# CPC Leadership Potentials if Scheer Implodes



## Remius (14 Feb 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Interesting comment.
> 
> Is that indeed the view in the Liberal East?  Out here in Conservative Lethbridge we don't get that kind of scuttlebutt.



Well who would be his successor? Let’s say he gets defeated next election.  No way he stays on.  Who would replace him?  Who might? It is becoming closer to reality with this latest scandal.  It’s not just a liberal view but a political view regardless of your stripe.  She’s one of his stronger ministers heading one of the more important portfolios.  

if Scheer loses the election who might succeed him? It isn’t a partisan question.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> if Scheer loses the election who might succeed him? It isn’t a partisan question.



There's a bunch in the shadow cabinet that could do it, and Peter McKay has kept his foot in the water via political commentary.


----------



## Remius (14 Feb 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's a bunch in the shadow cabinet that could do it, and Peter McKay has kept his foot in the water via political commentary.



My thoughts exactly.  But if scheer wins or holds the Liberals to a minority that door will close for good likely.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Feb 2019)

We screwed our self out of Rona Ambrose.  I have no doubt she would have beat JT, Telford and Butts.


----------



## ballz (14 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> My thoughts exactly.  But if scheer wins or holds the Liberals to a minority that door will close for good likely.



Honestly I thought if Scheer held the Libs to a minority, he'd get another shot... he may still, but it would be a mistake for the CPC. While an election is still a long ways away, if he can't beat Trudeau given the past 3.5 years + this current scandal + Norman affair which will still be nice and fresh come October, then why bother letting him lead the party into another election... the Liberals are literally beating themselves, jumping up and down on their own plumbing, and there are still major doubts about whether or not they win again.

Most of the big names stayed out of the last CPC race because they thought Trudeau would be at least a two-term PM.... they've been proven wrong, and if Scheer isn't the PM after the next election, those folks will be out for blood. I'd guess Peter McKay and Rona Ambrose would throw their names in the ring for sure.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Feb 2019)

An Ambrose, McKay combo would be deadly.  Not sure either would be willing to play second fiddle though...


----------



## Remius (14 Feb 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> Most of the big names stayed out of the last CPC race because they thought Trudeau would be at least a two-term PM.... they've been proven wrong,



Not yet.  But the LPC has a chink in their armour now.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Not yet.  But the LPC has a chink in their armour now.



The chink in their armour has always been there, people are now just waking up. This is still the Sponsorship/Adscam/HRDC Boondoggle party from the 1990s.


----------



## ballz (14 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Not yet.  But the LPC has a chink in their armour now.



You're right, I worded that stupidly. It's purely speculating on my part on a "what if" but if the CPC had even half a leader this election would be in the bag. What I mean to communicate is, those who didn't run because they thought Trudeau would get at least two terms are probably thinking "FFS, I should have ran..." right about now.

EDIT to add: 

If Ambrose did this on purpose, she's a political genius. Coming in as interim leader, all she needed to do was keep the ship straight and she'd look like a winner. She did a great job of that, and walked away.... probably thinking like many that Trudeau would need at least 2 elections to defeat. She could now walk back in as the hero who came back to save the party and form government.

I'd be less cracked up about McKay. I sure don't forget how out of touch he became to the point that he was making stupid, boneheaded decisions essentially out of hubris.


----------



## Remius (14 Feb 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> You're right, I worded that stupidly. It's purely speculating on my part on a "what if" but if the CPC had even half a leader this election would be in the bag. What I mean to communicate is, those who didn't run because they thought Trudeau would get at least two terms are probably thinking "FFS, I should have ran..." right about now.



Totally agree.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Feb 2019)

Ambrose would knock it out of the park.  CPC just needs to figure out how Scheer can gracefully take a knee.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Feb 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ambrose would knock it out of the park.  CPC just needs to figure out how Scheer can gracefully take a knee.



Or Michelle Rempel, or Candice Bergen.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Feb 2019)

Sir_Spams_a_lot said:
			
		

> Or Michelle Rempel, or Candice Bergen.



Both excellent MPs and would great ministers, I suspect.  But I, like others,  think Ambrose is the best the CPC has.


----------



## Loachman (16 Feb 2019)

I subscribed to Michelle Rempel's Youtube channel some time ago, and am very impressed by her passion, energy, determination, and quick-thinking.

Any one of those three women, though, would be most excellent.


----------



## dimsum (16 Feb 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ambrose would knock it out of the park.  CPC just needs to figure out how Scheer can gracefully take a knee.



I haven't been following since Ambrose left as interim leader, but wasn't there something about her not being able to run?  Or was it that she couldn't run right after becoming interim leader?


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Feb 2019)

As I recall at the time, the interim leader could not run for leader.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Feb 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As I recall at the time, the interim leader could not run for leader.


