro-abortion to be a member. Whereas the CPC respects the rights of people to have different opinions on things.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> isn’t on par with women’s rights and gay rights if that is what you are getting at.



The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it suggests that imposing views on others is okay so long as you agree with it. This is frankly the mistake that many SoCons make as well ... they are in favour of using government power to force their own views, but then don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

I would argue that Canadians should be treated equally, period. That includes Christians even, or perhaps especially, if their views are not popular these days.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Especially when religious dogma drives it .



Why is religious dogma more egregious as a driving force than secular/political ideology? I would argue that just because the word "god" isn't used, that doesn't mean that something isn't a religious dogma. I would argue that Justin Trudeau, at least, is as dogmatic and committed to his beliefs on feminism and abortion as any "fundamentalist Christian" is to their god. I see both as religious convictions because of their dogmatic approach that brooks no contradiction.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> That is what people are wary of.



And it's a completely unfounded concern. As others have noted in this thread, CPC has NEVER walked-back LGBTQ rights or abortion rights etc. not even when the "evil" Harper had a majority government. Whereas the LPC actually do infringe peoples' rights.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> O’Toole can present something good to Canadians that will present a viable alternative.



Well, he's prepared to make the necessary public act of piety and walk in the Pride Parade and I've never heard him mention God, so there's that.


----------



## ballz (24 Aug 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Whose rights have they disrespected?  Ok, firearms owners, but that's personally less important to me than same-sex marriage and abortions.



Firearms owners, anybody that drives (re: mandatory breathalyzer), anybody that can talk (re: compelled speech law B C-16), anybody who's rights are dependent on an independent judiciary (all of us... re: SNC), anybody who wanted to be part of the summer job program but didn't align with Trudeau's _opinion_ on abortion (re: anti-abortion tests).



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I am not happy about the Liberals firearms policies but am even less happy about Andrew Scheer and the SoCons not accepting that abortion and same-sex marriage is a right in this Country.



I'd be curious to see a recent example where any Conservative MP has expressed their desire to role back same-sex marriage.

Regarding abortion, it is not a right in this country. There was no majority opinion in R v Morgentaler, so the decision is not a binding precedent. 



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I will never vote for someone that shows any inkling that they may allow the debate on same-sex marriage and abortion to be reopened.



I'm curious to know, now that I've corrected you on the fact that abortion is not a right, what if the reason they wanted to "debate" same-sex marriage was to make it an actual legal right. You see, I have this dream that some day a real "small government" conservative will argue that it should be a legal right based on the Justice Bertha Williams interpretation (bless her soul), and also like any topic, there is no "off-topic" topics in a free society. Much like we look back in hindsight at some of the stuff that was "normal" 500 years ago that we view as barbaric now, it's quite possible 1000 years from now humans will realize that abortions are barbaric (I'm not saying they are.... I am very much on the fence which is why I defer to Bertha Wilson).


----------



## ballz (24 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Centralization of power in the PMO is not unique to any one party; the current PM's predecessor was equally guilty of that.



If anything I'd say it's like a natural pareto distribution, on which can only be restrained by a well-written constitution.... which we don't have.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'll suggest that Scheer's refusal to participate or signal that the CPC was open to the LGBTQ likely cost them 10-20 seats in the GTA, and another dozen or so in QC - take the first bunch of seats fro mthe LPC, and the second bunch from the Bloc, and we could be under a minority CPC government right now.
> 
> A big part of leadership is just showing up.



I believe it.  When I hear gay rights I wonder what I'm missing. As far as I'm aware gays in Canada have the same rights as heterosexuals and it's a human rights issue (violation) to discriminate on sexual orientation. 

The idea that conservatives will physically take away gay rights seems ridiculous to me. What are people taking about when they reference gay rights?


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

Thanks for the reply LBD.

So from what I can see no rights as you list them are being disrespected.  Freedom of expression can still happen.  The LPC has decided that their sitting members cannot be anti abortion.  That does not mean their rights are being violated.  They are free to be a an MP, just not with their team.  No different than most organisations.  

Not sure how you read my saying that gun rights are not at the same level as women or gay rights turned into imposing views.  Society imposes all sorts of things.  But property rights are not at the same level as human rights.   I am willing to hear if there is an argument to counter that though. 

Religious dogma has very little rationale in a lot of cases and amounts to “Jesus says so” and “God says so”.   Why can’t gay people get married?  Because God.  Right.  Unfortunately political dogma stems a lot from religious dogma so it can be hard to separate the two.   So when you say, women should have a right to choose about anything involving your body as opposed to god says this is bad so there.  That’s the difference.

Unfounded sure.  But people don’t trust a bunch of thieves to guard money even if they swear they will never steal and have proven they won’t over time. People will still not trust them.  The CPC only recently removed their definition of marriage (4 years ago).  Even though they swore not to revisit it, the voters didn’t trust them because they have quite a few people, that given the chance would.  

That’s the challenge O’Toole has.  I think he’s better placed than Scheer ever was to do that.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Aug 2020)

He can broaden the Blue Tent all he likes, but he's facing an electorate drunk on unlimited spending, due mainly to COVID but also their usual platforms, by a twice elected Federal Liberal Party.

There's a rabbit and hat trick that needs to be mastered....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-party-leadership-results-1.5695925


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> He can broaden the Blue Tent all he likes, but he's facing an electorate drunk on unlimited spending, due mainly to COVID but also their usual platforms, by a twice elected Federal Liberal Party.
> 
> There's a rabbit and hat trick that needs to be mastered....
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-party-leadership-results-1.5695925



No doubt.  I hope he doesn’t fizzle out.  I really want to give him a chance and see what he can do.


----------



## FJAG (24 Aug 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> In the quoted bit above, my read of it Was that you implied that the Conservatives are driven by religious dogma. I disagreed, as the record from 2005-2015 implies otherwise. If that is not what you meant, then I apologize.



In general the party isn't driven by religious dogma, but it has become the home for a significant faction that uses religious dogma to govern the policies that they want the party to stand for. Currently the party is in a position where it is trying to push and pull at the same time. It's Policy Statement contains the following:



> The Conservative Party will be guided in its constitutional framework and its policy
> basis by the following principles:
> ...
> • A belief in the value and dignity of all human life.



But also:



> 70. Abortion Legislation
> A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.



But note that at the 2018 biennial convention:



> The abortion resolution, put forward by delegates from Newfoundland, would have deleted a line in the Conservative policy playbook that said a Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion. Doing so would leave the possibility of such legislation open in the future.
> 
> It was defeated by a margin of 53 to 47 per cent.



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-great-thing-for-conservative-party-that-abortion-proposal-failed/

That's a razor thin margin and when you look at it, the policy statement itself leaves a hole in that "the government will not support" however, Scheer and MacKay and O'Toole both agreed that they would allow a free vote on a private members bill.

The 2016 convention voted to end opposition to gay marriage by 1,036 to 462 and voted to retain opposition to assisted suicide by 990 to 496. Around a third of the delegates espouse Socon objectives.

The bottom line conclusion (and one that stands out like a giant warning light to the public at large) is that there is a significant percentage of Socons within the CPC that will continue to influence the party's stand on these issues. CPC candidates running for positions in the party have to address these issues by either agreeing with Socons openly or alternatively, courting Socons behind closed doors until elected. As a Socons within the CPC are too large a group to be ignored. We know what happens when they are; the party splits in two.

The trouble that many of us long-time conservatives have is that we support much of the social progressive agenda of the LPC while being disgusted by their fiscal irresponsibility and their back-room, bush-league palm greasing. The CPC on the other hand makes itself appear socially regressive to the general public (or at the very least makes itself vulnerable of accusations of such) with the result that it never garners a sufficiently large enough socially progressive base that will allow it to shed itself of the Socon activists in its midst.

 :cold:


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Aug 2020)

>they have quite a few people, that given the chance would.

Yes.  Those people are going to be there for quite a while, but not forever - the vectors of historical social change are easy enough to see.  But they will never control a majority of MPs in any conservative party which is still a fusion of "old" PC and Reform, and never control a majority of MPs in Parliament.  There is no realistic scenario under which they will ever be able to roll back any of the key things some moderates claim to be worried about.

A person votes for the LPC, or NDP, or CPC, if he wants the things the LPC, or NDP, or CPC can and will deliver.  But the CPC never will be able to deliver a rollback of social advances.  The so-con threat is a bogeyman some people use to scare others, or maybe just themselves.  Those who wish to cut off their noses are free to do so.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2020)

[quote author=FJAG]

The trouble that many of us long-time conservatives have is that we support much of the social progressive agenda of the LPC while being disgusted by their fiscal irresponsibility and their back-room, bush-league palm greasing.
[/quote]

Absolutely.


----------



## Donald H (24 Aug 2020)

Social conservative means what in Canada? That part of the conservative agenda appears to have vanished into thin air. Or at least it's become unspeakable. 

How about taking the abortion issue as an example? In Canada the socially acceptable position on abortion is to allow abortions but to attempt to discourage it by government taking a sociallly responsible position of attempting to eliminate a woman's need for an abortion. That could mean government provided health care support for pregnant women who are victims of rape, for instance.

The only problem being, the Liberals and NDP have already claimed that position, leaving the social conservatives nothing but something similar to the US conservative position.

This can be applied to more issues than just abortion!

What to do for Canada's social Conservatives? Just lay their social issues aside?


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (24 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply LBD.
> 
> So from what I can see no rights as you list them are being disrespected.  Freedom of expression can still happen.



Turn it around. Suppose a CPC government required Canada Summer Jobs applicants to check off a box attesting that the organization's core mandate is to limit abortions or support only one-man-one-woman relationships in order to get funding. I find it hard to believe that anyone would say that this is not disrespecting anyone's rights.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Not sure how you read my saying that gun rights are not at the same level as women or gay rights turned into imposing views.  Society imposes all sorts of things.  But property rights are not at the same level as human rights.   I am willing to hear if there is an argument to counter that though.



I would argue that property rights are human rights. I would also argue that the right to self defence is a human right as well, although whether Canadians can actually own firearms for the purpose of self defence is another issue and potential can of worms.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Religious dogma has very little rationale in a lot of cases and amounts to “Jesus says so” and “God says so”.   Why can’t gay people get married?  Because God.  Right.  Unfortunately political dogma stems a lot from religious dogma so it can be hard to separate the two.   So when you say, women should have a right to choose about anything involving your body as opposed to god says this is bad so there.  That’s the difference.



I would argue similar happens in secular religion. The cabinet must be 50/50 men/women regardless of who's more qualified "because it's 2020" (i.e. because feminism). 

I don't think this is the place to discuss the rationale between certain religious beliefs. It's an unfortunate fact that many people are incapable to coherent discussion/debate so they fall back on "because God". But for the reasonable Christian, the reasons they oppose same-sex marriage or abortion is not merely "because god". For example, many/most pro-life people believe that abortion is wrong because they believe killing people is wrong, and they consider unborn babies to be people. 
  


			
				Remius said:
			
		

> That’s the challenge O’Toole has.  I think he’s better placed than Scheer ever was to do that.



I think a ham sandwich would be better placed than Scheer to do that. I was never impressed with Scheer at all and I thought he ran an awful campaign. I'm sure O'Toole can do much better and I believe we would have won last year if O'Toole had been the leader then rather than Scheer.


----------



## Donald H (24 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> For example, many/most pro-life people believe that abortion is wrong because they believe killing people is wrong, and they consider unborn babies to be people.



When stated in those terms, the only answer has to be that 'killing people is 'right' in Canada. 

That wouldn't be my preference for stating the case but in any event it's not going to change in Canada. Do social Conservatives imagine that they 'can' change it?


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (24 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> When stated in those terms, the only answer has to be that 'killing people is 'right' in Canada.
> 
> That wouldn't be my preference for stating the case but in any event it's not going to change in Canada. Do social Conservatives imagine that they 'can' change it?



Some, perhaps many/most do.

I am a social conservative myself, but I think it is foolish to think that. As noted by Brad Sallows, it would never happen that SoCon MPs formed a majority in any parliament such that they could change abortion laws. But even if, for the sake of argument, we consider a hypothetical situation where they did. It still would not change anything because juries would just acquire via "jury nullification" as they did back in the 80s, perhaps more so ... and I doubt that prosecutors would even prosecute or police would make arrests. So it would be an empty gesture to change the laws.

I believe it was this thread (many pages ago) where I expressed frustration with SoCons in this regard despite being one myself.


----------



## Donald H (24 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Some, perhaps many/most do.
> 
> I am a social conservative myself, but I think it is foolish to think that. As noted by Brad Sallows, it would never happen that SoCon MPs formed a majority in any parliament such that they could change abortion laws. But even if, for the sake of argument, we consider a hypothetical situation where they did. It still would not change anything because juries would just acquire via "jury nullification" as they did back in the 80s, perhaps more so ... and I doubt that prosecutors would even prosecute or police would make arrests. So it would be an empty gesture to change the laws.
> 
> I believe it was this thread (many pages ago) where I expressed frustration with SoCons in this regard despite being one myself.



And so we can agree that Conservatives aren't going to change the law on abortion in principle. May I suggest that a position for Conservatives can become limiting a woman's right to an abortion. There's lots of territory in that position that is left to be claimed.

What is the social Conservative's position nowadays? Does it even exist?


----------



## shawn5o (24 Aug 2020)

I wish Mr O'Toole well. Will he and the CPC be able to turf the PM and the LPC? I do hope so but he has to fight three leftist parties.


----------



## Drallib (24 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Some, perhaps many/most do.
> 
> I am a social conservative myself, but I think it is foolish to think that. As noted by Brad Sallows, it would never happen that SoCon MPs formed a majority in any parliament such that they could change abortion laws. But even if, for the sake of argument, we consider a hypothetical situation where they did. It still would not change anything because juries would just acquire via "jury nullification" as they did back in the 80s, perhaps more so ... and I doubt that prosecutors would even prosecute or police would make arrests. So it would be an empty gesture to change the laws.
> 
> I believe it was this thread (many pages ago) where I expressed frustration with SoCons in this regard despite being one myself.



Today I learned what a SoCon was.. and learned that I am one also.

I don't think a sole SoCon party would ever win, but it's frustrating to have a party that goes "erm.. umm.." on topics.


----------



## Drallib (24 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> And so we can agree that Conservatives aren't going to change the law on abortion in principle. May I suggest that a position for Conservatives can become limiting a woman's right to an abortion. There's lots of territory in that position that is left to be claimed.
> 
> What is the social Conservative's position nowadays? Does it even exist?



_For me personally_ a life is a life. My wife and I got an ultrasound at 9 weeks and could see the baby's (a little bean size) heartbeat going at 170BPM. IMO, a woman's viewpoint of "my body, my choice" is wrong, because that's just another body inside of yours...

There are many options if you can't provide or don't want to. If you didn't want to get pregnant there are measures to prevent so.

Edit: (removed a sensitive viewpoint without firm opinion on the matter)


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Social conservative means what in Canada? That part of the conservative agenda appears to have vanished into thin air. Or at least it's become unspeakable.
> 
> How about taking the abortion issue as an example? In Canada the socially acceptable position on abortion is to allow abortions but to attempt to discourage it by government taking a sociallly responsible position of attempting to eliminate a woman's need for an abortion. That could mean government provided health care support for pregnant women who are victims of rape, for instance.
> 
> ...



I'm going to straight up call BS on that false equivalence; providing health care during a pregnancy that results from rape is not the same as allowing an abortion. It's forcing a victim to continue to be victimized and probably compounds the trauma by forcing the woman to carry a totally unwanted baby to term.

Big difference as well between being anti-abortion and pro-life; if you just care about protecting the fetus right up until it's born but don't want to do anything to support the mother/child after that, you're anti abortion. Pro-life is a cradle to grave position, and would include a focus on everything from child care, education, health care etc. Forcing someone to have a kid from a rape seems pretty brutal, and can't see that turning out well for either the mother or the kid.

O'Toole's vague promises to the socons has me pretty skeptical of his ability to keep the oil/water philosphies under the big tent together. On one hand, there are a bunch of "small c" conservatives who are socially progressive, and there is also the wing that wants to roll back social laws 30+ years. Those two aren't compatible, and personally can't support a party like that out of fear that they will throw some bones to the socons to keep the fragile alliance together.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> _For me personally_ a life is a life. My wife and I got an ultrasound at 9 weeks and could see the baby's (a little bean size) heartbeat going at 170BPM. IMO, a woman's viewpoint of "my body, my choice" is wrong, because that's just another body inside of yours...



Part of the problem is this narrative that's pushed where if you're anti-abortion then you're this religious nutbar who probably hates women's rights.

In Canada abortion is legal at all stages of the pregnancy. Some people are uncomfortable with that. 
The abortion issue falls under the mantra _you're entitled to your own opinion as long as it agrees with mine._


----------



## Donald H (24 Aug 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> _For me personally_ a life is a life. My wife and I got an ultrasound at 9 weeks and could see the baby's (a little bean size) heartbeat going at 170BPM. IMO, a woman's viewpoint of "my body, my choice" is wrong, because that's just another body inside of yours...
> 
> If you experienced a tramatic event that caused the pregnancy, an abortion isn't going to erase what happened. There are many options if you can't provide or don't want to. If you didn't want to get pregnant there are measures to prevent so.



In Canada it is still my hope that we can have a rational and decent discussion on the abortion issue. But first off we need to set the necessary parameters in that a woman's right to choose is not going to change, because it's unacceptable to change it!

Having said that, the discussion must become one in which the 'need' for an abortion is eliminated as much as we possibly can. 
That is, IMHO, the only way the Conservative agenda on abortion can succeed at least in part. 

Other countries take an extreme position which results in killing more babies!




 :cheers:


----------



## X Royal (24 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> I wish Mr O'Toole well. Will he and the CPC be able to turf the PM and the LPC? I do hope so but he has to fight three leftist parties.


I believe the fight for the CPC will not be with the left but the other 2 right parties the PPC and Wexit in the next election.
Vote splitting may be their downfall.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (24 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> And so we can agree that Conservatives aren't going to change the law on abortion in principle. May I suggest that a position for Conservatives can become limiting a woman's right to an abortion. There's lots of territory in that position that is left to be claimed.
> 
> What is the social Conservative's position nowadays? Does it even exist?