  :nod:  

Ambrose, Rempel, Bergen, Riatt (in my descending order of capability) all show that genuine, non-jingoistic, capable women can represent a very valid and worthy flavour of modern feminism that doesn’t smell of mansplaining, pandering and virtue-signaling hollow feminism.

I truly wish something develops on the CPC side of the House for Rona to return to the leadership position she held so capably. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Feb 2019)

Not sure why we're completely writing off Scheer. More and more polls are showing statistical tie or Conservative lead, including the latest from Campaign Research: https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/02/15/conservatives-overtake-liberals-lead-snc-lavalin-affair-threatens-imperil-trudeaus-re-election-bid-poll-suggests/189118 which gives the Tories a 5 point lead.

Last year the Tories out fundraised the Liberals in every quarter, so Trudeau won't drop the writ until the very last moment so he can capitalize on third party support outside the writ. If the snowball that is SNC-Lavalin keeps rolling downhill, Scheer could conceivably ride a similar wave as Doug Ford into power: You run a Figure 11 target that's not Liberal as your leader and you win. The NDP are a non-factor right now, and really will only chip away at Liberal votes anyways should they see a resurgence when they finally have a leader in the Commons.


----------



## ballz (17 Feb 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You run a Figure 11 target that's not Liberal as your leader and you win.



That's why everyone is writing off Scheer, because even a figure 11 could do a better job.

He may manage to win the next election... through absolutely nothing but Scheer dumb luck (pun intended).... but if he doesn't, I can't see how the CPC can keep him given that even a Figure 11 could beat Trudeau. That's where this conversation sort of started.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Feb 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Ambrose, Rempel, Bergen, Riatt (in my descending order of capability) all show that genuine, non-jingoistic, capable women can represent a very valid and worthy flavour of modern feminism that doesn’t smell of mansplaining, pandering and virtue-signaling hollow feminism.
> 
> ...



I have a lot of respect for her.  If she were to run, I would be knocking on doors for her.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Feb 2019)

I sure hope you don't mean knocking on doors the way you did it in the Sandbox.   ;D

Anyone willing to suggest the return of Belinda?


----------



## dapaterson (17 Feb 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I sure hope you don't mean knocking on doors the way you did it in the Sandbox.   ;D
> 
> Anyone willing to suggest the return of Belinda?


She's too busy suing / being sued by her father right now...


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Feb 2019)

My, personal, choice in the last leadership campaign was Erin O'Toole, but I, too, would have preferred Rona Ambrose.

In my opinion Ms Rempel, and another young Albertan named Natalie Pon, represent the CPC's future ~ young, urban, nationalist, socially moderate, fiscally prudent, etc ~ but neither is, yet, sufficiently bilingual. Ditto, I think for Ms Bergen, I'm not sure about Lisa Raitt.

I know that will rub a few people the wrong way but the fact is that we are officially, _constitutionally_ bilingual country and a leader must be able to speak to and understand people in the other official language at least as well as Jean Chrétien did; that's not an incredibly high bar.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Haggis (17 Feb 2019)

My fear is that the moment the Conservatives trot out a female leader, the Liberals will be gleefully salivating and quick to call up the ghost of Kim Campbell's leadership.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2019)

Doubtful.  In the current social/political milieu, parties of the left and centre-left will have to tread very carefully when criticizing any CPC candidate who is not "white" and "male".


----------



## ballz (17 Feb 2019)

I think Rempel and Bergen are much like Pollievre, they are great antagonizers for the opposition, but I don't think any of them is truly a "leader." They are much better as followers. Because of the roles they've played as antagonizers I just don't see them as having the _gravitas_ to be a Prime Minister.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Feb 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> ..... I just don't see them as having the _gravitas_ to be a Prime Minister.


  :rofl:

I can list several political leaders (and media talking heads) who fail massively at ticking that box;  I fear that quality has been beaten to death.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Feb 2019)

I think we all know who we truly want.


----------



## Remius (18 Feb 2019)

Lol.  Yeah...

What are people's thoughts on Doug Ford making the leap?  

Is there anything stopping from running for the party leadership while still serving as Premier (but stepping down if won of course). 

The timing might be right when you think about it.  

Trudeau wins.  Scheer steps down.  An interim leader is chosen.  A new leadership race just before Ford has to declare a provincial election and takes the helm. 

I was hoping the Mulroney would be ready for a federal leadership run but she was a lame duck at the provincial level and her being linked to eth Franco issue in Ontario likely makes her unelectable federally. 

Ambrose if she comes back for me or MacKay.  The rest either are not electable or have issues of their own.


----------



## Haggis (18 Feb 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Doubtful.  In the current social/political milieu, parties of the left and centre-left will have to tread very carefully when criticizing any CPC candidate who is not "white" and "male".



I daresay you underestimate Liberal hypocrisy.


----------



## ballz (18 Feb 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> I can list several political leaders (and media talking heads) who fail massively at ticking that box;  I fear that quality has been beaten to death.



Fair point, no one can be sure how much it's required anymore in our celebrity-obsessed culture. But they also don't really have celebrity status to plug that hole with either...


----------



## observor 69 (18 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Lol.  Yeah...
> 
> What are people's thoughts on Doug Ford making the leap?
> 
> ...



I agree with all of the above. I find most of Ford's moves since becoming Premier are "scary Trump lite." I was surprised to see signs in the media recently that he may be thinking of a move in the direction of PM. Hell becoming a populist Premier worked out pretty good let's go for the big one.

As for poor Mulroney she sold her soul to Ford over his moves in the Ontario Franco issue.

"The dream is over.”
Those words by the Beatles’ John Lennon in his 1970 song “God” could easily apply these days to Caroline Mulroney.
The dream harboured by the Ontario attorney general when she first entered elected politics in the summer of 2017 was that one day she would become premier of Ontario and eventually move on to become Canada’s first elected woman prime minister."
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/11/28/the-dream-dies-for-caroline-mulroney.html


----------



## TimneyTime (20 Mar 2019)

I don't think Scheer will implode.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2019)

I'll stick with Scheer, for now. Too late to change him out, even though that worked for Ford. We're stuck with the devils we know going into this election.

Are there better? Who knows, he hasn't won yet, we have no idea how he'll be as a PM.

Enough believed trudeau to get him elected and look at what a disaster that turned out to be.

Scheer would need to be dead to do worse. Mind, a dead person could do better than trudeau is doing now.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Mar 2019)

The writer buried the MP's name until the end of the story. Why would that be ? Celina Caesar-Chavannes could no longer support the Liberal Party.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/in-fresh-blow-to-canada-pm-trudeau-lawmaker-quits-his-caucus/ar-BBV1IQZ?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Apr 2019)

One advantage of Scheer is that he is very Mundane and since we unelect governments, being mundane might be a good thing. The Liberals have had a hard time making him look scary and since he does not appeal to Large C Conservatives, he may appeal to the undecided crowd who are the real electors of governments.


----------



## ballz (21 Apr 2019)

http://338canada.com/?fbclid=IwAR0gkT-hqeljaBLWc-MCnEPrh0jGlqxUUcoNRgnmk9GlFVcCyVaTh5QDxcA

This is pretty sad... now that SNC-Lavellin has been out of the news for what, 2 weeks? The CPC lead has shrank again to only 3.5%... you can see the graph, it's been entirely lost to the Liberals.

I agree with Colin's post about Scheer being mundane might work to his advantage, but that is very much relying on the Liberals to continually step on their own genitals... it's like he has no ability to influence the electorate one way or another and is just along for the ride like the rest of us.

That said the seat projections are at least showing a healthy buffer if he can just hang on.


----------



## Remius (21 Apr 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> http://338canada.com/?fbclid=IwAR0gkT-hqeljaBLWc-MCnEPrh0jGlqxUUcoNRgnmk9GlFVcCyVaTh5QDxcA
> 
> This is pretty sad... now that SNC-Lavellin has been out of the news for what, 2 weeks? The CPC lead has shrank again to only 3.5%... you can see the graph, it's been entirely lost to the Liberals.
> 
> ...



Pretty much.  I know plenty of people who would vote conservative but they will likely either stay home or vote for someone else as long as Scheer is the leader.  Myself included.  I’m still undecided and plenty of time for Trudeau to get caught eating kittens but for now Scheer isn’t really doing it for me.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Apr 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> http://338canada.com/?fbclid=IwAR0gkT-hqeljaBLWc-MCnEPrh0jGlqxUUcoNRgnmk9GlFVcCyVaTh5QDxcA
> 
> This is pretty sad... now that SNC-Lavellin has been out of the news for what, 2 weeks? The CPC lead has shrank again to only 3.5%... you can see the graph, it's been entirely lost to the Liberals.
> 
> ...



The VAdm Norman affair is still waiting in the wings, so to speak.  If this all starts to unravel for the Liberals in the courtroom, as its scheduled, I personally think it will be bigger than the SNC boondoggle.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Apr 2019)

[quote author=Remius]  I’m still undecided and plenty of time for Trudeau to get caught eating kittens but for now Scheer isn’t really doing it for me.
[/quote]
If you still need convincing that Trudeau shouldn't be PM I doubt him eating kittens is going to phase you


----------



## Remius (22 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If you still need convincing that Trudeau shouldn't be PM I doubt him eating kittens is going to phase you



He certainly deserves to be ousted.  But I’m not convinced that the other options are any better.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> He certainly deserves to be ousted.  But I’m not convinced that the other options are any better.



What has Scheer done to convince you he would be a worse choice for PM than the other option(s) ?

I concur to his being more "mundane", but flashy socks, virtue signalling, and dress up displays hardly provide depth to the other option.


----------



## Remius (22 Apr 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> What has Scheer done to convince you he would be a worse choice for PM than the other option(s) ?
> 
> I concur to his being more "mundane", but flashy socks, virtue signalling, and dress up displays hardly provide depth to the other option.