Good question.

I don't think there's an easy, clear-cut answer because SoCons are not all in agreement on what constitutes "social conservatism". And as I think you allude to in asking whether it exists, it has changed over the years as well. I would say that, broadly-speaking, "the social conservative's position" is pro-life/anti-abortion at minimum and to some extent. That, frankly, may be the common denominator. I think generally a favour for the traditional nuclear family and an opposition to marriage that does not fit that paradigm. I don't think any SoCon would actually advocate making homosexuality illegal, but they would object to LGBTQ propaganda being taught in schools (opinions will differ on what constitutes "propaganda" and what is necessary stuff for children to learn in school).

For myself, I agree with Navy_Pete in his distinction between anti-abortion and pro life, broadly (although he and I may disagree on to what extent government can and should be involved in the pro-life things he lists). As a SoCon myself I certainly would prefer to see an approach that attempts to tackle the factors that make people want to have abortions by building the economy, giving support to single mothers, etc. As stated earlier in this thread, simply outlawing abortion is at best a fool's errand that would never accomplish anything positive no matter what side of the spectrum you're on.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (24 Aug 2020)

X Royal said:
			
		

> I believe the fight for the CPC will not be with the left but the other 2 right parties the PPC and Wexit in the next election.
> Vote splitting may be their downfall.



This may or may not be the case. 

I believe it's been calculated that the PPC cost the CPC at least 8 seats in the last election if memory serves, perhaps more (I forget -- it may have even been in the 20s). However, on the other hand, I think that with Mr. Bernier losing his seat (and generally doing a poor job in the election, especially the televised debates), the PPC is essentially "DOA". Their chance to make a splash was 2019 and I doubt they will garner as many votes next time.

"Wexit" parties may be the bigger threat/problem.


----------



## Donald H (24 Aug 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I'm going to straight up call BS on that false equivalence; providing health care during a pregnancy that results from rape is not the same as allowing an abortion. It's forcing a victim to continue to be victimized and probably compounds the trauma by forcing the woman to carry a totally unwanted baby to term.
> 
> Big difference as well between being anti-abortion and pro-life; if you just care about protecting the fetus right up until it's born but don't want to do anything to support the mother/child after that, you're anti abortion. Pro-life is a cradle to grave position, and would include a focus on everything from child care, education, health care etc. Forcing someone to have a kid from a rape seems pretty brutal, and can't see that turning out well for either the mother or the kid.
> 
> O'Toole's vague promises to the socons has me pretty skeptical of his ability to keep the oil/water philosphies under the big tent together. On one hand, there are a bunch of "small c" conservatives who are socially progressive, and there is also the wing that wants to roll back social laws 30+ years. Those two aren't compatible, and personally can't support a party like that out of fear that they will throw some bones to the socons to keep the fragile alliance together.



You've quoted me on something I said, but it's not really clear to me what that could be? FWIW, you've said nothing that I can disagree with. Your argument isn't with me. 

I'll restate my position. I am opposed to abortions in the sense that all people of decency should be, in that no abortion is a desirable outcome. *I am not opposed to a woman having a right to an abortion. *

And now I'll once again attempt to 'butt out' of the conversation, unless I am misquoted.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Aug 2020)

Faith Goldy has denounced the takeover of the Conservative Party by a man who  "wants to widen the Big Blue Tent & make it a party for The Gay & immigrants." (sic).

Anyone who had "Wingnuts scream and flee the Conservative Party the day the result is announced" on your Canadian Politics 2020 bingo card...


----------



## RangerRay (24 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nope.  The PM must be a MP as they are the head of government.
> 
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/topics/structure/machinery-government/westminster-government.html
> ...



Recently in BC, in the 2013 election, the BC Liberals won, but the Premier, Christie Clark, lost her seat in Vancouver-Point Grey. She was able to remain Premier while she ran in a by-election in Kelowna.


----------



## QV (24 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Faith Goldy has denounced the takeover of the Conservative Party by a man who  "wants to widen the Big Blue Tent & make it a party for The Gay & immigrants." (sic).
> 
> Anyone who had "Wingnuts scream and flee the Conservative Party the day the result is announced" on your Canadian Politics 2020 bingo card...



That is crazy.  I've always thought of the CPC as a big tent party.


----------



## RangerRay (24 Aug 2020)

I hope Mr. O’Toole does well. My biggest concern was that he ran as a “real conservative” (whatever that is) while he is a moderate much like Mr. McKay. It comes across as disingenuous.


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Faith Goldy has denounced the takeover of the Conservative Party by a man who  "wants to widen the Big Blue Tent & make it a party for The Gay & immigrants." (sic).
> 
> Anyone who had "Wingnuts scream and flee the Conservative Party the day the result is announced" on your Canadian Politics 2020 bingo card...



If it takes someone like O’Toole to make that happen more power to him.  .


----------



## Kilted (24 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Part of the problem is this narrative that's pushed where if you're anti-abortion then you're this religious nutbar who probably hates women's rights.
> 
> In Canada abortion is legal at all stages of the pregnancy. Some people are uncomfortable with that.
> The abortion issue falls under the mantra _you're entitled to your own opinion as long as it agrees with mine._



That's because no politician will touch the issue with a ten foot pole.  If I remember correctly it was the Conservatives under Kim Campbell that tried to regulate it, but it died with the election.

It would be interesting if the Supreme Court ever found that unborn babies were persons, and the women's rights argument went completely out the window.  It wouldn't be completely unprecedented, women themselves have only been legally considered to be persons for less than 100 years in Canada.


----------



## brihard (24 Aug 2020)

X Royal said:
			
		

> I believe the fight for the CPC will not be with the left but the other 2 right parties the PPC and Wexit in the next election.
> Vote splitting may be their downfall.



PPC were only relevant in six ridings, and that’s by a most generous interpretation. Bernier couldn’t even win his own seat, and has been getting whinier since.

The ‘Wexit’ crew, if they articulate a rational regionalism and eschew they fantasy of sovereignty, could become relevant the way the Bloc are. But that said, they have a ways to go before they can challenge the CPC for seats- and the route to that may be through a couple elections’ worth of vote splitting that could conceivably give the LPC a majority. Not sure they’ve thought their cunning plan all the way through.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Aug 2020)

Funny how the universe throws coincidences your way.

Just after I scanned some of the this discussion earlier today I was working on another project.  And this came to my eye.



> "They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that mislike it, heresy: and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion."
> 
> Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan



I recall seeing, upthread, somebody saying something about property rights not be real rights, not like human rights.  Sorry I can remember who offered that but I felt compelled.

To whomever said it.  I suggest that that assertion is a statement of belief.  It is an opinion.  It is untestable and thus unresolvable.  I'm sure that Smith and Hume, Rousseau and Voltaire, Locke, Hobbes and Hutchison have all weighed in on the issue and found each other equally unpersuaded.

That is why issues are best resolved not on a standard of rightness but simply community opinion - justices of the peace, juries, parliament, general populace - the answer is what the community wishes, as determined by one person more than the other side.  For the time being.  You can ask the question again during the next parliament.

As I assert my belief and state my opinion.   :cheers:


----------



## X Royal (24 Aug 2020)

What some seem to miss about my comment is it won't matter if the PPC win seats but they will take votes from the right side.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Aug 2020)

Kilted said:
			
		

> That's because no politician will touch the issue with a ten foot pole.  If I remember correctly it was the Conservatives under Kim Campbell that tried to regulate it, but it died with the election.
> 
> It would be interesting if the Supreme Court ever found that unborn babies were persons, and the women's rights argument went completely out the window.  It wouldn't be completely unprecedented, women themselves have only been legally considered to be persons for less than 100 years in Canada.



I was just about to say the same thing. the current definition of life is legally neat, but not much else. A science based approach would blow it out of the water. However such a ruling has massive consequences beyond abortion. if the mother is not willing able to protect a fetus that is considered a person, then it would be up to the State to do so. Thinking how the State would protect that fetus if it had to remain in the Mom is not pretty, drug the mom and keep her in a induced coma? Two separate set of rights within the same body will get messy. Not to mention child support will start prior to birth as well. I can guarantee you that without an outside force making it impossible to ignore, no major political party is going there any time soon.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Aug 2020)

X Royal said:
			
		

> What some seem to miss about my comment is it won't matter if the PPC win seats but they will take votes from the right side.


Last time I looked, any votes potentially syphoned from the Tories were not close to changing the outcome of any riding in the last election either negatively or positively. Bernier overestimated how many diehard libertarians there were in the Tories that would follow him to the PPC. Maybe if the ridings were closer they'd matter, but likely only in popular vote which means nothing in Canadian elections except to partisans looking for shallow victories.

Likely going to be the same story for Wexit. They'd have to pull 30% support in most ridings out west to even put the Tories in danger.


----------



## lenaitch (24 Aug 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nope.  The PM must be a MP as they are the head of government.
> 
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/topics/structure/machinery-government/westminster-government.html
> ...



I see nothing in the links that supports the requirement that the PM must be an MP or even a Senator, and am not aware of any legal requirement, either in the Constitution or subordinate law.  True, that for all practical purposes, it has become a de facto requirement.  The nation and the reality of party politics would not stand for a PM that could not participate in the proceedings of the House.  As well, there is no doubt legislation regarding security, intelligence, etc. that would hinder access.

Our parliamentary system is based on tradition and precedent built up over hundreds of years with respect to Westminster.  In my opinion that is both its strength and weakness.


----------



## brihard (24 Aug 2020)

X Royal said:
			
		

> What some seem to miss about my comment is it won't matter if the PPC win seats but they will take votes from the right side.



Didn’t miss that at all. I made note of how that may matter, but not in the way they want it to.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Last time I looked, any votes potentially syphoned from the Tories were not close to changing the outcome of any riding in the last election either negatively or positively. Bernier overestimated how many diehard libertarians there were in the Tories that would follow him to the PPC. Maybe if the ridings were closer they'd matter, but likely only in popular vote which means nothing in Canadian elections except to partisans looking for shallow victories.
> 
> Likely going to be the same story for Wexit. They'd have to pull 30% support in most ridings out west to even put the Tories in danger.



Assuming every PPC vote came from The CPC, the PPC vote splitting resulted in six ridings going Liberal instead of CPC. It didn’t have any impact on the parliamentary balance of power.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Aug 2020)

The possible fight on the right pales in comparison to the one that is brewing on the left.  The stuff the LPC propose to launch in the fall is a direct attack on the NDP's lunch.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Aug 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The possible fight on the right pales in comparison to the one that is brewing on the left.  The stuff the LPC propose to launch in the fall is a direct attack on the NDP's lunch.



You are on point.  But I see it as a hostile take over of the NDP position and policies, as well as an extreme left wheel by the Liberals.  After this fall it behooves both the NDP and Liberals to combine, they would be unstoppable, the conservative movement just isn't big enough in Canada.  The Liberals may bleed a few Blue Libs but I don't see that having much of an impact. 

Just my :2c:


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (25 Aug 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The possible fight on the right pales in comparison to the one that is brewing on the left.  The stuff the LPC propose to launch in the fall is a direct attack on the NDP's lunch.



Not sure it would be much of a fight, the NDP will just cease to exist.

Unfortunately I think Halifax Tar is right that a united left would be nigh unstoppable. Even if the CPC became the "centrist" party, I think that the yard sticks have moved so much to the left and as things get worse economically due to the spending binge of the Trudeau Liberals, looking at other countries that went down this road there's little stomach for the "austerity" measures that a more reasonable party would have to impose.


----------



## Donald H (25 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Good question.
> 
> I don't think there's an easy, clear-cut answer because SoCons are not all in agreement on what constitutes "social conservatism". And as I think you allude to in asking whether it exists, it has changed over the years as well. I would say that, broadly-speaking, "the social conservative's position" is pro-life/anti-abortion at minimum and to some extent. That, frankly, may be the common denominator. I think generally a favour for the traditional nuclear family and an opposition to marriage that does not fit that paradigm. I don't think any SoCon would actually advocate making homosexuality illegal, but they would object to LGBTQ propaganda being taught in schools (opinions will differ on what constitutes "propaganda" and what is necessary stuff for children to learn in school).



That was well stated IMO LBD. I thought for a moment you were going to point out some area of disagreement with my 'socially' Liberal opinion on LGBTQ rights, but then you went and qualified your position, which left nothing to disagree with. 



> For myself, I agree with Navy_Pete in his distinction between anti-abortion and pro life, broadly (although he and I may disagree on to what extent government can and should be involved in the pro-life things he lists). As a SoCon myself I certainly would prefer to see an approach that attempts to tackle the factors that make people want to have abortions by building the economy, giving support to single mothers, etc. As stated earlier in this thread, simply outlawing abortion is at best a fool's errand that would never accomplish anything positive no matter what side of the spectrum you're on.



Exactly! Social correctness is a Canadian thing now and differs little from party to party. Another reason why Canada leads the world in "quality of life"!


----------



## Remius (25 Aug 2020)

A good start for Mr. O'Toole. 

I for one will be paying attention.  So far I like what he says.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/o-toole-conservative-leader-vision-1.5698713


----------



## Donald H (25 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> A good start for Mr. O'Toole.
> 
> I for one will be paying attention.  So far I like what he says.
> 
> ...



Wow! O'Toole is pro-choice and in favour of transgender rights! Social conservatism truly has taken on an entirely new face!


----------



## Remius (25 Aug 2020)

A good tactic.

Put all of that the rest early.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Wow! O'Toole is pro-choice and in favour of transgender rights! Social conservatism truly has taken on an entirely new face!



He also previously had made some noises in the opposite direction.  It's almost like he's a politician playing both sides of the fence.. that would be unheard of.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/erin-otoole-social-conservative-leadership-1.5613399


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Wow! O'Toole is pro-choice and in favour of transgender rights! Social conservatism truly has taken on an entirely new face!



Disaffected Socons can always vote for the LPC leader, next time. He’s personally pro-life, even if his party is pro-choice.


----------



## Donald H (25 Aug 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> He also previously had made some noises in the opposite direction.  It's almost like he's a politician playing both sides of the fence.. that would be unheard of.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/erin-otoole-social-conservative-leadership-1.5613399



Yes of course Pete, but we have to take him at his word until he blows the cover. Still, it's hopeful isn't it!


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Wow! O'Toole is pro-choice and in favour of transgender rights! Social conservatism truly has taken on an entirely new face!



Not a hard stretch as society has pretty much accepted that pro choice and LGBTQ recognition is here to stay and can't be reversed.

Its like trying to get the genie back in the bottle.


----------



## blacktriangle (25 Aug 2020)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find O'Toole very inspiring. I would have preferred Leslyn Lewis. She's fresh and I think could have put Trudeau in his place. I hope she runs again. If that makes me a nut job or a SoCon, so be it.

Otherwise, I think the only chance for Canada is to hope that the LPC one day comes back to centre and embarks on some kind of fiscal turnaround like they did in the 90's. 

I'm all for making Canada a better place, but it has to be sustainable. Will we end up with "The Just Society" or just a failed state? I guess time will tell.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Aug 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Not a hard stretch as society has pretty much accepted that pro choice and LGBTQ recognition is here to stay and can't be reversed.
> 
> Its like trying to get the genie back in the bottle.



Quite right. And by stating it clearly and unequivocally first and right off the bat, he takes that completely off the table for the Libs to use against him, as they did with AS.

Smart politics if you ask me.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Aug 2020)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Quite right. And by stating it clearly and unequivocally first and right off the bat, he takes that completely off the table for the Libs to use against him, as they did with AS.
> 
> Smart politics if you ask me.





			
				reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> I'm all for making Canada a better place, but it has to be sustainable. Will we end up with "The Just Society" or just a failed state? I guess time will tell.



Here in lies the question. Lets hope that saner heads prevail and learn that a failed drama teacher isn't exactly a good candidate for the top elected office in the nation. 

Stephen Harper also stood up in Parliament and declared Quebec to be a distinct society within Canada - which it is. The same can be said of First Nations and Metis people.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Yes of course Pete, but we have to take him at his word until he blows the cover. Still, it's hopeful isn't it!



Yeah, it'd be nice to have a proper opposition leader and a genuine alternative, but withholding my optimism until the dust settles and he is in the role for a bit. Will be interesting to see what happens to the party.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Aug 2020)

>Otherwise, I think the only chance for Canada is to hope that the LPC one day comes back to centre and embarks on some kind of fiscal turnaround like they did in the 90's. 

The fiscal turnaround started in the 80s.  The LPC contribution was to make some spending cuts to pull the net surplus date forward by a couple of years.


----------



## shawn5o (25 Aug 2020)

X Royal said:
			
		

> I believe the fight for the CPC will not be with the left but the other 2 right parties the PPC and Wexit in the next election.
> Vote splitting may be their downfall.



Hi X Royal
I think you nailed it

As LBD wrote, the PPC is essentially "DOA".


*Maxime Bernier says Erin O'Toole is 'Liberal-lite,' unlike his People's Party*
_The assault on O'Toole's conservative credentials came only hours after the former military officer, lawyer and cabinet minister won the Conservative leadership_

National Post

_____

Interesting article and Jay Hill has a compelling argument

*WEXIT suffered a blow with the election of O'Toole as Tory leader*
_Western alienation got top billing from O'Toole during his first conversation with the PM on his first full day as leader of Canada's official Opposition
_

Licia Corbella
Aug 25, 2020  •  Last Updated 11 hours ago  •  4 minute read

Calgary Herald


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Aug 2020)

It can be trying, sometimes, to politely tolerate people who want to deny you your pastimes while undoubtedly being ready to object if you tried to deny them theirs.


----------



## Drallib (26 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Part of the problem is this narrative that's pushed where if you're anti-abortion then you're this religious nutbar who probably hates women's rights.
> 
> In Canada abortion is legal at all stages of the pregnancy. Some people are uncomfortable with that.
> The abortion issue falls under the mantra _you're entitled to your own opinion as long as it agrees with mine._



That's the thing, with "women's rights", what about that baby's rights? The right for them to grow and continue to live inside a woman until they're born? Why is it only until they're not attached to someone that they're no longer allowed to be killed legally? (Just my opinion. Not looking for a debate.)