I didn’t say worse.  Just not any better. 

A few things come to mind.  Most Canadians don’t see him as the head of the conservatives party.  A good chunk think Doug Ford is.  That is telling. 

Also, he has the same tune every time.  Everything is a scandal everything needs an investigation and calls for one all the time.  So when something like the SNC Lavalin scandal comes up.  Something that should be investigated it rings hollow from him because he’s been crying wolf on the mundane stuff.  When he call for the pm to step down it sounds like the same tune he always has.  So some voters like me roll our eyes when he does call for resignations and investigations.  

I don’t think he’s been very effective as an opposition leader.  It makes me wonder how effectively he might be as a leader of the government.  

Campaigns matter.  My decision will be formed during the campaign when I can see what all parties have to offer.  My suspicion though is that it might boil down to my choice for MP.  I’d rather see someone else leading the Liberals just as much as I’d rather see someone else leading the CPC. But we have what we have.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2019)

Ironic.  If the leader is strong-willed and/or flashy, we end up with a handful of people in the PMO running the entire show.  If the leader is mundane and seems to be a "grey man" who might be just the thing to decentralize authority in parliament a little, we don't want him.


----------



## Remius (22 Apr 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Ironic.  If the leader is strong-willed and/or flashy, we end up with a handful of people in the PMO running the entire show.  If the leader is mundane and seems to be a "grey man" who might be just the thing to decentralize authority in parliament a little, we don't want him.



True.  But I have no doubt that Scheer would exert as much control in the PMO as Harper did.  I suspect it is needed in that job one way or another.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> I didn’t say worse.  Just not any better.



Is there actually a point where you would vote for Scheer instead of Trudeau?

If so what would Trudeau _actually_ have to do to get you to that point?


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Apr 2019)

Is the requirement for a leader to take the country in a particular direction of her/his choosing or is it for a manager that will permit the country to go in the directions that it chooses?

As to having a grip on the PMO, the staff of the Prime Minister's Office, I would hope that the Prime Minister would be gripping the staff.

Now should the PM be gripping parliament, or should parliament be gripping the PM?  That is the existential, and fundamental fight at the heart of the way our country is run.  I hope that I never see the day that that fight ends.


----------



## Remius (22 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is there actually a point where you would vote for Scheer instead of Trudeau?
> 
> If so what would Trudeau _actually_ have to do to get you to that point?




Not sure.  I am at a point where I don’t want to vote for Trudeau.  That hasn’t translated in to me wanting to vote for  Scheer.  

Something many undecided are grappling with. 

Like I said, it may boil down to my MP.  Or how the campaign goes.


----------



## suffolkowner (22 Apr 2019)

I'm not sure blaming Scheer for a potential Liberal win in the election makes sense. As unhappy as I am with Trudeau government, I'm not sure that the Conservatives have actually provided a reason to vote for them. In my case no candidate/party will receive my vote that does not have a serious plan regarding climate change(as judged by me). At this time that precludes me from voting for the Conservatives regardless who their leader is or the performance of Trudeau


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2019)

Cancelling the carbon tax is justification enough for me to vote for them. The Tories are the only main party to commit to cancelling it.

As for a serious climate change plan, do you realize that if we cut our emissions in half (ignoring the massive forests that absorb our CO2 anyway), we'll change global emissions by a paltry 0.7% but completely devastate our economy in the process? The only short/medium term climate plan that makes any sense is federal funding to replace all Coal generating stations with nuclear power. That would cut our emissions by 60 megatonnes, or just under 10% of our total emissions. That number goes up to 80 megatonnes if we replace the natural gas stations with nuclear as well. Conveniently, that would put us on track to meet the Paris Accord commitment of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, with time to spare as a nuclear plant takes approx 60 months (quick Google research) to build and turn on. 

The Liberals have failed on their keystone platform of "climate change", with the Liberals even getting further behind every year they're in office: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-further-from-paris-targets-than-last-year-new-projections-show


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Apr 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Cancelling the carbon tax is justification enough for me to vote for them. The Tories are the only main party to commit to cancelling it.
> 
> As for a serious climate change plan, do you realize that if we cut our emissions in half (ignoring the massive forests that absorb our CO2 anyway), we'll change global emissions by a paltry 0.7% but completely devastate our economy in the process? The only short/medium term climate plan that makes any sense is federal funding to replace all Coal generating stations with nuclear power. That would cut our emissions by 60 megatonnes, or just under 10% of our total emissions. That number goes up to 80 megatonnes if we replace the natural gas stations with nuclear as well. Conveniently, that would put us on track to meet the Paris Accord commitment of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, with time to spare as a nuclear plant takes approx 60 months (quick Google research) to build and turn on.
> 
> The Liberals have failed on their keystone platform of "climate change", with the Liberals even getting further behind every year they're in office: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-further-from-paris-targets-than-last-year-new-projections-show



...assuming no one holds Canada partially, or fully accountable for the increased CO2 emissions that will directly result from burning all that coal that B.C. is exporting via whale-friendly bulk-carrier ships... :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Apr 2019)

The Conservatives statement of intent is no carbon tax on home heating only (I think).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucrlrLj2vTI 

*I will scrap the carbon tax * Andrew Scheer - *2 Apr 19*


Can't find that statement in a search of the CPC website, but this turns up from the month before:


https://media.conservative.ca/en/news-releases/conservatives-to-remove-gst-from-home-heating
*
Part of Andrew Scheer’s plan to make life more affordable for Canadians* - March 6, 2019 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Mississauga, Ontario – The Leader of Canada’s Conservatives and of the Official Opposition, the Honourable Andrew Scheer, today announced the next step in his plan to make life more affordable for Canadians.

A Conservative government, led by Andrew Scheer, will remove the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from home heating and energy bills, which will save the average Canadian household $107 per year.

“It’s hard enough to get ahead these days without the government taking money out of your pocket,” Scheer said. “Heating your home in the winter isn’t a luxury for Canadians. It is a necessity. We don’t tax other basic necessities like groceries and we shouldn’t be taxing home heating.”

The Conservative leader emphasized that under his plan Canadians will not only save the cost of the federal tax on their home heating and energy bills, they will also save hundreds of dollars more each year after he cancels Justin Trudeau’s Carbon Tax.

“His Carbon Tax will increase the cost of everyday essentials like gasoline, groceries, and home heating and make life more expensive for everyone. As Prime Minister, I will put this money back in the pockets of Canadians where it belongs,” Scheer said.

“Canada should have a government that helps people achieve their dreams, not a government that stands in the way,” Scheer said. “My plan to remove the GST from home heating and energy bills is just one of the ways that a Conservative government will help Canadians get ahead.”


----------



## ballz (22 Apr 2019)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I'm not sure blaming Scheer for a potential Liberal win in the election makes sense. As unhappy as I am with Trudeau government, _I'm not sure that the Conservatives have actually provided a reason to vote for them._



I fail to see how that is not their leader's fault?

I think the carbon tax puts the Conservatives in a bad place... I'm quite confident there is no more efficient way to change behaviors than taxes. I am actually not against a carbon tax, but I am against the nuances of the way the Liberals are rolling it out. This whole "collect it and then give it back" just causes unnecessary administration. I would be on board with a carbon tax that coincided, based on the calculation of how much revenue will be collected through it, with a cut to the GST. Not only would it be revenue-neutral without the unnecessary administration, but the effect of making carbon-products slightly more expensive, and everything else slightly cheaper, would have a better effect on influencing behaviors than only increasing the price of carbon-products. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have been so outright against the idea that this road isn't really open to them.

I'm also very interested in some stuff coming into the market now. The addition of "plug-in hybrids" seems like to me like they've finally created a product that is viable. There is also a company in California now that converts existing vehicles into plug-in hybrids, which if i were offered in Canada would be a great place to put a tax credit (I'm against tax credits, but I digress).


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Apr 2019)

Carbon Tax - Replacing the Gold Standard with the Carbon Standard.

An interesting concept where everybody buys and mines their own gold and runs their own mint and the exchange is monitored by a sales tax.

How much credit do I get for the wheat my carbon creates?


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Apr 2019)

My apologies for a late reply.  I've been reloading and de-mounting a scope all day. 



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> I didn’t say worse.  Just not any better.
> 
> A few things come to mind.  Most Canadians don’t see him as the head of the conservatives party.  A good chunk think Doug Ford is.  That is telling.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2019)

One big reason I won't ever vote for liberals. I've mentioned this before and basically been called  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Well now there's two of us that think that way.

https://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/the-crushing-of-wilson-raybould-and-philpott-is-proof-canada-is-run-by-a-liberal-cabal?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0JgpFc0dEPlLmFnAoyJL4U_68TltODuHdT8q4sjHaqqGft3kN5Ewt6Ano#Echobox=1555932552


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Apr 2019)

hmmm, I don't disagree with the main thesis of the "Cabal", but JWR is a person of immense talent? At what? She was a junior prosecutor for 3 years, and gained a reputation with defence counsel as a Crown counsel who will cave on every criminal indigenous file she was assigned, that hardly makes her "immensely talented" for the role of AG. She abused her position in the role of AG and Justice Minister to skewer the Crown and taxpayers in any indigenous litigation, over the documented objection of far more experienced and senior counsel. 

With respect to her various positions as an indigenous leader, she was a rascal activist with a title, a large paycheque and just used the playbook developed by her and her illustrious "social anthropologist" husband, not a frickin' rocket scientist, doctor, engineer or anybody else with real talent.  

I don't know much about the other parliamentarian, and while I do not disagree with JWR's "decision" on SNC, I pretty much disagree with everything else that she did in her role.  If there is a cabal of liberal power brokers, there is also another cabal of activists in positions of power who are abusing their authority and the trust put in them to serve the public interest and the greater good, which is not something the former AG ostensibly agrees with.