I suppose I would be one of those "religious nutbars" who gives the answer "because God" when it comes to same-sex marriage, because let's be honest, if you don't believe in the Bible then why would you care about who has sex with who, or who gets drunk at the bars, or who goes to see strippers at the club, etc...
But just as I see same-sex marriage/relations as a sin "because God", so is getting drunk and so is lust, and you don't see me protesting at bar or clubs.

I wasn't sure how to express my views on this, but yes I'm a "SoCon", but I wouldn't push same-sex relations to be illegal. Punishing people for acting on their feelings/attractions isn't going to make them believe in God.

Also, I do think firearms should be regulated. Let's keep people safe. But I do love sending rounds down range, and I'm sure there's a way to regulate them without a complete ban.

I don't think there's a large majority who share my views, thats okay. Part of demoncracy is having different opinions but being okay with losing every time.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (26 Aug 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> That's the thing, with "women's rights", what about that baby's rights? The right for them to grow and continue to live inside a woman until they're born? Why is it only until they're not attached to someone that they're no longer allowed to be killed legally? (Just my opinion. Not looking for a debate.)



Here's a good example of the absurd results that we get with this arbitrary determination that the child is only a person once outside the mother. In 1981, Manitoba resident Bernice Daniels was stabbed in the abdomen, resulting in the premature birth of her child who lived for 19 minutes before dying from injuries suffered during the attack. Sandra Prince was eventually convicted of the child's manslaughter. 

Yet on the other hand there are numerous similar cases where the child died in utero and there was therefore no charge. For example the case of Turan Cocelli who stabbed his pregnant wife to death. Apparently the fetus still had a heartbeat at the hospital but by the time the surgeons completed the emergency c-section the baby was stillborn, so Cocelli was only charged with one count of murder.

So long as you make sure the baby is dead in utero there's absolutely no criminal charge, but if the baby lives long enough to be delivered (prematurely as a result of the attack) then it's murder.



			
				Drallib said:
			
		

> I suppose I would be one of those "religious nutbars" who gives the answer "because God" when it comes to same-sex marriage, because let's be honest, if you don't believe in the Bible then why would you care about who has sex with who, or who gets drunk at the bars, or who goes to see strippers at the club, etc...



I think it's a great failure on the part of the "pro-life" movement (which I frankly have very little use for, despite being personally vehemently opposed to abortion) that they allowed this to be framed as a "religion vs. science".

People would see me as one of those "religious nutbars" as well because I hold strong religious convictions. However, my religious beliefs are only a part of why I oppose abortion. To me it's simply a belief that murder is wrong and, as I understand the science, from a very early period of gestation a fetus is a human being by any definition I can think of (heartbeat, ten fingers/ten toes, etc.). I think everyone agrees that killing babies is wrong ... the real question is -- what, from a medical/science perspective constitutes a human being?

To say that one only becomes human once they exit their mother's womb seems arbitrary to me.



			
				Drallib said:
			
		

> I wasn't sure how to express my views on this, but yes I'm a "SoCon", but I wouldn't push same-sex relations to be illegal. Punishing people for acting on their feelings/attractions isn't going to make them believe in God.



I think we're largely on the same page. You cannot legislate vice, essentially, it just doesn't work. Throwing people in jail will probably make people even more opposed to God.

Interestingly, back in the Medieval Europe, prostitution was not illegal. Obviously the Catholic Church condemned the practice, but the view was that outlawing it would cause more harm/problems than good, so it was tolerated. Likewise they never had prohibition even though preachers bemoaned drunkenness.



			
				Drallib said:
			
		

> Also, I do think firearms should be regulated. Let's keep people safe. But I do love sending rounds down range, and I'm sure there's a way to regulate them without a complete ban.



I actually think the system we had before the OIC was pretty reasonable and, most importantly, it worked. Crimes committed with the rifles that have been banned were vanishingly rare and often committed in circumstances where the firearm was owned illegally anyway so outlawing them won't change anything.


----------



## Drallib (26 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Here's a good example of the absurd results that we get with this arbitrary determination that the child is only a person once outside the mother. In 1981, Manitoba resident Bernice Daniels was stabbed in the abdomen, resulting in the premature birth of her child who lived for 19 minutes before dying from injuries suffered during the attack. Sandra Prince was eventually convicted of the child's manslaughter.
> 
> Yet on the other hand there are numerous similar cases where the child died in utero and there was therefore no charge. For example the case of Turan Cocelli who stabbed his pregnant wife to death. Apparently the fetus still had a heartbeat at the hospital but by the time the surgeons completed the emergency c-section the baby was stillborn, so Cocelli was only charged with one count of murder.
> 
> So long as you make sure the baby is dead in utero there's absolutely no criminal charge, but if the baby lives long enough to be delivered (prematurely as a result of the attack) then it's murder.



Thanks for sharing this information!



			
				LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> I think it's a great failure on the part of the "pro-life" movement (which I frankly have very little use for, despite being personally vehemently opposed to abortion) that they allowed this to be framed as a "religion vs. science".
> 
> People would see me as one of those "religious nutbars" as well because I hold strong religious convictions. However, my religious beliefs are only a part of why I oppose abortion. To me it's simply a belief that murder is wrong and, as I understand the science, from a very early period of gestation a fetus is a human being by any definition I can think of (heartbeat, ten fingers/ten toes, etc.). I think everyone agrees that killing babies is wrong ... the real question is -- what, from a medical/science perspective constitutes a human being?
> 
> To say that one only becomes human once they exit their mother's womb seems arbitrary to me.



Part of the reason I didn't include aborting babies in my "because God" list is because even if I weren't a Christian, I would still have the opinion that unborn developing human beings inside their mothers have the right to live. I'm not a part of any "movement" and I don't think this particular topic should be "religion vs science".



			
				LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> I think we're largely on the same page. You cannot legislate vice, essentially, it just doesn't work. Throwing people in jail will probably make people even more opposed to God.
> 
> Interestingly, back in the Medieval Europe, prostitution was not illegal. Obviously the Catholic Church condemned the practice, but the view was that outlawing it would cause more harm/problems than good, so it was tolerated. Likewise they never had prohibition even though preachers bemoaned drunkenness.
> 
> I actually think the system we had before the OIC was pretty reasonable and, most importantly, it worked. Crimes committed with the rifles that have been banned were vanishingly rare and often committed in circumstances where the firearm was owned illegally anyway so outlawing them won't change anything.



Thanks again for the information.



			
				stellarpanther said:
			
		

> No handguns, or other firearms.  We don't need them.



stellarpanter, I would say handguns could be used for self defence reasons. With this ban, where it may or may not reduce the amount of guns aquired illegally, I think that law-abiding and responsible citizens should be able to use this weapon system in the event of self defence.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Wow...



Yea you're right. Kids just find creative ways to swear and get around the censor program


----------



## Donald H (26 Aug 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> .............., because let's be honest, if you don't believe in the Bible then why would you care about who has sex with who, or who gets drunk at the bars, or who goes to see strippers at the club, etc...



Yes, let's be completely honest. That's an offensive thing to say. People who feel 'socially responsible' do not refrain  from those activities you've listed because of the God. Or for that matter, any other immoral or illegal activity because of the God.
 :cheers: :cheers:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> So long as you make sure the baby is dead in utero there's absolutely no criminal charge, but if the baby lives long enough to be delivered (prematurely as a result of the attack) then it's murder.



Not to further take off track a thread that started as a discussion about the chances of renewed CPC *leadership* being successful in the future, I, being a stickler for accuracy, question the part of your statement that I've highlighted.  Given that you're a lawyer (correct me if I'm in error), I would have assumed that you would have stated more correctly that such a situation would likely result in charges for aggravated assault rather than none "absolutely".


----------



## brihard (26 Aug 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> I've always believed there should be a well defined right to property.  Because of the progressive left movement which I fear would abuse government powers, I am now much more in favour of having property rights enshrined in our charter somehow.  I don't know how or if that is possible, I understand it certainly won't happen under the current government.



Realistically, never gonna happen. Our Charter (Edit Constitution, inclusive of the Charter, has a few amendment formulas, depending on what's being amended. To amend the Charter, identical legislation to amend the Constitution Act would have to be passed by:

- The HOC
- The Senate
- At least 7 provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the Canadian population

The odds of our Charter or any substantial element of our Constitution beign amended at this point are exceptionally slim. It's been pretty much fossilized since the collapse of the Meech Lake Accord in 1987. Any reopening of the Constitution would result in a number of provinces wanting to delve into other larger issues, and the odds of getting all of those moving parts to align would likely be nil in the face of intransigence by various actors because they also want to address X or Y.

All that aside, the biggest push for enshrining property rights likely would come from the firearms lobby. That right there likely would prevent it from getting sufficient support. They wouldn't get BC or Quebec, and that only to more provinces need to decline to move forward with it. It would take long enough that there would be provincial governments changing parties during the process, and it would be an election issue in those provinces. And, of course, at the federal level it would be stillborn without a Conservative or Conservative aligned majority government.

So yeah- realistically, a non-starter. Our Constitution is in all practical terms very hard to change.


----------



## Donald H (26 Aug 2020)

The discussion on abortion brought up an interesting question to mind: If a married man gets his girlfriend pregnant, should the man have any say in the woman's choice to have an abortion?

And to take it to another level, considering that some conservatives' opinion is that a woman is aborting a child if she uses birth control pills or the 'morninig after' pill, should the man have a say on whether the woman should be allowed to use such pills?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> The discussion on abortion brought up an interesting question to mind: If a married man gets his girlfriend pregnant, should the man have any say in the woman's choice to have an abortion?
> 
> And to take it to another level, considering that some conservatives' opinion is that a woman is aborting a child if she uses birth control pills or the 'morninig after' pill, should the man have a say on whether the woman should be allowed to use such pills?



Asking for a "friend"?  Or speculating that someone in the CPC leadership is in such a situation? Or that this would be a serious discussion point in a future election?  Perhaps a topic split is in order.  Personal opinion - when you get the affected uterus, you get a vote in the matter.


----------



## Donald H (26 Aug 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Asking for a "friend"?



Me? No.



> Or speculating that someone in the CPC leadership is in such a situation?



Not that I'm aware of right now but quite likely the situation could arise in any of the parties!



> Or that this would be a serious discussion point in a future election?



I sincerely hope that the abortion issue is discussed completely in parliament and not dealt with as it's been dealt with in the US. That reluctance to deal with the issue has resulted in M.D.'s being shot dead.



> Perhaps a topic split is in order.  Personal opinion - when you get the affected uterus, you get a vote in the matter.



I hear you. My opinion is that the man who got his girlfriend pregnant should have no say in the matter. He's already guilty of making one bad decision.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Aug 2020)

Abortion isn't a "religion vs science" issue.  It's a philosophical and legal issue.  Everything hinges on when human life becomes a person, and what rights a person has.  To one side of the spectrum, we know that human life can be viable (become a person) before whatever its natural birth date would have been.  To the other side, Peter Singer is probably the best known of people who argue for permission to euthanize (severely disabled) children at some point after birth.  Science cannot identify when a human life becomes a person; all science can identify is markers along the road from conception to death.  Law cannot identify when a human life becomes a person; all law can do is assert definitions to support an aim.

Property rights should be much more strongly protected.  Without some absolute rights in property, a person basically only has inherent ownership of himself.  That is all that separates a person from slavery.  We should have more protections from the whim of the mob (people in fear, who assert that "people don't need to have X").  "Need" has nothing to do with the universe of activities that constitute "pursuit of happiness".


----------



## garb811 (26 Aug 2020)

Partial cleanup of the thread, if you're looking to discuss Gun Control, that's been moved to the Great Gun Control Thread 2.0.

- Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## shawn5o (26 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Realistically, never gonna happen. Our Charter has a few amendment formulas, depending on what's being amended. To amend the Charter, identical legislation to amend the Constitution Act would have to be passed by:
> 
> - The HOC
> - The Senate
> ...



I'm not sure but property rights were not included in the 1982 Constitution Act because the of provinces objections.?


----------



## brihard (26 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> I'm not sure but property rights were not included in the 1982 Constitution Act because the of provinces objections.?



Yup. PET actually proposed property rights in the first drafts of the Charter, but a few of the provinces weren’t cool with it. They feared it might limit provincial expropriation powers, among other things. Saskatchewan in particular made the elimination of property rights a condition for accepting the proposed constitution. Federally, the NDP bucked as well.


----------



## QV (26 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> My opinion is that the man who got his girlfriend pregnant should have no say in the matter. He's already guilty of making one bad decision.



In the words of Dave Chappelle: "My wallet, my choice."

Should one person's decision be able to affect so many others in such a profound way?  For example, in an unplanned pregnancy (a casual sex situation) where the mother wants to keep but the father does not, should the father than be absolved of any future financial and parental obligations?


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (26 Aug 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Not to further take off track a thread that started as a discussion about the chances of renewed CPC *leadership* being successful in the future, I, being a stickler for accuracy, question the part of your statement that I've highlighted.  Given that you're a lawyer (correct me if I'm in error), I would have assumed that you would have stated more correctly that such a situation would likely result in charges for aggravated assault rather than none "absolutely".



Fair enough, I should have been more specific/exclicit that when I say "absolutely no criminal charges" I meant in relation to the fetus.

Whether the baby lives long enough to make it outside the womb before dying, the attacker will still be facing charges for assault/aggravated assault/manslaughter/murder etc. in regards to the mother.


----------



## Weinie (26 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I hear you. My opinion is that the man who got his girlfriend pregnant should have no say in the matter. He's already guilty of making one bad decision.



Except if the girlfriend emphatically assures you that she is using a birth control method (the pill), there is no need for a condom, declares she is pregnant, and then says she must have missed a day. (Not that I have ever experienced a situation like this.......cough,cough). Not a bad decision, bad judgement.


----------



## suffolkowner (26 Aug 2020)

Monty Python to the rescue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Aug 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Monty Python to the rescue
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk



And the other view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBjsFAyiwA


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Aug 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> Except if the girlfriend emphatically assures you that she is using a birth control method (the pill), there is no need for a condom, declares she is pregnant, and then says she must have missed a day. (Not that I have ever experienced a situation like this.......cough,cough). Not a bad decision, bad judgement.



Unless I badly misheard in Grade 9 Bio, it takes two ingredients to create human life.


----------



## Donald H (27 Aug 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> Except if the girlfriend emphatically assures you that she is using a birth control method (the pill), there is no need for a condom, declares she is pregnant, and then says she must have missed a day. (Not that I have ever experienced a situation like this.......cough,cough). Not a bad decision, bad judgement.



I hear you but my opinion wouldn't change on the man not having any say in whether to abort of keep the fetus. The reason being that the situation hasn't changed. 

You know Weinie, sometimes I get the feeling that issues must be invented for political purposes, when in reality very little social disagreement exists in Canada.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (27 Aug 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> Except if the girlfriend emphatically assures you that she is using a birth control method (the pill), there is no need for a condom, declares she is pregnant, and then says she must have missed a day. (Not that I have ever experienced a situation like this.......cough,cough). Not a bad decision, bad judgement.



Caveat emptor.  Much as in real estate transactions (or, to bring it somewhat back on topic, in judging the statements made by politicians), it is up to the party of the first part to confirm all claims prior to taking action.  In the absence of a binding warranty against all perils or consequences occurring after the fact, then one has to live with the outcome of their actions.


----------



## shawn5o (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I hear you. My opinion is that the man who got his girlfriend pregnant should have no say in the matter. He's already guilty of making one bad decision.



and



			
				QV said:
			
		

> In the words of Dave Chappelle: "My wallet, my choice."
> 
> Should one person's decision be able to affect so many others in such a profound way?  For example, in an unplanned pregnancy (a casual sex situation) where the mother wants to keep but the father does not, should the father than be absolved of any future financial and parental obligations?



I cannot give a clear answer on these statements. I believe it was in Québec where a young couple found out that  she was pregnant. The father wanted to keep the pregnancy whereas the mother didn't. He went to court to stop the abortion and while it was winding through the court, she went ahead and had the abortion. A couple of days later, the court declined the father's wishes and then he found out she had had the abortion.

As for financial obligations, I think the man usually loses.

Slightly different - apparently if a man and woman live together and she has a child from another relationship, if the current man accepts the child (not adoption) and they later splitup, he can be made to pay child support. In another weird twist, a man raises the child thinking he is the father, and the couple split up, he would probably have to pay child support even though he is not the biological father.

Perhaps one of the legal beagles (no offence meant) can clear my a/m post.


----------



## FJAG (27 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> ...
> Perhaps one of the legal beagles (no offence meant) can clear my a/m post.



I'm staying out of this discussion.

 :worms:


----------



## Weinie (27 Aug 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Caveat emptor.  Much as in real estate transactions (or, to bring it somewhat back on topic, in judging the statements made by politicians), it is up to the party of the first part to confirm all claims prior to taking action.  In the absence of a binding warranty against all perils or consequences occurring after the fact, then one has to live with the outcome of their actions.



Except that, if you deliberately misrepresent the property that you are selling, it is a tort. There is no warranty excuse when you deliberately mislead.


----------



## suffolkowner (27 Aug 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And the other view.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBjsFAyiwA



very good clip as well. The abortion discussion is such a minefield that I expect our Canadian solution to remain for some time


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Aug 2020)

The tricky bit is that AFIK, there is no law in Canada that specifically permits, or prohibits abortion. To those who shout "he's going to change the law", I say "you have to create that law first".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I hear you but my opinion wouldn't change on the man not having any say in whether to abort of keep the fetus. The reason being that the situation hasn't changed.
> 
> You know Weinie, sometimes I get the feeling that issues must be invented for political purposes, when in reality very little social disagreement exists in Canada.



I would argue that a full science based discussion and few films of late term abortions would likely convince most Canadians to accept abortion by choice in the first, possibly 2nd trimester and only under extraordinarily circumstances in the 3rd. That is a solution neither group of advocates would be happy for, so they avoid it. Also as I have mentioned there are heavy legal implications for the State, if life is deemed to start in the womb and the mother is incapable of caring properly for the fetus (think drug addiction).


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 Sep 2020)

The CPC has a new logo.

https://twitter.com/i/events/1308516896921194496


----------



## Remius (22 Sep 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> The CPC has a new logo.
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/events/1308516896921194496



Good I guess...RCAF?  I wonder how long that will be tolerated...