----------



## Remius (22 Apr 2019)

Here is the most current Nanos poll.

http://www.nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Political-Package-2019-04-12-FR.pdf

Even I have to say wtf.

Look at preferred leader and who people think display the qualities of a leader. 

I have to wonder if the number so that Maxime Bernier are showing are actually eating away at Scheer and the CPC.  8.7 percent is a significant amount that would put the CPC way over.  

This is after the whole snc thing.  

Maybe the Liberal scare tactics are working, maybe it is the climate change debate.  Not sure.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Apr 2019)

What I find most interesting is the Green growth.  Their improvement in the polls seems to be sticking, so the question to me is how effective their votes will be, and who benefits from them.  Where is the tipping point where they become a viable national party, and which of the three do they displace? (Displace by 2030 or so).


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Apr 2019)

Maybe PEI will be the litmus test for the east coast.


----------



## FJAG (22 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> One big reason I won't ever vote for liberals. I've mentioned this before and basically been called  :Tin-Foil-Hat:
> 
> Well now there's two of us that think that way.
> 
> https://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/the-crushing-of-wilson-raybould-and-philpott-is-proof-canada-is-run-by-a-liberal-cabal?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0JgpFc0dEPlLmFnAoyJL4U_68TltODuHdT8q4sjHaqqGft3kN5Ewt6Ano#Echobox=1555932552



Actually there are three of us and I, for one, have never called you out on this issue. I'm not sure cabal is the word I would use but cronyism is one that I definitely would. Spent much of my time in Manitoba and watched the backroom workings of the Axworthy and Asper/CanWest machines at work (anyone else remember Russel Mills being fired from the Ottawa Citizen for criticising Chretien?)

This is the one single issue why I can't vote Liberal regardless of how attractive they try to paint their policies (and quite frankly, this last regime has shown very few that I agree with anyway seeing as fiscal responsibility and significant defence reform are high on my priority list)

 :cheers:


----------



## Remius (23 Apr 2019)

global news put this out yesterday.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5191123/federal-election-seat-projection-trudeau-liberals-minority/?utm_source=GlobalNews&utm_medium=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1zeTH9__BcKrzciiZo-tGrFQCQo35eN4SCf4f71Yzw35DJcSS6_E_mq04

So, in line with this thread, what happens to Scheer in that scenario? Does he stay on or will there be pressure to find a more electable leader?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Apr 2019)

Failing a Palace coup, most leaders are the party and the party is the reflection of the leader. I don't put stock in polls much any more.

You can see the political bias bleed through in their projects and research. Some are pretty blatant in their postures towards their preference. There are still polls out there showing trudeau at the top of the heap by fairly positive majorities. Yet, all indications are he's in the toilet.

Then there are the polls that are so overwhelmingly wrong as to be laughable, like Trump won't win and others of a like lopsided surprise.

We all know most polls are designed to reach a predetermined result, for a predetermined audience. The questions are skewed in favour of the poll flavour. The demographics are picked to reflect the people they want to answer the poll.

The only science behind polls is the science of predictability. You get the answer you pays for. Plain and simple.

Having said all that, I saw a recent poll that said something along the line that somewhere in the 60-65 percentile of eligible Canadians said it was time for trudeau and the liberals to go. I didn't grab it for discussion, simply because of my feelings above. It is just another piece of bumph and UFI. Not worthy for discussion, not reliable enough to take to the bank, not fact by any stretch of the imagination.

Polls are distractions. Not much different than personal opinion pieces sent to and pumped out by partisan media. They'll print what fits their agenda.

They are nothing but opinion and we know what nothing but opinion will get you, in discussions like those here.


----------



## Remius (23 Apr 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Maybe PEI will be the litmus test for the east coast.



Possibly.  I think that the green Party is going to attract more and more disaffected NDP members and some Liberal voters to some extent.  The NDP is going through a bit of an identity crisis.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2019)

Perhaps the Greens will do to the Liberals, what Maxime has done to the Cons.  

So we now have a center left party (Lib) and two left wing parties (Green, NDP) and one Center right party (Con) and one right wing party (PPC). 

Those two left wing parties may end up causing some trouble for the Liberals. One captures to social(ist) vote and one the environmentalist vote.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Apr 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Perhaps the Greens will do to the Liberals, what Maxime has done to the Cons.
> 
> So we now have a center left party (Lib) and two left wing parties (Green, NDP) and one Center right party (Con) and one left wing party (PPC).
> 
> Those two left wing parties may end up causing some trouble for the Liberals. One captures to social(ist) vote and one the environmentalist vote.



Given the move to socialism, I'd hesitate to call the liberals centre left. I think they are much further left than centre.

Nor would I call the PPC left wing, but right of centre.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Given the move to socialism, I'd hesitate to call the liberals centre left. I think they are much further left than centre.
> 
> Well the Libs are as close to the centre the left has in Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (23 Apr 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Perhaps the Greens will do to the Liberals, what Maxime has done to the Cons.
> 
> So we now have a center left party (Lib) and two left wing parties (Green, NDP) and one Center right party (Con) and one right wing party (PPC).
> 
> Those two left wing parties may end up causing some trouble for the Liberals. One captures to social(ist) vote and one the environmentalist vote.



I think it will have a larger impact on the NDP vote share. 

The PPC may take 5-10% of the conservative vote share.  The Greens might garner 2-3% of the left leaning Liberals but likely similar numbers from the NDP as the PPC takes from the CPC.  So maybe 4-8% of the NDP share.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> I think it will have a larger impact on the NDP vote share.
> 
> The PPC may take 5-10% of the conservative vote share.  The Greens might garner 2-3% of the left leaning Liberals but likely similar numbers from the NDP as the PPC takes from the CPC.  So maybe 4-8% of the NDP share.



I really dont think the PPC will skim that much.  IMHO they will be lucky to get seat. 

As for the NDP and Greens; with the right youthful leaders they destroy the Liberals.  There are millions of 18-30 year olds who want nothing more than to not vote Liberal or Con.  Unfortunately Elizabeth May and Jagmeet Singh aren't the right people, IMHO.


----------



## Remius (23 Apr 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I really dont think the PPC will skim that much.  IMHO they will be lucky to get seat.
> 
> As for the NDP and Greens; with the right youthful leaders they destroy the Liberals.  There are millions of 18-30 year olds who want nothing more than to not vote Liberal or Con.  Unfortunately Elizabeth May and Jagmeet Singh aren't the right people, IMHO.



Oh, I don't think it will translate into seats.  Just popular vote.  But that could split the vote in some ridings allowing up the middle wins. 

True about dynamic leadership.  There is a generation of young voters coming soon that care about the environment and what is being done about it.  Traditional parties may want to heed that going forward.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Oh, I don't think it will translate into seats.  Just popular vote.  But that could split the vote in some ridings allowing up the middle wins.
> 
> True about dynamic leadership.  There is a generation of young voters coming soon that care about the environment and what is being done about it.  Traditional parties may want to heed that going forward.



This is the difference with the Libs and Cons.  There is no viable alternative to conservative minded folks.  The PPC is not an option in Canada.  Too radical and a heavy perception of racism.  They wont be around more than a single election cycle me thinks. 

I am a card carrying member of the Cons.  But I strongly suggest my party rids itself of abortion and gay rights issues.  These are dead topics in Canada.  Its time to move on to things that matter like alternatives for the environment, foreign affairs/defence, balanced budgets and equalization payments.  The former topics will get you people from across the board with the right solutions.


----------



## Monsoon (23 Apr 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am a card carrying member of the Cons.  But I strongly suggest my party rids itself of abortion and gay rights issues.


The Conservative party position on abortion and gay rights has been amply clear for ages. Remember that time they ran the country for a decade and supported abortion and gay rights? What more could it possibly do to "rid itself" of "issues"? The continued existence of "issues" will continue to be a Liberal talking point (remember the "hidden agenda"?), but I'd expect an actual party supporter to be aware of the reality.


----------



## Remius (23 Apr 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> The Conservative party position on abortion and gay rights has been amply clear for ages. Remember that time they ran the country for a decade and supported abortion and gay rights? What more could it possibly do to "rid itself" of "issues"? The continued existence of "issues" will continue to be a Liberal talking point (remember the "hidden agenda"?), but I'd expect an actual party supporter to be aware of the reality.



Ages? 

Monsoon, I agree that there is a bit of hysteria in regards to the "hidden agenda" but let's be real.  Until 2017 the CPC had a clause defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. There was no support per se for gay rights but rather an explicit no go zone.  The last leadership campaign did show that there is a segment of the conservative movement that want those debates reopened.  Stephen harper never once went to a pride parade in his ten years in power.  Now, he does not have to and that is a fair choice on his or any other leader's part.   

But there is distrust and Halifax Tar was highlighting that.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> The Conservative party position on abortion and gay rights has been amply clear for ages. Remember that time they ran the country for a decade and supported abortion and gay rights? What more could it possibly do to "rid itself" of "issues"? The continued existence of "issues" will continue to be a Liberal talking point (remember the "hidden agenda"?), but I'd expect an actual party supporter to be aware of the reality.



I you think underestimate the amount of Con Party members who wish change governance around gay rights and abortion.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJdgqhQhODU

He could have come out and said, unequivocally Yes to gay rights and Yes to abortion, with-out having to play his personal beliefs and constituents beliefs.  The undercurrent their is scary. 

My party needs to come out and simply say we stand for equal distribution of liberties to all Canadians on all issues.  This includes the full envelope of Canadian Rights and freedoms to all Canadians inclusive of LGBTQ+ and the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion.  Get it over with once and for all and close the door for the Liberals to be able to attack this point.  