----------



## Kilted (18 Jan 2021)

O'Toole says he wants to eject Derek Sloan from caucus after donation from white nationalist | CBC News

I suspect he's wanted to do this for awhile, and is just using this as an excuse.  Given the same size of the donation I think that it is reasonable to suspect that Sloan's staff was unaware of this individual background.  I don't think that it's reasonable to expect research to be done on every single person who donates.  My guess would be that most politicians from all parts of the spectrum have received donations from individuals that they wouldn't want to be associated with.


----------



## brihard (18 Jan 2021)

Kilted said:


> O'Toole says he wants to eject Derek Sloan from caucus after donation from white nationalist | CBC News
> 
> I suspect he's wanted to do this for awhile, and is just using this as an excuse.  Given the same size of the donation I think that it is reasonable to suspect that Sloan's staff was unaware of this individual background.  I don't think that it's reasonable to expect research to be done on every single person who donates.  My guess would be that most politicians from all parts of the spectrum have received donations from individuals that they wouldn't want to be associated with.


Concur. Sounds like the donation was in the name of “(other name) P. Fronm”. Easy enough to get missed.

It’s a no-win for O’Toole, but with really only one choice. He absolutely cannot accept the risk of any of this particular type of mud sticking. As likely as it is that Sloan’s campaign was unaware of who the donation came from, strategically the CPC will get eaten alive worse if they don’t throw Sloan under the bus than they will if they do. While a lot of noise is now being made by people calling O’Toole ‘liberal-lite’, I think he saw and seized an opportunity to be seen taking a tough stand on a issue of strategic concern for the party’s image. O’Toole will take the bulk of the political damage personally, rather than CPC as a party eating it and losing votes.

However with a possible spring election coming to lock in a majority, O’Toole will really need to start swinging soon if he’s to energize Conservative voters. Pollievre had been arguably more visible than he has. Not a great look.


----------



## Haggis (19 Jan 2021)

Kilted said:


> O'Toole says he wants to eject Derek Sloan from caucus after donation from white nationalist | CBC News
> 
> I suspect he's wanted to do this for awhile, and is just using this as an excuse.  Given the same size of the donation I think that it is reasonable to suspect that Sloan's staff was unaware of this individual background.  I don't think that it's reasonable to expect research to be done on every single person who donates.  My guess would be that most politicians from all parts of the spectrum have received donations from individuals that they wouldn't want to be associated with.


Sloan was always too far right for my liking.  I attempted to communicate with his team during the leadership campaign regarding his somewhat extreme (IMO) firearms policy but never even received an acknowledgement.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jan 2021)

brihard said:


> Concur. Sounds like the donation was in the name of “(other name) P. Fronm”. Easy enough to get missed.
> 
> It’s a no-win for O’Toole, but with really only one choice. He absolutely cannot accept the risk of any of this particular type of mud sticking. As likely as it is that Sloan’s campaign was unaware of who the donation came from, strategically the CPC will get eaten alive worse if they don’t throw Sloan under the bus than they will if they do. While a lot of noise is now being made by people calling O’Toole ‘liberal-lite’, I think he saw and seized an opportunity to be seen taking a tough stand on a issue of strategic concern for the party’s image. O’Toole will take the bulk of the political damage personally, rather than CPC as a party eating it and losing votes.
> 
> However with a possible spring election coming to lock in a majority, O’Toole will really need to start swinging soon if he’s to energize Conservative voters. Pollievre had been arguably more visible than he has. Not a great look.


 Maybe Sloan should apologize and cry a little bit?

...that seems to work well with Canadians.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 Jan 2021)

I had never heard of O'Toole before the leadership contest.  I have been pleasantly surprised so far.


----------



## RangerRay (19 Jan 2021)

While this particular instance sounds minor, it may be a case of the last straw breaking the camel’s back. In my opinion, O’Toole should have turfed Sloan long ago after some of his more offensive utterances.


----------



## Remius (19 Jan 2021)

RangerRay said:


> While this particular instance sounds minor, it may be a case of the last straw breaking the camel’s back. In my opinion, O’Toole should have turfed Sloan long ago after some of his more offensive utterances.


This had to be done.

Rest assured that Trudeau et al will be using what is happening south of us to try and frame the CPC in the same light if they see an opening.  Abortion and gay rights was on the last election ballot according to them and the CPC completely got outmanoeuvred and shyte the bed with their response to that.  They need to do better next round which could be this spring.


----------



## Kilted (19 Jan 2021)

While I agree that he could have been shown the door for his comments about Covid, I don't think that this is a legitimate reason to kick him out of the party.  This is a move that could cause division in the party, given the fact they are kicking him out over an issue that also applies to the party as a whole.  O'Toole should be a little more patient and pick a better hill for Sloan to die on.


----------



## Remius (19 Jan 2021)

Kilted said:


> While I agree that he could have been shown the door for his comments about Covid, I don't think that this is a legitimate reason to kick him out of the party.  This is a move that could cause division in the party, given the fact they are kicking him out over an issue that also applies to the party as a whole.  O'Toole should be a little more patient and pick a better hill for Sloan to die on.


I’m pretty sure the party as a whole aren’t receiving donations from extremists while espousing the kind of politics he is.  He legitimately might not have known but he’s now a liability one way or another.  If another member got a donation of this kind but had no history of the kind of politics Sloan has then I would agree with you.
While not the best hill, it’s the latest.  Good riddance as far as I’m concerned. And if it means he can deal with the others of his ilk in the party now it means he’ll have less of an issue come next election.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2021)

Remius said:


> I’m pretty sure the party as a whole aren’t receiving donations from extremists while espousing the kind of politics he is.  He legitimately might not have known but he’s now a liability one way or another.  If another member got a donation of this kind but had no history of the kind of politics Sloan has then I would agree with you.
> While not the best hill, it’s the latest.  Good riddance as far as I’m concerned. And if it means he can deal with the others of his ilk in the party now it means he’ll have less of an issue come next election.


What are the odds he ends up in the peoples party?


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jan 2021)

The Liberals have to be busting a gut laughing over stuff like this. They really have the conservatives over a barrel. 

Trudeau can travel to another country with someone_ jailed in Canada for an assassination attempt_ or rub shoulders with CCP Elite businessmen and people charged in _illegal high-end Toronto gambling rings_ with _armed guards and human trafficking_, but that's nothing compared to a $131 from a *white supremacist.* Clever.

At least O'Toole is consistent and doesn't just scream for Liberals to be fired. As someone who's been bombarded by the CPC begging for donations (and repeatedly ignored when I've unsubscribed and asked them to stop) I can't help but laugh.


----------



## Kilted (19 Jan 2021)

Remius said:


> I’m pretty sure the party as a whole aren’t receiving donations from extremists while espousing the kind of politics he is.  He legitimately might not have known but he’s now a liability one way or another.  If another member got a donation of this kind but had no history of the kind of politics Sloan has then I would agree with you.
> While not the best hill, it’s the latest.  Good riddance as far as I’m concerned. And if it means he can deal with the others of his ilk in the party now it means he’ll have less of an issue come next election.


The Party atomically received 10% of all donations.


----------



## brihard (19 Jan 2021)

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> I had never heard of O'Toole before the leadership contest.  I have been pleasantly surprised so far.


I was fortunate to be invited to do some volunteer advisory work for VAC when he was minister of veterans affairs, and got to meet him and discuss stuff with him several times. Good guy, in my estimation. Fairly middle of the road. I really got the feel that he actually gave a damn about his portfolio- I saw him as the right MVA under the wrong government at the wrong time; he was hindered from doing right by his portfolio because of deficit reduction etc. While my preference was MacKay for leader of the CPC, I have no heartache with Erin winning it. I wish he hadn't brought the guy on that he did for social media ('Ontario Proud' founder and 'Post Millennial' exec), but it is what it is.


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Jan 2021)

Remius said:


> I’m pretty sure the party as a whole aren’t receiving donations from extremists while espousing the kind of politics he is.  He legitimately might not have known but he’s now a liability one way or another.  If another member got a donation of this kind but had no history of the kind of politics Sloan has then I would agree with you.
> While not the best hill, it’s the latest.  Good riddance as far as I’m concerned. And if it means he can deal with the others of his ilk in the party now it means he’ll have less of an issue come next election.


Sure, Sloan got a donation (which he returned), but Fromm also joined the party and voted in the leadership election, so kind of bullshit to kick him out of the party for that. So if the party vetting didn't catch him not sure how they can punish a candidate for the same.

I think it was overdue, but the actual reason is massively hypocritical. Which is very on-brand for any political party I guess.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Jan 2021)

Isn't he married to a woman of color ?


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Isn't he married to a woman of color ?


When has this ever mattered?


----------



## Kilted (20 Jan 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Isn't he married to a woman of color ?


And has three interracial children.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jan 2021)

There are some shifty people in the CPC HQ trying to push the Tories to be a Center-Left party and embrace woke-activism. The more and more I read about this whole Sloan situation it reads like a set up to get rid of him. Whether O'Toole is part of it, or is getting half-truths when being briefed remains to be seen.


----------



## Remius (20 Jan 2021)

I would be happy if they just pushed to be right of centre.


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2021)

Kilted said:


> And has three interracial children.


classic association fallacy.


----------



## Kilted (20 Jan 2021)

Well it's been done, I worried that the CPC has made a mistake.  I would hate to see another party split over this.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Jan 2021)

What's to prevent strawman donations to effect a similar outcome?


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jan 2021)

Altair said:


> classic association fallacy.


Wait wait wait, it's an association fallacy to think he's probably not a racist because he has children with his BIPOC spouse? Or are you implying that he set the whole thing up as some sort of elaborate ruse to hide his membership in the KKK?


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Wait wait wait, it's an association fallacy to think he's probably not a racist because he has children with his BIPOC spouse? Or are you implying that he set the whole thing up as some sort of elaborate ruse to hide his membership in the KKK?


It's a classic myth that a person cannot be racist because they have an association with a person of color.

How many times have you heard someone say they cannot be racist because they have a black friend? This is along those lines. One can be racist and married to a person of color.


----------



## Kilted (20 Jan 2021)

Altair said:


> It's a classic myth that a person cannot be racist because they have an association with a person of color.
> 
> How many times have you heard someone say they cannot be racist because they have a black friend? This is along those lines. One can be racist and married to a person of color.


I think that there is a bit of a difference between friend and wife.


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2021)

Kilted said:


> I think that their is a bit of a difference between friend and wife.


I think someone can be racist,and say racist things nomatter who they are married to.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jan 2021)

Altair said:


> I think someone can be racist,and say racist things nomatter who they are married to.


I think someone who wants to see another person as racist will seek as much confirmation bias as possible in the face of facts to prove their view is correct, regardless of how ridiculous the supposition is.


----------



## Kilted (20 Jan 2021)

Altair said:


> I think someone can be racist,and say racist things nomatter who they are married to.


Different people will give out the racist label for many different reasons, some are legitimate, some are not. You voted for x party, that means you're racist.  You are part of x religion, that means you're racist. You're in the military, that means you're racist. I actually got that last one once, but the person did start the conversation by saying that they were a socialist, so I should have expected some odd statements. That being said I don't agree with the things he said about Dr Tam. It's forseeable that some people might have different levels of tolerance for different races, but I doubt that you will find very many true white surpremists married to a non-white women.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Jan 2021)

I think Sloan was the victim of political expediency.   I wasn't a fan, he was more right than I.  But I think he was sacrificed to save face.  The CONs wanted to get out in front of the problem.  Fromm was a member of the party. 

I cant believe that human could love another intimately; and in marriage; and raise children together and still be considered raciest towards that person.  This is the type of mental gymnastics the left loses me on.


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think Sloan was the victim of political expediency.   I wasn't a fan, he was more right than I.  But I think he was sacrificed to save face.  The CONs wanted to get out in front of the problem.  Fromm was a member of the party.
> 
> I cant believe that human could love another intimately; and in marriage; and raise children together and still be considered raciest towards that person.  This is the type of mental gymnastics the left loses me on.


That's because (in my opinion) you have a binary view on what is considered racism.

Racism isn't confined to those who join the klu klux klan. There is casual racism, unconscious racism, normal everyday casual racism.

Saying Asians must be great at math, racist.

Black guys must be great at basketball, racist. (I suck at basketball)

And saying the chief medical officer must be in bed with china due to her background, definitely racist.

It doesn't matter who you are married to in that sense, if that's what a person is spouting,it's racist, full stop. He probably loves his wife as a person but is racist to others on a whole, it's not that hard to comprehend. 

Long story short, marrying someone of a different race does not give someone carte blanche to say racist things.


----------



## FJAG (20 Jan 2021)

I have no idea as to whether or not Sloan is a racist. That's never been the issue about him with me. The problem is that he is a Social Conservative with a capital "S". He flouted that during the last leadership race while trying to get the corner on the social conservative element of the party. IMHO, social conservatism, unless it can be controlled, will be the death knell of the party (On the other hand should the SCs flee the party, that won't help either) Sloan was a destabilizing force inside the caucus. It will be easier to manage the party with him on the outside.

I'm glad that he's out.

🍻


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Jan 2021)

Altair said:


> That's because (in my opinion) you have a binary view on what is considered racism.
> 
> Racism isn't confined to those who join the klu klux klan. There is casual racism, unconscious racism, normal everyday casual racism.
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (20 Jan 2021)

> - I suppose I can see your point if his racism is pointed in another direction. I just can't see how a person who, for example, hated African Canadians could marry and have children with an African Canadian. Seems counterintuitive to me.


 Not all racism is based in hate.

I love my dog, but I generally view her as inferior to humans. If I held that same view to another group of human beings, racist.

John A. MacDonald, I don't think hated first nations, but he probably held the view at the time that they were inferior to those of European descent. Racism not based in hate.


----------



## brihard (20 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> I have no idea as to whether or not Sloan is a racist. That's never been the issue about him with me. The problem is that he is a Social Conservative with a capital "S". He flouted that during the last leadership race while trying to get the corner on the social conservative element of the party. IMHO, social conservatism, unless it can be controlled, will be the death knell of the party (On the other hand should the SCs flee the party, that won't help either) Sloan was a destabilizing force inside the caucus. It will be easier to manage the party with him on the outside.
> 
> I'm glad that he's out.
> 
> 🍻


Indeed. He was a liability to the party's chances of successfully drawing enough swing voters in the next election. Those who will throw their teddy in the corner and not vote CPC because of Sloan getting turfed do not, realistically, have any other viable option and enough of them will know this. Every voter they would have kept by retaining Sloan would have risked potentially several voters from the centre.

Will some of the SoCons maybe get cranky and flirt with the idea of not voting, or, more uselessly, voting PPC if they stick around? Sure, they may. But the calculus on this is likely favourable to being seen to take a very firm stance on the appearance of support from neo-Nazis.


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> I have no idea as to whether or not Sloan is a racist. That's never been the issue about him with me. The problem is that he is a Social Conservative with a capital "S". He flouted that during the last leadership race while trying to get the corner on the social conservative element of the party. IMHO, social conservatism, unless it can be controlled, will be the death knell of the party (On the other hand should the SCs flee the party, that won't help either) Sloan was a destabilizing force inside the caucus. It will be easier to manage the party with him on the outside.
> 
> I'm glad that he's out.
> 
> 🍻


Fully agree with all of that, just wish they had shown the spine to do it for those reasons, and not kicked him out for taking a donation for someone they didn't like, even though they let the same guy join the party and vote in the leadership race.


----------



## FJAG (20 Jan 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Fully agree with all of that, just wish they had shown the spine to do it for those reasons, and not kicked him out for taking a donation for someone they didn't like, even though they let the same guy join the party and vote in the leadership race.


Don't know what went on behind closed doors but the news reports tend to describe this as a "the straw that broke the camel's back" sort of situation. So it was more a matter of accumulated ills. I tend to agree though. The way it originally came out sounded pretty picayune.

🍻


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> I have no idea as to whether or not Sloan is a racist. That's never been the issue about him with me. The problem is that he is a Social Conservative with a capital "S". He flouted that during the last leadership race while trying to get the corner on the social conservative element of the party. IMHO, social conservatism, unless it can be controlled, will be the death knell of the party (On the other hand should the SCs flee the party, that won't help either) Sloan was a destabilizing force inside the caucus. It will be easier to manage the party with him on the outside.
> 
> I'm glad that he's out.
> 
> 🍻


They are running and the CPC is paying a price. Maybe the smart move is for fiscal cons to migrate en mass into the LPC and restore sanity there.


----------



## FJAG (21 Jan 2021)

Cloud Cover said:


> They are running and the CPC is paying a price. Maybe the smart move is for fiscal cons to migrate en mass into the LPC and restore sanity there.


I've actually signed up as a delegate for the CPC virtual convention and am on my EDA's policy committee just to see how true that is. Not been confirmed yet. Couldn't see going to the LPC. They're too wrapped up in spending money on Easterners (I'm talking about you Toronto and Quebec) in order to buy their way to perpetual power. It's a good thing the NDP never gets smart enough to merge with them. That would truly let insanity and proliferation to run rampant.

🍻


----------



## CBH99 (21 Jan 2021)

Goodness gracious that's a terrifying thought FJAG...


----------



## FJAG (1 Feb 2021)

Just spent the entire day writing two resolutions for presentation to my EDA Policy Committee meeting this Tuesday. 

The first one was a lengthy series of resolutions reordering and rewriting many aspects of the Part of the Policy Declaration on National Defence and Security. That should get a ho hum interest.

The second was one striking various provision from the Policy Declaration which I think are damaging to the party. That should result in some lively debate.

🍻


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (1 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> I have no idea as to whether or not Sloan is a racist. That's never been the issue about him with me. The problem is that he is a Social Conservative with a capital "S". He flouted that during the last leadership race while trying to get the corner on the social conservative element of the party. IMHO, social conservatism, unless it can be controlled, will be the death knell of the party (On the other hand should the SCs flee the party, that won't help either) Sloan was a destabilizing force inside the caucus. It will be easier to manage the party with him on the outside.
> 
> I'm glad that he's out.
> 
> 🍻





brihard said:


> Indeed. He was a liability to the party's chances of successfully drawing enough swing voters in the next election. Those who will throw their teddy in the corner and not vote CPC because of Sloan getting turfed do not, realistically, have any other viable option and enough of them will know this. Every voter they would have kept by retaining Sloan would have risked potentially several voters from the centre.
> 
> Will some of the SoCons maybe get cranky and flirt with the idea of not voting, or, more uselessly, voting PPC if they stick around? Sure, they may. But the calculus on this is likely favourable to being seen to take a very firm stance on the appearance of support from neo-Nazis.



Interesting takes ... basically, "social conservatives are not welcome" but "we'll take their vote so long as they have no voice". I think this does sum up the difficult relationship between "SoCons" and the CPC. Both dislike each other but both feel that they need the other.

I think that the CPC needs SoCons more than the other way around ... it would probably be healthier for both to part ways, but I believe the CPC would struggle to ever form a government without that demographic, and conversely I doubt a Socially Conservative party could ever win a single seat ... maybe one or two here-and-there but nothing significant.


----------



## FJAG (1 Feb 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Interesting takes ... basically, "social conservatives are not welcome" but "we'll take their vote so long as they have no voice". I think this does sum up the difficult relationship between "SoCons" and the CPC. Both dislike each other but both feel that they need the other.
> 
> I think that the CPC needs SoCons more than the other way around ... it would probably be healthier for both to part ways, but I believe the CPC would struggle to ever form a government without that demographic, and conversely I doubt a Socially Conservative party could ever win a single seat ... maybe one or two here-and-there but nothing significant.


It's not so much that they are not welcome. It's that there is a concerted movement amongst them to take over the CPC (if they haven't already succeeded with that) and make it a one issue party that revolves around their belief system. IMHO the problem here is that they aren't satisfied with having freedom of religion, what they need is to put forward legislation which imposes their belief system on everyone. Personally I couldn't care less if they never have an abortion; it's that they insist no one have one. Personally I couldn't care less if they don't like gays; so longa as they don't deny them services that they provide to others. What does it matter who marries whom? Why try to deny some folks that status?

As to your second paragraph, I fear you are exactly right. Remember the days of the PCs and the Reform party. And let's face it, as I've said before, if the Libs and NDP could ever resolve their differences they'd be an unbeatable union in this country. Then we'd really be the socialists that the US thinks we already are.

🍻


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (1 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> It's not so much that they are not welcome. It's that there is a concerted movement amongst them to take over the CPC (if they haven't already succeeded with that) and make it a one issue party that revolves around their belief system. IMHO the problem here is that they aren't satisfied with having freedom of religion, what they need is to put forward legislation which imposes their belief system on everyone. Personally I couldn't care less if they never have an abortion; it's that they insist no one have one. Personally I couldn't care less if they don't like gays; so longa as they don't deny them services that they provide to others. What does it matter who marries whom? Why try to deny some folks that status?



Re: the highlighted, I do not see any evidence of them having succeeded in any way at taking over the CPC, given that it wasn't a unilateral move by Mr. O'Toole to throw Mr. Sloan out of the party, it was a majority of MPs who voted to do this. Given the very thin pretext (he was removed over receiving a donation -- which was returned as soon as he realized who the donor was -- from a member of the CPC in good standing) for the removal, this does not suggest a lot of support for a fellow social conservative in the CPC caucus.

Now I don't have a great knowledge of the internal workings of the CPC. I'm a member and a donor, but not much more ... I missed the sign-up for the convention plus my riding is over limit for delegates anyway. I don't see the CPC platform as one that's under the control of social conservatives ... everyone is always upset about SoCons making abortion illegal or reinstating certain morality laws -- but I see nothing in the CPC platform about actually implementing any of this nor has the CPC ever done that when it has formed government. So while it's an effective scare tactic employed by the LPC it does not seem to bear much alignment with reality in my view to say the SoCons have much influence let alone control of the CPC.

I don't disagree that SoCons need a different approach. Regardless of whether it's appropriate to force beliefs on others, it's utterly futile. Even IF abortion were outlawed it would be meaningless since no one would pay attention to that law and even if some prosecutor somewhere tried to prosecute juries would nullify/return not guilty verdicts. So while I understand the position (SoCons believe that murder is wrong, and believe that unborn children are human beings, therefore ought to be protected by the law) there is no chance of it succeeding so not worth pursuing since all it does is alienate others. I'd rather see an approach where we try to help create societal conditions where people don't feel the need for an abortion.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Feb 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Re: the highlighted, I do not see any evidence of them having succeeded in any way at taking over the CPC, given that it wasn't a unilateral move by Mr. O'Toole to throw Mr. Sloan out of the party, it was a majority of MPs who voted to do this. Given the very thin pretext (he was removed over receiving a donation -- which was returned as soon as he realized who the donor was -- from a member of the CPC in good standing) for the removal, this does not suggest a lot of support for a fellow social conservative in the CPC caucus.


Unfortunately, I don't see the party had much choice. Can you imagine the mileage that would have been gained should that have come out during an election? Remember, in politics it doesn't have to be true, it just has to be believable. Was the decision unfair? Yes. Was it necessary? Also yes.


----------



## FJAG (1 Feb 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Re: the highlighted, I do not see any evidence of them having succeeded in any way at taking over the CPC, given that it wasn't a unilateral move by Mr. O'Toole to throw Mr. Sloan out of the party, it was a majority of MPs who voted to do this. Given the very thin pretext (he was removed over receiving a donation -- which was returned as soon as he realized who the donor was -- from a member of the CPC in good standing) for the removal, this does not suggest a lot of support for a fellow social conservative in the CPC caucus.


You've given me hope.



LittleBlackDevil said:


> Now I don't have a great knowledge of the internal workings of the CPC. I'm a member and a donor, but not much more ... I missed the sign-up for the convention plus my riding is over limit for delegates anyway. I don't see the CPC platform as one that's under the control of social conservatives ... everyone is always upset about SoCons making abortion illegal or reinstating certain morality laws -- but I see nothing in the CPC platform about actually implementing any of this nor has the CPC ever done that when it has formed government. So while it's an effective scare tactic employed by the LPC it does not seem to bear much alignment with reality in my view to say the SoCons have much influence let alone control of the CPC.


I'm in the same boat somewhat. I did register but the riding is over so there will be a vote. 

The vast majority of the platform is fine with me. There are seven: Articles 7, 62, 69, 73, 87, 104 and 151 which are or have a socon element. Unfortunately these are the ones that stand out to detractors who generalize these elements onto the entire party. Article 104 is a thinly veiled assault on freedom of choice. By increasing punishment for harming a pregnant woman's fetus, you grant status to it which creates the bridge to making it illegal to harm a fetus in any manner.



LittleBlackDevil said:


> I don't disagree that SoCons need a different approach. Regardless of whether it's appropriate to force beliefs on others, it's utterly futile. Even IF abortion were outlawed it would be meaningless since no one would pay attention to that law and even if some prosecutor somewhere tried to prosecute juries would nullify/return not guilty verdicts. So while I understand the position (SoCons believe that murder is wrong, and believe that unborn children are human beings, therefore ought to be protected by the law) there is no chance of it succeeding so not worth pursuing since all it does is alienate others. I'd rather see an approach where we try to help create societal conditions where people don't feel the need for an abortion.


I used to think that too until I saw what was happening in Republican States.

It's not that a jury won't convict, (and some might) it's the fact that one puts a woman in jeopardy of the law. Just as significantly once you start prosecuting surgeons and ban clinics and planned parenthood advice you simply make the service unavailable.

See for example Article 62 which purports to protect faith based health care providers from refusing to provide abortions, assisted suicide and euthanasia but also for refusing to refer the patient seeking it (which contradicts the physician's duty to refer when he can't or won't provide a service)

Thin wedges, my friend; thin wedges.

🍻


----------



## mariomike (1 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> Personally I couldn't care less if they never have an abortion; it's that they insist no one have one.






FJAG said:


> I used to think that too until I saw what was happening in Republican States.
> 
> It's not that a jury won't convict, (and some might) it's the fact that one puts a woman in jeopardy of the law. Just as significantly once you start prosecuting surgeons and ban clinics and planned parenthood advice you simply make the service unavailable.
> 
> ...


For readers old enough to remember the late Chief Coroner of Ontario Morton Shulman,



> In the Sixties, abortion could be legally performed only to save the life of the woman, so there were practically no legal abortions. He stated that the pregnant daughters of the rich were sent to reliable physicians who did abortions for cash. He estimated that these physicians did twenty to thirty abortions per week. Women who were not rich were left to perform an abortion on themselves or go to what he called a "nurse" abortionist. Their method was commonly pumping Lysol into the woman's womb. The mortality rate was high and the infection rate over 50%. He added, "By the time I became Chief Coroner, I had had the unpleasant experience of seeing the bodies of some dozens of young women who had died as a result of these amateur abortions."
> 
> Chief Coroner Morton Shulman decided to publicize deaths from illegal abortions. He instructed his coroners to call a public inquest into each abortion death. He describes one case that he believes was the turning point, that of 34-year-old Lottie Leanne Clarke, a mother of three children, who died of a massive infection in 1964 after an illegal abortion in spite of medical treatment and antibiotics. At the inquest into her death, the jury recommended that the laws about therapeutic abortion be revised. Dr. Shulman added that a federal government committee should review the question of abortion and the law. Newspapers published editorials recommending the reform of the abortion law. In 1965, the Minister of Justice, Guy Favreau, wrote to Dr. Shulman that the recommendation would be considered in the program to amend the Criminal Code. The eventual amendment closely followed the recommendations of the coroners' juries.
> 
> ...


----------



## CBH99 (1 Feb 2021)

I don’t follow the political threads too often, so please forgive if this has already been covered.

But in the Canadian context - I do feel strongly that we do, and should, live in a free country.

And by that, I mean that a woman should have the freedom to choose what medical procedures are in her best interest, abs she should have the freedom to pursue medical procedures regardless of how some other people feel about them.

It’s fine to be pro life, and not personally support the idea of abortions.  People have the freedom to think and feel that way.  

However, those people’s beliefs and opinions shouldn’t trump those of others.  

Using abortion as the main example here - it’s fine for a political party to be pro life, or for a party / individuals to believe abortions are unethical.  However, in a free country - people have the right to pursue gender changes, abortions, etc etc - regardless of whether others support it or not.

Isn’t this one of the reasons why it’s so important to seperate church & state?


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (1 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> See for example Article 62 which purports to protect faith based health care providers from refusing to provide abortions, assisted suicide and euthanasia but also for refusing to refer the patient seeking it (which contradicts the physician's duty to refer when he can't or won't provide a service)
> 
> Thin wedges, my friend; thin wedges.



Just going to zero in on this; despite me being a SoCon I don't think you and I are too far apart. But I think that this particular issue is a tricky one. I would argue that the "thin wedge" argument goes both ways, and forcing physicians who believe abortion is murder to recommend someone else to do the job, is a very short step away from forcing those physicians to provide abortions, assisted suicide, etc. We can agree that outlawing abortions outright is not appropriate, but in my view at the very least people should be allowed to do their jobs without violating their conscience. Declining to provide a reference is not the same as preventing someone from accessing the service especially in the age of google and where abortions are readily available.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (1 Feb 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> Unfortunately, I don't see the party had much choice. Can you imagine the mileage that would have been gained should that have come out during an election? Remember, in politics it doesn't have to be true, it just has to be believable. Was the decision unfair? Yes. Was it necessary? Also yes.


I'm not sure it would have made much difference. Conservatives will always be savaged by the Canadian media regardless of what they do, so might as well act in fairness and if there's a legitimate reason to can Mr. Sloan do it then, but in the mean time don't do things out of fear of the media. Do what's right, not what you think will mollify the media, because the media will never be mollified if you're "right of centre".

In my view the CPC practice of always acting out of fear of the media is a losing tactic.


----------



## FJAG (19 Mar 2021)

Day 1 of the CPC 2021 Virtual Convention - 5 hours of debates on constitutional amendments - so bored, bored, bored. 

Tomorrow 6 hours of debates on the CPC Policy Paper then a speech by the leader. Yeeha!

🍻


----------



## brihard (19 Mar 2021)

O’Toole’s gonna have to really step it up if he’s gonna get his party anywhere... I like the guy personally, but he’s playing internal games to buttress his safety as leader when what he really needs to worry about is willing the election. Clock’s ticking, and with promises coming now for every willing adult having a vaccination by Canada Day, Trudeau gets to cruise through a ‘normal’ summer into a fall election at this rate.

In the wake of this convention it’ll be interesting to see what Poilievre says and does, as well as if suddenly MacKay gets the blessing to run in Central Nova again.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Mar 2021)

I think it is a mistake not to have MacKay onboard. He might be a threat to O’Toole eventually, but he is a team player (as evidenced by his support of Harper), is a formidable campaigner and an experienced cabinet minister.

Better to have him on the inside.


----------



## brihard (19 Mar 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I think it is a mistake not to have MacKay onboard. He might be a threat to O’Toole eventually, but he is a team player (as evidenced by his support of Harper), is a formidable campaigner and an experienced cabinet minister.
> 
> Better to have him on the inside.


Agreed. And he’s their best chance to pull badly needed centrist votes from the Liberals.


----------



## Haggis (19 Mar 2021)

The anti-abortionists and far right of the CPC will be/are attempting to sway the policy discussions.  Bringing the perceived "Liberal lite" MacKay back will exacerbate this divide and doom the CPC in the next election.  They are likely doomed already. 338Canada shows the Liberals with a 5 to 9% lead today.  Next week's polling numbers will be very telling.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Mar 2021)

O'Toole is doing a fine job of running to be leader of the opposition.  If he can't articulate a vision of why he and his party should lead, they likely won't get the chance.

See: 1974.


----------



## Remius (19 Mar 2021)

I’ve always seen the SOCONS as not going about things like abortion the right way.  How hard would it be and how much support could they get if they changed their approach.  “We respect the right for women to choose, will not pursue any change to that but we will seek legislation to provide all the funding and tools to encourage women to make the choice to have their children.”  So if a woman gets pregnant they will provide all available ressources to them.   Parental leave enhancements , child credits, education for youth pregnancies, parental leave for grandparents, financial incentives and easier access to adoption etc etc.  But the problem is that would be too “socialist” for them.    They need to get off the religious moral side of this and be more pragmatic about how they want to slow abortion rates.  It isn’t by denying rights or criminalizing and lecturing people about the evils of abortion that they will make any headway.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Mar 2021)

Haggis said:


> The anti-abortionists and far right of the CPC will be/are attempting to sway the policy discussions.  Bringing the perceived "Liberal lite" MacKay back will exacerbate this divide and doom the CPC in the next election.  They are likely doomed already. 338Canada shows the Liberals with a 5 to 9% lead today.  Next week's polling numbers will be very telling.


They’re dead for another four years...in lieu of Ambrose, who could have taken Trudeau in a heart beat, MacKay was the closest the CPC would have had for a win.  The nice frumpy white guy with cute kids growing up will continue to make an unmemorable opposition leader as dapaterson says. Maybe 2025 will have some hope. 🥱


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Mar 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> They’re dead for another four years...in lieu of Ambrose, who could have taken Trudeau in a heart beat, MacKay was the closest the CPC would have had for a win.  The nice frumpy white guy with cute kids growing up will continue to make an unmemorable opposition leader as dapaterson says. Maybe 2025 will have some hope. 🥱


Maybe. So were the Liberals in 2015 and the Opposition has way more to work with this time.

I am not saying it is a cake walk, but the zeitgeist in Ottawa and suburbs about how awesome the Liberals are (and how bad the Conservatives are) might not be reflective of the rest of the country once the campaign starts.

The Conservatives need a simple, coherent and positive message. They need to hold a few aces up their sleeve to drop in the last week of the campaign against the Liberals (had Scheer held the blackface videos until the final week, the Liberals would not have recovered and he would have been PM).


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Mar 2021)

Coherence AND relevant to ALL (most) Canadians is key...not just being rock solid to the CPC membership. 

I’m doubtful the CPC can look beyond itself for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Mar 2021)

Maybe proofreading their ads.....


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Mar 2021)

Q.E.D.


----------



## Remius (19 Mar 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Q.E.D.





Journeyman said:


> Maybe proofreading their ads.....   View attachment 64739


This can’t be real.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Mar 2021)

It was.  Then it was pulled down.

So they replaced it... with a Russian helicopter in support of O'Toole.

Proving once and for all that you should never trust maritime air ACSOs.


----------



## Haggis (19 Mar 2021)

T


dapaterson said:


> It was.  Then it was pulled down.
> 
> So they replaced it... with a Russian helicopter in support of O'Toole.
> 
> Proving once and for all that you should never trust maritime air ACSOs.


They must've hired the same ad firm that Heckler and Koch used a few years ago.

The Liberal's messaging is centrally controlled, consistent and well crafted, most of the time.  Like every other party, they slip up occasionally or have a member who speaks out-of-turn and that ends up on Twitter or Instagram.


----------



## FJAG (19 Mar 2021)

Close to six hours of policy debates today -- bored, bored, bored -- and the "Leader's Speech coming up in 10 minutes. We'll see how we do.

The good news about the policy debates is that there wasn't anything new that was SOCON heavy (except maybe opposing extending euthanasia "minors, to people who are not competent, and people who live with psychological suffering" - and the voting results for that haven't been published yet) I certainly got the feeling during our EDA's policy discussions a few weeks back that folks were pulling their heads in on SOCON issues. Which is not to say that there aren't already a few in the policy book from years ago.

🍻


----------



## FJAG (19 Mar 2021)

Good so far - The Party must change if we are to grow and win.

🍻


----------



## FJAG (19 Mar 2021)

Secure The Future
Canada's Recovery Plan

1) Secure jobs - 1,000,000 in one year;
2) Secure government accountability - by strengthening laws;
3) Secure mental health with extensive mental health programs;
4) Secure the country with domestic vaccines and PPEs, overhaul national stockpiles; and
5) Secure economy - get us back to fiscal stability in 10 years

🍻


----------



## FJAG (19 Mar 2021)

We cannot ignore climate change. The debate is over. But we can't have a Green Future without jobs. We will scrap the Carbon Tax on working Canadians but we must have a credible alternative. We will have a serious, comprehensive plan.

🍻


----------



## FJAG (19 Mar 2021)

All in all a good speech well delivered.

It'll be interesting to see how CBC treats it.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson (19 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> Secure The Future
> Canada's Recovery Plan
> 
> 1) Secure jobs - 1,000,000 in one year;
> ...



1. Federal job creation has doubled unemployment in the Atlantic provinces over the past 50 years.

2. I oppose legislation, mostly, as there needs to be culling, streamlining and updating of extant legislation - making a new law incurs compliance costs, and generally such actions do not look for overlap or fix current problems.

3. Mental health is a great sound bite, but there are not sufficient practitioners - and creating new ones falls into provincial responsibility.

4. So, the CPC favours state intervention and direction of the economy...

5. At last, something we can agree on.


----------



## Weinie (19 Mar 2021)

dapaterson said:


> 1. *Federal job creation has doubled unemployment in the Atlantic provinces over the past 50 years.*
> 
> 2. I oppose legislation, mostly, as there needs to be culling, streamlining and updating of extant legislation - making a new law incurs compliance costs, and generally such actions do not look for overlap or fix current problems.
> 
> ...


Any attempt to enable job creation in the Atlantic provinces has led to a bunch of slovenly, lazy, and opportunistic Maritimers to game the system for 50 years and suck on the federal teat. I am from there, and have seen first hand how relatives and friends have shamelessly extorted federal largesse. Every time I visit, I generally last about two days before I roundly and routinely berate the phat phucks, including in my own family, who are completely cognizant and aware of their "entitlements" and have no qualms or conscience about seeking/receiving these entitlements. (Notwithstanding my criticism and their pushback, they keep inviting me back, maybe because I host an all you can eat lobster dinner when I am down there..............

The Atlantic provinces have become their own worst enemy, aided and abetted by a continuum of gov'ts who sought votes, rather than real/lasting economic solutions.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Mar 2021)

If you converted sought to bought, your last sentence would be slightly more accurate.


----------



## Weinie (19 Mar 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> If you converted sought to bought, your last sentence would be slightly more accurate.


Sigh..........yup.


----------



## RangerRay (19 Mar 2021)

Haggis said:


> The anti-abortionists and far right of the CPC will be/are attempting to sway the policy discussions.  Bringing the perceived "Liberal lite" MacKay back will exacerbate this divide and doom the CPC in the next election.  They are likely doomed already. 338Canada shows the Liberals with a 5 to 9% lead today.  Next week's polling numbers will be very telling.


What I find entertaining is there was no real difference between O’Toole and Mackay except that O’Toole played up the “angry white guy” and “true blue” schtick to tar and feather Mackay as a”Liberal Lite”.  Then immediately after he won, he dialled it back and started talking about how moderate he was. While I and others who were paying attention knew this all along, most voters are confused and don’t trust him. He needs some real pros to help him out here. It’s too bad because I had high hopes for him.


----------



## FJAG (20 Mar 2021)

Well the CPC convention passed numerous policy amendments/additions including:

1. recognizing and accepting unreservedly a social covenant as between the government and veterans;

2. streamlining defence procurement through a non-partisan committee of Parliamentarians similar to Australia;

3. supporting small modular nuclear reactors;

4. getting tough with the Chinese Communist Party;

On the other hand it rejected amendments/additions to:

1. recognize that climate change is real and that the party is willing to act;

2. restrict the extension of limitations on euthanasia;

🍻


----------



## dapaterson (20 Mar 2021)

So, in order to streamline defence purchasing, it would have to go through another set of hurdles filled with partisan hacks.  Forgive me for not thinking that's a good thing...


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Mar 2021)

> 1) Secure jobs - 1,000,000 in one year;



Best done by getting out of the way.



> 2) Secure government accountability - by strengthening laws;



Vague bullsh!t.  Spell out what is to made publicly accessible.



> 3) Secure mental health with extensive mental health programs;



A hole into which money can be poured indefinitely as the definition of "secure mental health" expands.



> 4) Secure the country with domestic vaccines and PPEs, overhaul national stockpiles; and



Fight the last war.



> 5) Secure economy - get us back to fiscal stability in 10 years



Do-able.  See "way, getting out of the".


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Mar 2021)

> recognize that climate change is real and that the party is willing to act



First need to define what is meant by "climate change is real".

The literal interpretation is trivially true, and we (humanity) already continuously adapt to changing climate.  No special action needed.

But some people read "climate change" as "imminent emergency requiring broad powers and vast expenditures".

Until the definition and expectations are expressed in much greater detail, refusing an ill-defined and open-ended commitment to is the prudent course of action.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Mar 2021)

dapaterson said:


> So, in order to streamline defence purchasing, it would have to go through another set of hurdles filled with partisan hacks.  Forgive me for not thinking that's a good thing...


This.

What Australia has that Canada doesn’t, is a
multi-year AND non-partisan approach to have a truly capable armed forces that supports the nation’s honest (not vapid virtue signaling) view
of demonstrating leadership in the region. 

Australia’s non-partisan parliamentary Defence committee isn’t a weak deferral of responsibility to a body of senior bureaucrats under the guise of a ‘Defence Procurement Strategy’ which is just a euphemism for back-scene  procurement Kabuki by the ruling politicians of the day.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Mar 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Australia’s non-partisan parliamentary Defence committee isn’t a weak deferral of responsibility to a body of senior bureaucrats under the guise of a ‘Defence Procurement Strategy’ which is just a euphemism for back-scene  procurement Kabuki by the ruling politicians of the day.



Remember, unlike a former boss of mine, when describing that behaviour that it's Kabuki, not Bukkake.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Mar 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> This.
> 
> What Australia has that Canada doesn’t, is a
> multi-year AND non-partisan approach to have a truly capable armed forces that supports the nation’s honest (not vapid virtue signaling) view
> ...


If the CPC intends on getting rid of all the the other procurement hurdles (Industry Canada; regional development agencies) and have an agency soley focussed on defence procurement, answerable only to the MND and this Defence Committee, I could see it being an improvement. But, it is not like the Aussies are immune to procurement mistakes (NH-90, Tiger, their sub program), they just seem to tolerate the risks more and move on.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Mar 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> If the CPC intends on getting rid of all the the other procurement hurdles (Industry Canada; regional development agencies) and have an agency soley focussed on defence procurement, answerable only to the MND and this Defence Committee, I could see it being an improvement. But, it is not like the Aussies are immune to procurement mistakes (NH-90, Tiger, their sub program), they just seem to tolerate the risks more and move on.


And really, cleaning up the chain of accountability in any organization is always a good idea (hello, CAF writ large)


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Mar 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> This.
> 
> What Australia has that Canada doesn’t, is a
> multi-year AND non-partisan approach to have a truly capable armed forces that supports the nation’s honest (not vapid virtue signaling) view
> ...


They also have a single chain of command responsible for the procurement, and a significantly streamlined procurement process. Echoing what DAPaterson said, we need less oversight, not more. Right now we have so much review and oversight it's in practical terms impossible to hold anyone accountable because there are so many fingers in the pie.

Right now the LoE to buy $50k of widgets is the same as buying $1M of widgets. We burn out our procurement people, turn off the DRMIS auto replenishment functions to save money, and then wonder why our stocks are empty and it takes time to fill the bins back up.


----------



## Remius (20 Mar 2021)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-delegates-reject-climate-change-is-real-1.5957739
		


Seems like a lost opportunity for the CPC that the Libs and NDP will pounce on.


----------



## FJAG (21 Mar 2021)

Remius said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-delegates-reject-climate-change-is-real-1.5957739
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like a lost opportunity for the CPC that the Libs and NDP will pounce on.


Really a boneheaded vote. Across the board it was 46% in favour of including the provision and 54% opposed. 

Interestingly the dividing line was the Ontario/Quebec border. All those to the east were in favour and all those to the west were against it. Quelle surprise, even BC voted 51% against it. Sask was the worst at 73.4% against it. NB and Que the most in favour at 71.4 and 70% in favour respectively.

😡


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Mar 2021)

Pretty good job of cutting the nose off to spite the face.  Not a strategic move at all and demonstrates that the CPC doesn’t seem to really understand the larger game it needs to play to dethrone the young Dauphin and his sycophants.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> Well the CPC convention passed numerous policy amendments/additions including:
> 
> 1. recognizing and accepting unreservedly a social covenant as between the government and veterans;
> 
> ...


Reading MSM, one would think they had only 1 policy issue -- climate change.  Mind you Joe/Josephine Citizen doesn't care about defence, VAC, China, etc...


----------



## Haggis (21 Mar 2021)

I'm sure that when the next increment of the carbon tax kicks in on April 1st, Trudeau's climate change policies will negatively impact Liberals as well.


----------



## Remius (21 Mar 2021)

I don’t know why they don’t just come up with a good economic plan to take advantage of green tech.  The CPC doesn’t need a liberal climate plan,  it just needs A climate plan.  Denying it is just going to keep them in opposition long enough to cause a split and ensure that the LPC stays in power.


----------



## brihard (21 Mar 2021)

Climate change - literally even acknowledging the reality of it - is a perceived poison pill in their base in the prairies. They’re too afraid to touch it. Yet, in the west, they have more than enough support to risk a bit of it to pick up seats elsewhere. An economic plan that recognizes climate change doesn’t need to look like what the Libs or NDP would do. They could present it as a future-oriented economy where long term investments will open new (and coincidentally cleaner) opportunities. Resource economies could be comforted by exploring for necessary ‘tech metals’ and natural resources for an electric economy. Domestic refining capacity could help offset pipeline reticence and could capture more of the value added chain, allowing thhe prairies to profit more directly from the rest of Canada’s dependence on refined petroleum. The highly educated and skilled populations in the major cities could be leveraged to set up research hubs to help make technological and environmental advances pay... lots could be done.

Fingers in their ears on the issue will not serve them well unless they’re determined to continue to run for opposition. No easier way to paint themselves as the party of the past right now.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Mar 2021)

To be fair, the leadership of the CPC seems to get it. However, for good or ill, unlike an NDP or Liberal policy convention, the Conservative conventions are not pre-scripted affairs. The grass roots still has considerable sway.

So, for all of you decrying the “Laurentien Elite”- which is it? Does the “rabble“ get a voice, or not? 

I know that the CBC will spend the next week with detailed  and morally superior coverage on how ”last century” the Conservatives climate ideas are (instead of how morally bankrupt and corrupt the Liberals have become), but this is not resolution like abortion from a small group of fanatics.

This is an indication that there are actually large segments of the Canadian population that do not think Climate Change is the overwhelming issue of the day. Make of that what you will and it may well keep the Conservatives in Opposition, but do you think that those fault lines will just go away the more carbon taxes the Liberals pile on? Ultimately, it will be their problem, too.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Mar 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> the young Dauphin


Despite his grey hair, paunch and receding hairline, Erin is 13 months younger than Justing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Mar 2021)

All this future stuff that could be done and isn't being done...is it because the STEM and business quants who inhabit the world of big corporations and investors and venture capital are less wise than politicians?


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Mar 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Despite his grey hair, paunch and receding hairline, Erin is 13 months younger than Justing.


 
Perception is reality for most voters...


----------



## dapaterson (21 Mar 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> All this future stuff that could be done and isn't being done...is it because the STEM and business quants who inhabit the world of big corporations and investors and venture capital are less wise than politicians?


R&D doesn't make your earnings for the next quarter.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Mar 2021)

Point being those who don’t consider and shape the future stand to be disappointed when the future becomes today and things aren’t set to their advantage.   No company looks to R&D to help with executing the AOP for sales and revenue.


----------



## brihard (21 Mar 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> All this future stuff that could be done and isn't being done...is it because the STEM and business quants who inhabit the world of big corporations and investors and venture capital are less wise than politicians?


Different motivations. Short to mid term profit is the order of the day, when we’re talking about issues that are on generational timeframes. Governmental leadership and incentive is called for here. If we really wanted to have fun, we could look at governmental subsidies for fossil fuel extraction. Conversely, look at how many technologies emerged out of money sinks like the space program that could not, in that era, have been in a corporation's interest (or arguably ability) to fund themselves. 

We're still learning tons about the properties and capabilities of various materials both natural and synthetic. Things like battery storage, solar cell power capture and the like have advanced considerably. Electric vehicles are now market-competitive. Are there long term implications for infrastructure like beefed up power grids? Hell yes there are, and government will need to be part of that conversation.

At the end of the day, all of our daily pursuits consume energy. For a long time we got that energy by lighting things on fire and releasing chemical potential. That absolutely has detrimental impacts on the environment. But for a hundred years or so now we've seen the spread of electricity as a way to generate energy in one place and fashion and use it in another. That's the trajectory society and technology are on; it can be fought or it can be embraced. Economies that are dependent on that are not facing overnight extinction, but they ARE facing an existential crisis on a generational level. It doesn't need to be catastrophic if a transition is properly anticipated and led. That will mean showing people that they needn't fear for the roof over their head, and that they can learn new skills and industries to support their livelihood. The more single mindedly we prop up the petroleum economy, the harder and more painful the crash will eventually be. Plan on a twenty year timeframe to transition those regional economies to different sectors. There will still be some need and use for oil, but let's not assume the market will indefinitely sustain the demand that got us to where we are today. It won't. We're probably on the last generation of personal vehicles that will broadly use internal combustion, and transportation is fully two thirds of America's oil use, and probably similar up here. The pivot has already started.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Mar 2021)

> R&D doesn't make your earnings for the next quarter.



Yes, there's been so little R&D funded privately in the past 100 years.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Mar 2021)

Generating electricity has detrimental effects on the environment.  And to the extent anyone is fighting electrification, the blame lies squarely with the people opposed to nuclear, hydro, windmills, tidal harnesses, thermal, increasing exports of natural gas to Asia, etc; and upon the regulators who strangle development and deployment of infrastructure.



> they can learn new skills and industries to support their livelihood.



"Learn to code!"

I agree - stop propping up industries.  But also, get out of the way.

And be realistic and informed.  Getting a bit dated, but still a useful reminder: Energy flows in Canada.  I assume the wind/solar bar is a little thicker by now, but I also assume not by much.


----------



## Haggis (21 Mar 2021)

brihard said:


> Electric vehicles are now market-competitive. Are there long term implications for infrastructure like beefed up power grids? Hell yes there are, and government will need to be part of that conversation.


I read an article recently (can't seem to find it now), that quoted one of the provincial electrical distribution CEOs stating the even a modest increase in the number of EVs in urban centres would place a disastrous strain on the delivery grid.   Even after the harsh lesson delivered in 1998, Québec's and most of rural Ontario's electrical grid is still held together with gun tape and 550 cord.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Mar 2021)

brihard said:


> Different motivations. Short to mid term profit is the order of the day, when we’re talking about issues that are on generational timeframes. Governmental leadership and incentive is called for here. If we really wanted to have fun, we could look at governmental subsidies for fossil fuel extraction. Conversely, look at how many technologies emerged out of money sinks like the space program that could not, in that era, have been in a corporation's interest (or arguably ability) to fund themselves.
> 
> We're still learning tons about the properties and capabilities of various materials both natural and synthetic. Things like battery storage, solar cell power capture and the like have advanced considerably. Electric vehicles are now market-competitive. Are there long term implications for infrastructure like beefed up power grids? Hell yes there are, and government will need to be part of that conversation.
> 
> At the end of the day, all of our daily pursuits consume energy. For a long time we got that energy by lighting things on fire and releasing chemical potential. That absolutely has detrimental impacts on the environment. But for a hundred years or so now we've seen the spread of electricity as a way to generate energy in one place and fashion and use it in another. That's the trajectory society and technology are on; it can be fought or it can be embraced. Economies that are dependent on that are not facing overnight extinction, but they ARE facing an existential crisis on a generational level. It doesn't need to be catastrophic if a transition is properly anticipated and led. That will mean showing people that they needn't fear for the roof over their head, and that they can learn new skills and industries to support their livelihood. The more single mindedly we prop up the petroleum economy, the harder and more painful the crash will eventually be. Plan on a twenty year timeframe to transition those regional economies to different sectors. There will still be some need and use for oil, but let's not assume the market will indefinitely sustain the demand that got us to where we are today. It won't. We're probably on the last generation of personal vehicles that will broadly use internal combustion, and transportation is fully two thirds of America's oil use, and probably similar up here. The pivot has already started.


Brihard- 

I do not buy the “oil and gas industry is unfairly subsidized“ argument.









						Analyzing claims about oil and gas subsidies - Canadian Energy Centre
					

Eye-popping estimates of fossil fuel subsidies a far cry from reality




					www.canadianenergycentre.ca
				




While that is an oil and gas industry website, the arguments are compelling.  The most heavily subsidized industries in Canada are actually:

Hydro Quebec
The Film and TV industry
Auto makers

(See any kind of a pattern for federal voting intentions?)

Oil and Gas are barely a rounding error.

So, by all means- lets level the playing field and end government subsidies to industries. Period.


----------



## brihard (21 Mar 2021)

I don’t believe I used the word ‘unfairly’. I was pointing out that government is willing to throw (considerable) cash at certain sectors when strategically or simply politically expedient.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2021)

Haggis said:


> I read an article recently (can't seem to find it now), that quoted one of the provincial electrical distribution CEOs stating the even a modest increase in the number of EVs in urban centres would place a disastrous strain on the delivery grid.   Even after the harsh lesson delivered in 1998, Québec's and most of rural Ontario's electrical grid is still held together with gun tape and 550 cord.



Meanwhile, the EVS (Eco-Virtue Signalling) movement keeps on rolling out the ironies 


Electric vehicles expected to boost Canadian mining growth, industry panel agrees​
Mining industry insiders say opportunities for Canada are rising with world demand, technical advances and political support for electric vehicles.









						Electric vehicles expected to boost Canadian mining growth, industry panel agrees - constructconnect.com - Daily Commercial News
					

CALGARY — Mining industry insiders say opportunities for Canada are rising with world demand, technical advances and political support for electric vehicles. But members of a panel at the online Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada's 2021 c




					canada.constructconnect.com


----------



## Navy_Pete (21 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> Really a boneheaded vote. Across the board it was 46% in favour of including the provision and 54% opposed.
> 
> Interestingly the dividing line was the Ontario/Quebec border. All those to the east were in favour and all those to the west were against it. Quelle surprise, even BC voted 51% against it. Sask was the worst at 73.4% against it. NB and Que the most in favour at 71.4 and 70% in favour respectively.
> 
> 😡


That was pretty disappointing to see; it didn't actually commit them to doing anything specific and should have been an easy win. Didn't think they were Leaf fans out West though to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like that.

Anyone under thirty is massively aware of it and it will affect everything going forward. Not starting to account for it in economic, security and foreign policies is just dumb. Most people older than that are worried about how it will affect their kids. 

May as well just give up on anything other than a liberal govt until the CPC splits back up and dumps the Reform element.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, the EVS (Eco-Virtue Signalling) movement keeps on rolling out the ironies
> 
> 
> Electric vehicles expected to boost Canadian mining growth, industry panel agrees​
> ...


What horseshit.  If Rio Tinto wants to make money, it should bear the risk.  What the actual fuck?


----------



## FJAG (21 Mar 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> To be fair, the leadership of the CPC seems to get it. However, for good or ill, unlike an NDP or Liberal policy convention, the Conservative conventions are not pre-scripted affairs. The grass roots still has considerable sway.
> 
> So, for all of you decrying the “Laurentien Elite”- which is it? Does the “rabble“ get a voice, or not?
> 
> ...


Had a busy day so sorry it took this long to reply.

One of the main reasons I got into my local EDA executive is that I wanted to see how sausages are made at this level and I've found it an interesting process.

In January I got started on the Policy Committee, reviewed the party's Policy Declaration so that we could make recommendations for additions or amendments. Their National Defence policy was a mess so I wrote a fairly lengthy and detailed amendment to fix it. Long story short I was politely told that my work was a bit "ambitious" and then we started reviewing what was on the agenda and I got the idea of what really goes on.

Basically all these policies get developed over time from the bottom up. (although I expect I expect some are salted from the top in.) The policies are pretty much disjointed and have been built over time as the various EDAs throw things in. Once your own EDA committee produces new policies or amendments they need to get buy-in from other EDAs and once you have enough they make their way to the National side where they are reviewed by the National Policy Committee and ranked and the top ones submitted for presentation at a convention where they are discussed and voted on.
The problem that I see is that they still end up being a jumble of disjointed policies thrown together over time with many that might once have been relevant but have been long superseded by events and are no longer relevant or even accurate. A bunch of old ones were thrown out or updated at this convention but many more exist. Even worse, sometimes a policy amendment is suggested to improve a policy but then some people vote against the amendment because they don't like the original policy which then stays on the books unaltered.

Essentially it's not a very good system to trim and restate national policy at the best of times. It's pretty democratic but sometimes democracy can be pretty thick. The vote on this one issue caught me by surprise because it flies in the face of common sense and what's in the best interest of the party itself. I guess that some people just like cutting off their nose to spite their face. The one good thing is that I didn't see any SoCon issues push their way in. It's the one outcome of this convention which has given and will continue to give the Libs fuel to burn over and over again until the next election. Dumb. Plain dumb.

🍻


----------



## lenaitch (21 Mar 2021)

brihard said:


> Different motivations. Short to mid term profit is the order of the day, when we’re talking about issues that are on generational timeframes. Governmental leadership and incentive is called for here. If we really wanted to have fun, we could look at governmental subsidies for fossil fuel extraction. Conversely, look at how many technologies emerged out of money sinks like the space program that could not, in that era, have been in a corporation's interest (or arguably ability) to fund themselves.
> 
> We're still learning tons about the properties and capabilities of various materials both natural and synthetic. Things like battery storage, solar cell power capture and the like have advanced considerably. Electric vehicles are now market-competitive. Are there long term implications for infrastructure like beefed up power grids? Hell yes there are, and government will need to be part of that conversation.
> 
> At the end of the day, all of our daily pursuits consume energy. For a long time we got that energy by lighting things on fire and releasing chemical potential. That absolutely has detrimental impacts on the environment. But for a hundred years or so now we've seen the spread of electricity as a way to generate energy in one place and fashion and use it in another. That's the trajectory society and technology are on; it can be fought or it can be embraced. Economies that are dependent on that are not facing overnight extinction, but they ARE facing an existential crisis on a generational level. It doesn't need to be catastrophic if a transition is properly anticipated and led. That will mean showing people that they needn't fear for the roof over their head, and that they can learn new skills and industries to support their livelihood. The more single mindedly we prop up the petroleum economy, the harder and more painful the crash will eventually be. Plan on a twenty year timeframe to transition those regional economies to different sectors. There will still be some need and use for oil, but let's not assume the market will indefinitely sustain the demand that got us to where we are today. It won't. We're probably on the last generation of personal vehicles that will broadly use internal combustion, and transportation is fully two thirds of America's oil use, and probably similar up here. The pivot has already started.


Good post.

One problem is there are hardline positions on both sides.  There are those who take the position that oil and gas will be dead in ~10 years, ignoring the enormous list of products and materials that use them as feedstock.  No doubt there will innovations to find other sources, but unless we are willing to go back to a time where we lived and died, and everything we consumed, came from within sight of the church steeple of the town we were born in, transition will be a very long road.  

Innovations in battery technology in terms of energy density  and cost is happening all the time, but I'm not convinced that we will see a curve similar to what happened with, say, computing memory.  For sure, transportation will see a big change.  I doubt I will own an EV but no doubt my kid will.  But in many aspects of high demand commercial use, I have a hard time envisioning non-fossil use unless it can be grid tied.  The drill rigs, necessary to explore for the very minerals needed to produce the batteries, operate for weeks and months in a clearing in the bush.

The proposed policy statement was just that.  The 'how' would have come later.  The natural corollary to not recognize climate is real is  obvious.


----------



## lenaitch (21 Mar 2021)

PPCLI Guy said:


> What horseshit.  If Rio Tinto wants to make money, it should bear the risk.  What the actual fuck?


Although no doubt every industry has their hand out for government money, there are all sorts of things the state can do besides simply getting out of the way, such as low/no interest loans, access to capital, etc.  Exploration and proving, normally done before the Rio Tintos of the world get involved, is a long and costly process, usually done by junior miners  and not always with positive results.  Like it or not, negotiating buy-in from First Nations is time-consuming and costly.  Even at the development stage, simple access to the electrical grid can become an issue.  This is currently an issue in some areas of N/W Ontario where the capacity of the grid is limiting development.

Obviously, mineral resources in any given country is a matter of geological chance, and while Canada is generally well-blessed, we don't corner the market.  Most if not all governments support their industries in one way or the other.  If we wish to be competitive, we will have to play the game.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2021)

PPCLI Guy said:


> What horseshit.  If Rio Tinto wants to make money, it should bear the risk.  What the actual fuck?


Could the same not be said for Bombardier, SNC, Irving, et al?


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Mar 2021)

PPCLI Guy said:


> What horseshit.  If Rio Tinto wants to make money, it should bear the risk.  What the actual fuck?



As long as they don't have to pay any taxes then, that should work


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Could the same not be said for Bombardier, SNC, Irving, et al?


Of course.


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Mar 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Good post.
> 
> One problem is there are hardline positions on both sides.  There are those who take the position that oil and gas will be dead in ~10 years, ignoring the enormous list of products and materials that use them as feedstock.  No doubt there will innovations to find other sources, but unless we are willing to go back to a time where we lived and died, and everything we consumed, came from within sight of the church steeple of the town we were born in, transition will be a very long road.
> 
> ...



Ugh, yes. Two words for this; petrochemicals and asphalt.  Get rid of all the ICEs you want, but the EV cars have massive amounts of plastics and petrochemicals, and no one wants to go drive on gravel roads (or pay for concrete ones).

EV cars will reduce direct emissions, but don't eliminate our reliance on oil.

Which is why is so monumentally stupid to keep pretending climate action is the enemy of oil production. Investing in new technologies may reduce gasoline use, but enables us to stay relevant in the high tech developments spinning off from green tech aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Maybe spreads the oil use over longer time periods, but means we won't be looking at going to war over things like arable land, water or territory that is above the rising sea level (which we have but would lose). The CPCs are clinging to some kind of idealized vision of the past here instead of looking down the line; how many floods and wildfires do they need before they try something different?


----------



## FJAG (23 Mar 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Ugh, yes. Two words for this; petrochemicals and asphalt.  Get rid of all the ICEs you want, but the EV cars have massive amounts of plastics and petrochemicals, and no one wants to go drive on gravel roads (or pay for concrete ones).
> 
> EV cars will reduce direct emissions, but don't eliminate our reliance on oil.
> 
> Which is why is so monumentally stupid to keep pretending climate action is the enemy of oil production. Investing in new technologies may reduce gasoline use, but enables us to stay relevant in the high tech developments spinning off from green tech aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Maybe spreads the oil use over longer time periods, but means we won't be looking at going to war over things like arable land, water or territory that is above the rising sea level (which we have but would lose). Some CPCs are clinging to some kind of idealized vision of the past here instead of looking down the line; how many floods and wildfires do they need before they try something different?


FTFY


> O'Toole promises 'comprehensive' climate plan 'before an election'​
> Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole joined Power & Politics Monday to discuss his party's position on climate change and his party's plan for economic recovery.
> 
> Despite the fact that his party's members voted down a resolution to acknowledge that climate change is real, Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole says he'll present a plan to address climate change before the next election.
> ...


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/otoole-kapelos-climate-environment-1.5959662

And lets not forget that:



> (9.9 percent of 2018 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.


Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

Who's giving up their steaks?

🍻


----------



## FSTO (23 Mar 2021)

The conundrum of agriculture is that the Great Plains/Prairies/Steppe etc are massive carbon sinks but the grass and their roots require grazing animals to properly do their jobs. Since there are no more bison to do that job, we have cattle.


----------



## FJAG (23 Mar 2021)

FSTO said:


> The conundrum of agriculture is that the Great Plains/Prairies/Steppe etc are massive carbon sinks but the grass and their roots require grazing animals to properly do their jobs. Since there are no more bison to do that job, we have cattle.



Bison output just as much methane as a cow - maybe more.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> FTFY
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/otoole-kapelos-climate-environment-1.5959662


 Like the little Dutch boy plugging his finger in the dike, or trying to close the gate after the horse have bolted.  Not a very astute move for the party membership to set themselves up of a battle due to a self-inflicted wound. 



FJAG said:


> And lets not forget that:
> 
> 
> Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA
> ...


Whataboutism?  

Are you saying the CPC should also have addressed reducing agriculture? 🤔


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Mar 2021)

The climate change denial debacle is a monumental mistake by the Cons.  Honestly I am not sure there is any coming back from this.  It pretty well hands the Liberals another win.

I am not sure I can continue to support this party anymore.  I don't see me throwing my hat in with anyone else either.  

Its the conundrum of being pro life, pro LGBTQ+ rights, pro gun, pro small gov and believing climate change...


----------



## FJAG (23 Mar 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Like the little Dutch boy plugging his finger in the dike, or trying to close the gate after the horse have bolted.  Not a very astute move for the party membership to set themselves up of a battle due to a self-inflicted wound.
> 
> 
> Whataboutism?
> ...


Well, I was merely fixing the generality in Navy_Pete's broad statement about the CPC in general to the specific of a slight majority. What I'm saying is that sometimes crap happens and that some folks with axes to grind and who can't think two steps ahead will win out over almost the same number of people who can see more clearly - but that life goes on anyway.

As far as agriculture is concerned, no. It was just a snide comment to point out that global warming has numerous contributors. 

BUT. The "climate change" provision was an amendment to an existing policy "53. Environmental Principles - Research and Development - Green technologies" that already specifies that the CPC understands that often environmental issues and development and industry are at odds and that all environment and energy initiatives should be reviewed, and that, amongst other things, tax incentives be used to promote environmental solutions. There are in fact nine policy statements about the environment in the CPC Policy Declaration (Policies 53 to 61). The motion to amend Policy 53, which rejected the phrasing that the CPC "recognizes that climate change is real", concurrently rejected a provision that said "businesses classified as highly polluting need to take more responsibility in implementing measures that will reduce their GHG emissions and need to be accountable for the results". Large sectors of the agriculture industry are in fact disproportionate contributors to GHG emissions and that needs to be clearly recognized and acted upon. So the answer to your question is that, yes the CPC should address reducing disproportionate GHG emissions from agriculture, that there are already some benign policy statements to do that and this could have been an even stronger policy statement in that direction.

Is it wrong to call out agriculture when it is part of the problem?

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Mar 2021)

Depends on what the issue is: deconstructing the components of greenhouse gas production and its effect on the climate; or assessing the impact of a policy element on the potential of the party to successfully challenge the current government.


----------



## FJAG (23 Mar 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Depends on what the issue is: deconstructing the components of greenhouse gas production and its effect on the climate; or assessing the impact of a policy element on the potential of the party to successfully challenge the current government.



How about to assess the impact of a certain industry on the environment and then to create an appropriate, sustainable policy to mitigate harmful effects?

🍻


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Mar 2021)

> how many floods and wildfires do they need before they try something different?



What makes you believe reducing CO2 emissions is going to prevent floods and wildfires?

Apply a bit of scientific literacy and common political and journalistic sense and think through what climate alarmism is founded on.  It's an inverted pyramid.  At the bottom is a very small collection of scientists, working in a domain about which humanity has learned relatively little compared to the domain size, playing with very crude models full of their own assumptions to paper over the parts about which they don't really understand much, which is most of it.  Cloud formation?  Make a guess.  Ocean effects?  Make a guess.  Effects of variation in solar radiation?  Make a guess.  They can't get to catastrophic temperature increases with CO2 alone (that requires massive increases in water vapour - wetter, not drier), so they build in made-up multipliers to produce wildly imprecise estimates of ranges of possible temperate change.  (Do you consider yourself scientifically literate?  Then ponder the relative paucity of positive feedbacks in the physical universe and the overwhelming common-ness of damping phenomena.)  

Then they tout the most extreme scenarios and outcomes.  Upon that, layer after increasingly large layer of people piles on echoing the same at-bottom unsubstantiated alarmism.  Everything gets blamed on "climate change" (meaning, "alarming catastrophic average temperature changes", not "different tomorrow than it was today") if it falls outside a narrow range of recent experience.  More rain/snow?  Less rain/snow?  Unseasonably hot?  Unseasonably cold?  "Climate change".  A handful of 100-year weather events each year that are blasted all over the news, as if statistically we shouldn't expect several in a world with 1000s of possible locations for 100-year events?  "Climate change".

Alarmism is politically convenient to extend the reach of power and authority, fiscally convenient to crack open the public trough, and socially fashionable.   People picked a strange time to suddenly believe everything the politicians and journalists pass along.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Mar 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> What makes you believe reducing CO2 emissions is going to prevent floods and wildfires?
> 
> Apply a bit of scientific literacy and common political and journalistic sense and think through what climate alarmism is founded on.  It's an inverted pyramid.  At the bottom is a very small collection of scientists, working in a domain about which humanity has learned relatively little compared to the domain size, playing with very crude models full of their own assumptions to paper over the parts about which they don't really understand much, which is most of it.  Cloud formation?  Make a guess.  Ocean effects?  Make a guess.  Effects of variation in solar radiation?  Make a guess.  They can't get to catastrophic temperature increases with CO2 alone (that requires massive increases in water vapour - wetter, not drier), so they build in made-up multipliers to produce wildly imprecise estimates of ranges of possible temperate change.  (Do you consider yourself scientifically literate?  Then ponder the relative paucity of positive feedbacks in the physical universe and the overwhelming common-ness of damping phenomena.)
> 
> ...


No, no, Brad.

You have things all wrong:

Liberals are incapable of lying. They believe everything scientists say and everything that they do is motivated by the urge to make the world a better place.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are lying, science denying Neanderthals, who would sell their parents to make a quick buck.

Or something like that.


----------



## Weinie (23 Mar 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> What makes you believe reducing CO2 emissions is going to prevent floods and wildfires?
> 
> Apply a bit of scientific literacy and common political and journalistic sense and think through what climate alarmism is founded on.  It's an inverted pyramid.  At the bottom is a very small collection of scientists, working in a domain about which humanity has learned relatively little compared to the domain size, playing with very crude models full of their own assumptions to paper over the parts about which they don't really understand much, which is most of it.  Cloud formation?  Make a guess.  Ocean effects?  Make a guess.  Effects of variation in solar radiation?  Make a guess.  They can't get to catastrophic temperature increases with CO2 alone (that requires massive increases in water vapour - wetter, not drier), so they build in made-up multipliers to produce wildly imprecise estimates of ranges of possible temperate change.  (Do you consider yourself scientifically literate?  Then ponder the relative paucity of positive feedbacks in the physical universe and the overwhelming common-ness of damping phenomena.)
> 
> ...


And when things level out, which they will invariably will, climate alarmists will find another windmill to tilt at.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Mar 2021)

The real problem with climate science, is that the scientists don't control the narrative.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Mar 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> No, no, Brad.
> 
> You have things all wrong:
> 
> ...



And that's exactly why the Conservatives need a new leader. 

The current incumbent can't do much about changing that brand in the eyes of the consumer....


----------



## Haggis (23 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> And that's exactly why the Conservatives need a new leader.


The most popular personalities decided to take a pass on the party leadership this time around.  Reasons and speculation abound as to why, but none of that matters now.  We have who we have now and that's who we need to work with.


----------



## FJAG (24 Mar 2021)

Weinie said:


> And when things level out, which they will invariably will, climate alarmists will find another windmill to tilt at.



Climate cooling? Winter is coming?


----------



## FJAG (24 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> And that's exactly why the Conservatives need a new leader.
> 
> The current incumbent can't do much about changing that brand in the eyes of the consumer....



The first step in changing the brand is admitting that it needs to change. He's been doing that and made it public in his speech to the convention. Let's give him more than a minute and see what he comes up with.

He wasn't my first choice either but so far he's impressed me with having more abilities then I originally gave him credit for.

🍻


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Mar 2021)

FJAG said:


> The first step in changing the brand is admitting that it needs to change. He's been doing that and made it public in his speech to the convention. Let's give him more than a minute and see what he comes up with.
> 
> He wasn't my first choice either but so far he's impressed me with having more abilities then I originally gave him credit for.
> 
> 🍻


I agree, I am not a O'Toole guy but hes trying to change the brand.  The problem is the members of the party and divisions within.  



Haggis said:


> The most popular personalities decided to take a pass on the party leadership this time around.  Reasons and speculation abound as to why, but none of that matters now.  We have who we have now and that's who we need to work with.


I can see now why Rona Ambrose didn't run.  I would imagine she saw these divisions.


----------



## Haggis (24 Mar 2021)

My belief is that it will be extremely hard - if not impossible - to beat Trudeau in the next election and possibly the one after that.  None of the popular personalities (Ambrose, Polievere) wanted to be the leader that presided over the inevitable defeat of the CPC.  Maybe they are hoping to come back as the saviour of the post O'Toole CPC.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Mar 2021)

Haggis said:


> My belief is that it will be extremely hard - if not impossible - to beat Trudeau in the next election and possibly the one after that.  None of the popular personalities (Ambrose, Polievere) wanted to be the leader that presided over the inevitable defeat of the CPC.  Maybe they are hoping to come back as the saviour of the post O'Toole CPC.


I'm not convinced. There is the very real possibility that the Liberals and NDP are going to try and "out left" each other. For example, I notice the NDP has proposed forgiveness of university tuition. In addition, the Liberals are going to hand down a budget soon. Someone will have to pay the tab for the 400BN we've spent, and it's going to be the middle class. It will be framed as a budget targeting the rich, but "rich" will be what the politicians define it as. Will the NDP support it? Who knows... it depends on what bones the Liberals throw them.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (24 Mar 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> I'm not convinced. There is the very real possibility that the Liberals and NDP are going to try and "out left" each other. For example, I notice the NDP has proposed forgiveness of university tuition. In addition, the Liberals are going to hand down a budget soon. Someone will have to pay the tab for the 400BN we've spent, and it's going to be the middle class. It will be framed as a budget targeting the rich, but "rich" will be what the politicians define it as. Will the NDP support it? Who knows... it depends on what bones the Liberals throw them.



While this is certainly a possibility, perhaps even likely, I don't think anything will be enough to overcome the massive wave of support that will go Trudeau's way if Canadians are allowed outside to live relatively pre-COVID style lives. I have been predicting for a while a scenario similar to the New Zealand election, where they end lockdowns a month or so before election, the PM then campaigns on a "I let you have your freedom back" campaign and the majority of the people welcome said PM as a saviour and the Liberals ride to an historic election victory.

EDIT: And I don't see a CPC platform of "the federal government should have invoked the Emergencies Act and been EVEN MORE oppressive" during COVID is going to be a recipe with success. The CPC base won't like it, and it won't win over anyone who's just happy to be outside again.


----------



## Weinie (24 Mar 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> While this is certainly a possibility, perhaps even likely, I don't think anything will be enough to overcome the massive wave of support that will go Trudeau's way if Canadians are allowed outside to live relatively pre-COVID style lives. I have been predicting for a while a scenario similar to the New Zealand election, where they end lockdowns a month or so before election, the PM then campaigns on a "I let you have your freedom back" campaign and the majority of the people welcome said PM as a saviour and the Liberals ride to an historic election victory.
> 
> EDIT: And I don't see a CPC platform of "the federal government should have invoked the Emergencies Act and been EVEN MORE oppressive" during COVID is going to be a recipe with success. The CPC base won't like it, and it won't win over anyone who's just happy to be outside again.


Watch for the "poison pill" goodies in the upcoming budget, many of which will be designed to enhance the LPC as committed to Canadians, while forcing the CPC to take a stance, either fiscal responsibility to appease the base, or concurrence to attempt to retain/sway voters


----------



## Quirky (24 Mar 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> For example, I notice the NDP has proposed forgiveness of university tuition.



The liberals will throw in some UBI and dental coverage to buy off the NDP. Canada is a nation of freeloaders who attracts narcissists who aren't capable of achievement. This pandemic has shown only one thing - Canadians support free socialist payment from government for doing absolutely nothing. CPC doesn't stand a chance.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Mar 2021)

I'm  going to wait until they present their climate plan and platform before rushing to judgement. I'll  admit, I didn't  vote for O'Toole in the race. I voted for Lewis. However, pending the details, I'm willing to dance with the one what brung me.


----------



## FJAG (24 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I'm  going to wait until they present their climate plan and platform before rushing to judgement. I'll  admit, I didn't  vote for O'Toole in the race. I voted for Lewis. However, pending the details, I'm willing to dance with the one what brung me.



I didn't vote for Lewis, but watched her during the convention as one of the two masters of ceremony. Was more impressed by her after that than previously.

🍻


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Mar 2021)

Some detailed proposals for mitigating specific environmental externalities would be better than a "climate plan", since "plan" in the mind of politicians and journalists is often misused in place of "aim" - a nebulous statement of good intentions and wishes.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Mar 2021)

Quirky said:


> The liberals will throw in some UBI and dental coverage to buy off the NDP. Canada is a nation of freeloaders who attracts narcissists who aren't capable of achievement. This pandemic has shown only one thing - *Canadians support free socialist payment from government for doing absolutely nothing. *CPC doesn't stand a chance.



So, like, does that include everyone, or just people like me, eh?


----------



## Loachman (24 Mar 2021)

Leslyn Lewis was my top pick. She had clear, well-thought-out policies and the most positive vision of the lot.

Watching the woke left criticize her would also have been deliciously entertaining.

She has a Youtube channel, but hasn't posted anything in a while.

I thought that Erin O'Toole would have been alright, but am underwhelmed and growing even less whelmed as time passes.

I see little difference between his ideas and Liberal ones. Those that find his ideas attractive will be unlikely to find them attractive enough to draw them away from Trudeau, and many of those who want to vote for a conservative leader will not bother to vote or will vote PPC.

His poll ratings are not trending well, and are likely dragging the Party's ratings down with them.

Given Trudeau's growing mountain of blunders, failures, and scandals, this should be an easy electoral win for the Conservatives. Instead, I expect a significant loss of seats.

And another leadership campaign to follow shortly afterwards.

Maybe we'll finally get it right then.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (25 Mar 2021)

Loachman said:


> Leslyn Lewis was my top pick. She had clear, well-thought-out policies and the most positive vision of the lot.
> 
> Watching the woke left criticize her would also have been deliciously entertaining.
> 
> ...



I agree with pretty much everything you've written here, although I have zero optimism that the CPC will finally get it right after a crushing defeat next election. I hope I'm wrong, but the CPC seems much more likely to go for an even redder Red Tory because they seem to think that it's conservatives that is losing them elections rather than the things you've outlined.

I thought O'Toole was going to be much better and he started out okay, but like you I've been very underwhelmed. VERY underwhelmed.

At this point I am among those who "want to vote for a conservative leader" and will "not bother to vote or will vote PPC". I am heavily leaning towards voting PPC as a protest vote rather than abstaining.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Mar 2021)

I think the party is dead, schism anyone ?  

Leslyn Lewis is a SoCon ... That's never going to win in this country.  No matter what her other platform stances are those SoCon values will keep her from ever winning the PM seat.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Mar 2021)

Perhaps the CPC is in the process of dissolving into its Reform and PC components, and we’ll have to wait and see how things go from there?


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Mar 2021)

The fundamental problem is that the CPC has to be different than the LPC, and in ways which are seen as either progressive (useful changes not the same as the hockey sock of changes proposed by the LPC or NDP) or corrective (fix sh!t the LPC didn't do very well or should not have done).  Corrective change can't look regressive.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (25 Mar 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think the party is dead, schism anyone ?
> 
> Leslyn Lewis is a SoCon ... That's never going to win in this country.  No matter what her other platform stances are those SoCon values will keep her from ever winning the PM seat.



In my view Andrew Scheer didn't lose because he was a SoCon, it was because he ran a very poor campaign. Even so he still came close. I think that a capable, confident, compassional SoCon _could _win an election and I think Leslyn Lewis would fit that bill. That said, I think many SoCons would settle for someone like Harper who isn't a SoCon but is tolerant of SoCons.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2021)

Scheer took the popular vote but lost in the riding race with the Grand Duchy of Toronto giving most of it's seats to trudeau. Lost due to gerrymandering.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Scheer took the popular vote but lost in the riding race with the Grand Duchy of Toronto giving most of it's seats to trudeau. Lost due to gerrymandering.


That's a pretty bold claim; Scheer was personnally quite unpopular anywhere east of Manitoba and had a pretty pro-Alberta platform.

They change the ridings all the time and they still tend to go back and forth between the Liberals and NDP throughout the entire golden horseshoe. Generally they stay liberal strongholds unless you get a really strong candidate from another party, and even when the Liberals were wiped out across most of the country they still won seats in that area.

Gerrymandering is a pretty weak excuse for long term poor performance, not backed up by any actual evidence. We don't have the same political interference in the Elections Canada process that you see regularly in the US.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (25 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Scheer took the popular vote but lost in the riding race with the Grand Duchy of Toronto giving most of it's seats to trudeau. Lost due to gerrymandering.



As well as the Maritimes which also have a number of seats disproportionate to their population.

I haven't followed this but have the CPC ever taken the opportunity to repair this when they've been in power?


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Scheer took the popular vote but lost in the riding race with the Grand Duchy of Toronto giving most of it's seats to trudeau. Lost due to gerrymandering.


Yeah, I'm sure Scheer's lack of popularity had _nothing_ to do with anything.


----------



## mariomike (25 Mar 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Scheer was personnally quite unpopular anywhere east of Manitoba and had a pretty pro-Alberta platform.





Navy_Pete said:


> Gerrymandering is a pretty weak excuse for long term poor performance, not backed up by any actual evidence. We don't have the same political interference in the Elections Canada process that you see regularly in the US.


Anyone interested in reading more on the subject,



			J.J. McCullough's websit
		










						How Canada ended gerrymandering
					

Our neighbor to the north solved its gerrymandering problem decades ago.




					www.vox.com
				












						One person, one vote? In Canada, it’s not even close
					

Some ridings have fewer than 40,000 people. Others are closer to 160,000. Can anything be done to make them more equal?




					www.thestar.com
				



From the above article,


> Some votes are going to be substantially more powerful than others, especially those cast in the most remote rural ridings. And if you live in a city — especially one growing as rapidly as Greater Toronto — your vote is more likely to register as less than equal.





> Take the electoral district of Labrador, for example. Only 27,197 live there, according to Elections Canada. Yes it is vast — you could fit all of the United Kingdom inside Labrador and still have room for Costa Rica. But compared to a typical riding in Brampton or Scarborough, where riding populations exceed the national average, and the numerical disparity is glaring: it will take about four times as many Toronto-area voters to get the same result, electing a single representative to Parliament.



Navy Pete said,


> We don't have the same political interference in the Elections Canada process that you see regularly in the US.


As Brihard pointed out,



> Difficult to easily compare voting trends vs results with a Westminster Parliamentary system, against a perpetual two-party republic where the presidential candidate must win an outright majority of something to get the spot.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> Yeah, I'm sure Scheer's lack of popularity had _nothing_ to do with anything.


I never said that. I don't  have to produce a whole list of faults for your benefit.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Mar 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> Yeah, I'm sure Scheer's lack of popularity had _nothing_ to do with anything.



I don't understand how your table has anything to do with Scheer winning the popular vote, but losing the seat count?  Yes, he campaigned horribly and lost votes (and for the record I didn't like him), but that has nothing to do with the issue Fishbone raised....unless I'm missing something.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I never said that. I don't  have to produce a whole list of faults for your benefit.


I never implied that you did. I don't need a list of faults from you. What's your proof of gerrymandering?


----------



## brihard (26 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Scheer took the popular vote but lost in the riding race with the Grand Duchy of Toronto giving most of it's seats to trudeau. Lost due to gerrymandering.



interestingly you spoke on the subject of popular vote in another thread a couple years ago...



			
				Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> In respect of the presidential election, there is no 'popular' vote that enters into the system or process.
> 
> Discussion of a 'popular' vote is a canard and a diversion and is irrelevant to the conversation of presidential elections, in the US.
> 
> ...



While you were speaking about the US election, I believe your same logic applies pretty flawlessly to the point at hand, substituting Canadian terminology as needed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2021)

I have zero doubt that if trudeau thought he could get away with the latest US style election ploys, he would. Damn the electorate concerns. His
trudeau brand vision for Canada isn't complete yet.


brihard said:


> interestingly you spoke on the subject of popular vote in another thread a couple years ago...
> 
> 
> 
> While you were speaking about the US election, I believe your same logic applies pretty flawlessly to the point at hand, substituting Canadian terminology as needed.


👏


----------



## brihard (26 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I have zero doubt that if trudeau thought he could get away with the latest US style election ploys, he would. Damn the electorate concerns. His
> trudeau brand vision for Canada isn't complete yet.
> 
> 👏



In a discussion about the CPC leadership, that seems pretty irrelevant, and really just an attempt to distract from having your own potentially hypocritical opinion pointed out when the place on the political spectrum is reversed. It might be that you want to take this particular gripe to a thread about Trudeau or the LPC, because you’re pulling this one pretty far off topic.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2021)

Perhaps I was off base somewhat and didn't think things through enough. Either way, it's immaterial. The forum feeding frenzy has started, so I'll just swim away. Don't  want to cause anyone any angst before the weekend.
 Damn, I'm having trouble posting today. Apologies.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2021)

brihard said:


> In a discussion about the CPC leadership, that seems pretty irrelevant, and really just an attempt to distract from having your own potentially hypocritical opinion pointed out when the place on the political spectrum is reversed. It might be that you want to take this particular gripe to a thread about Trudeau or the LPC, because you’re pulling this one pretty far off topic.


👏🙌👏🙌👏🙌 good call.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2021)

brihard said:


> In a discussion about the CPC leadership, that seems pretty irrelevant, and really just an attempt to distract from having your own potentially hypocritical opinion pointed out when the place on the political spectrum is reversed. It might be that you want to take this particular gripe to a thread about Trudeau or the LPC, because you’re pulling this one pretty far off topic.


But I didn't  say that about the most recent US election. Either way, it's  immaterial. The forum feeding frenzy has started, so I'll just swim away. Don't  want to cause anyone any angst before the weekend. Damn, I'm having trouble posting today. Apologies.


----------



## brihard (26 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> But I didn't  say that about the most recent US election. Either way, it's  immaterial. The forum feeding frenzy has started, so I'll just swim away. Don't  want to cause anyone any angst before the weekend. Damn, I'm having trouble posting today. Apologies.


No angst on my part, just calling it as I see it. If your opinion on the subject of the popular vote vs distribution of electoral districts has taken a 180 in the past couple years, that’s completely fine. You just haven’t indicated that to be the case, so I figured I’d note it and see if you took the chance to clarify. You did something else instead.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2021)

Sorry. I was editing that post when you replied. Then it posted in the wrong spot. I don't  know what's  going with my posting today. Maybe time to,reboot my tablet. Anyway, here's  the corrected response.

"
Perhaps I was off base somewhat and didn't think things through enough. Either way, it's immaterial. The forum feeding frenzy has started, so I'll just swim away. Don't  want to cause anyone any angst before the weekend.
Damn, I'm having trouble posting today. Apologies.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Mar 2021)

I think the PC's have (2) cards to play:
1.  Get out ahead of "ending the lockdown" and campaign on the wrongness of having isolated and locked down the entire population to protect a very small vulnerable minority, and all the damage that caused.
2.  Promote a "New Environmentalism" that focuses on real progress Canadians can see and feel.  No more money for CO2 as long as China is belching the stuff out at rates that make Canada look trivial in comparison.  Let's make a difference.  Expand the national parks.  Expanded the protected marine environments.  Move money from buying CO2 credits to cleaning up our lakes and rivers.  No more "Ecoli"-days closing our beaches.  Large reforestation programs.  Grants to municipalities to "green up" city parks and schoolyards.  In particular, provide large numbers of maple trees all across the country.  Then to show our global good will, out money into ocean clean up and sponsoring wildlife protection areas for threatened species.  The PC's need Canadians to realize that spending billions of dollars on an invisible gas that is primarily plant food is silly when there are so many other more pressing issues.

Well, that would be my "swing for the fences" shot at it anyway.....


----------



## Altair (26 Mar 2021)

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> I think the PC's have (2) cards to play:
> 1.  Get out ahead of "ending the lockdown" and campaign on the wrongness of having isolated and locked down the entire population to protect a very small vulnerable minority, and all the damage that caused.
> 2.  Promote a "New Environmentalism" that focuses on real progress Canadians can see and feel.  No more money for CO2 as long as China is belching the stuff out at rates that make Canada look trivial in comparison.  Let's make a difference.  Expand the national parks.  Expanded the protected marine environments.  Move money from buying CO2 credits to cleaning up our lakes and rivers.  No more "Ecoli"-days closing our beaches.  Large reforestation programs.  Grants to municipalities to "green up" city parks and schoolyards.  In particular, provide large numbers of maple trees all across the country.  Then to show our global good will, out money into ocean clean up and sponsoring wildlife protection areas for threatened species.  The PC's need Canadians to realize that spending billions of dollars on an invisible gas that is primarily plant food is silly when there are so many other more pressing issues.
> 
> Well, that would be my "swing for the fences" shot at it anyway.....


To your first point, that's all provincial.

To go after lockdowns is to go after the premiers, and I don't think a O'Toole Ford twitter battle helps either.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Mar 2021)

Is it too much to ask that proper nouns be capitalized whether one deems it worthy or not?


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Apr 2021)

If O’Toole is having to defend himself from a moniker of ‘Liberal Lite,’ then the CPC might as well rip off the band-aid and spilt back into the Reform and PC.

Erin O'Toole says 'I didn't hide who I was' running for Conservative leader
Article Link​


> OTTAWA - Erin O'Toole assured Conservative supporters that he never hid who he was in his bid to secure the party leadership, telling a high-profile conference on Saturday that the “true blue” campaign he ran to secure the party helm does reflect his true colours.
> 
> O'Toole fielded questions about his authenticity during an evening question-and-answer session that closed out a conference hosted by the Canada Strong and Free Network, formerly the Manning Centre.
> 
> ...


----------