Those in my party who feel differently need to come to grips with the fact that the country has decided and moved on.  

Lastly you can keep your uncalled for an snarky remarks to yourself, thank you.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (23 Apr 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> The Conservative party position on abortion and gay rights has been amply clear for ages. Remember that time they ran the country for a decade and supported abortion and gay rights? What more could it possibly do to "rid itself" of "issues"? The continued existence of "issues" will continue to be a Liberal talking point (remember the "hidden agenda"?), but I'd expect an actual party supporter to be aware of the reality.



I wouldn't say "amply" when the social conservatives in the party regularly attempt to bring the issue back to the platform.

Eight months ago.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-conservative-policy-convention-1.4798918


> A slim majority of Conservative convention delegates voted Saturday against a resolution backed by anti-abortion campaigners while at the same time affirming the party's opposition to using Canadian foreign aid to fund abortion services abroad — a mixed bag result for social conservatives.
> 
> Other controversial resolutions, including a push to limit citizenship rights for those born in this country to non-Canadian parents and an endorsement of moving Canada's embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, received overwhelming support.
> 
> ...


----------



## Monsoon (23 Apr 2019)

Right, so what I'm reading here is a misunderstanding of how "policy debate" differs from "party policy". The fact that someone got the minimal number of signatures needed to introduce (say) abortion rights as a topic for debate at a policy convention in 2017 isn't what matters. What matters is that the party voted to maintain a policy of support for access to abortion in Canada.

Functional democracy means tolerating the fact that there are people out there whose opinions differ from your own; policy conventions are the literal embodiment of that principle. The Conservatives and NDP could make people happy by adopting the Liberal practice of having all policy motions vetted by an insider committee before being introduced for debate at a convention, but I give them credit for preferring to maintain a semblance of democratic process and trust that their membership will get the vote right.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> Right, so what I'm reading here is a misunderstanding of how "policy debate" differs from "party policy". The fact that someone got the minimal number of signatures needed to introduce (say) abortion rights as a topic for debate at a policy convention in 2017 isn't what matters. What matters is that the party voted to maintain a policy of support for access to abortion in Canada.
> 
> Functional democracy means tolerating the fact that there are people out there whose opinions differ from your own; policy conventions are the literal embodiment of that principle. The Conservatives and NDP could make people happy by adopting the Liberal practice of having all policy motions vetted by an insider committee before being introduced for debate at a convention, but I give them credit for preferring to maintain a semblance of democratic process and trust that their membership will get the vote right.



The fact anything of that nature was even debated in 2017 is troublesome, and only further supports my position.  And it will continue to dog us; and be fodder for our opposition, until we stop bringing it up. 

Our memberships needs to come to grips with the fact that gay rights an abortion are decided in Canada.  And any leader with so much as the stench of changing that around them is going be almost unelectable for the greater part of this country.


----------



## FJAG (23 Apr 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The fact anything of that nature was even debated in 2017 is troublesome, and only further supports my position.  And it will continue to dog us; and be fodder for our opposition, until we stop bringing it up.
> 
> Our memberships needs to come to grips with the fact that gay rights an abortion are decided in Canada.  And any leader with so much as the stench of changing that around them is going be almost undetectable (unelectable?) for the greater part of this country.



I agree with you but I also thought that two decades ago the abortion issue was settled in the US and that Gay rights were moving forward there at an acceptable rate. Boy was I wrong! I think that the social conservatives in the CPC are gaining confidence and strength from what is going on in the South and will continue to push and advocate to undermine what both you and I thought was a "settled issue" here. I think those of us who are more socially liberal within the CPC need to take a strong stand and be heard regularly. Mind you that might just result in the formation of another Reform or Wildrose Party and split the vote again.  :facepalm:

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Apr 2019)

Well we could take the "science based approach" the left loves to go on about and apply them to the issue of the beginning of life. Now that would be interesting. As I said before, our current definition is "Legally neat" but not based on any science. Real science may prove the gay issue, but would slaughter the whole gender garbage except in the tiny, tiny fraction of people born with two sets of genitals.

Can you blame the right with dealing with the issues when they have had "Planned Parenthood" and 72 genders rammed down their throats for at least a decade?


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Apr 2019)

Thats interesting, because in the world of human taxonomy and science, there is no sub category of gender.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2019)

lol Thanks for the correction FJAG.  Whoops! 

 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Apr 2019)

Is it possible for Scheer to step down from leadership“ for health reasons” and somebody more palatable take the reins. Caroline Mulroney?


----------



## Remius (24 Apr 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Is it possible for Scheer to step down from leadership“ for health reasons” and somebody more palatable take the reins. Caroline Mulroney?



To be honest I think she shot herself in the foot with Doug Ford's dealings with the Franco Ontarian issue.  She'll never be able to get votes in Quebec after that.  A good chunk of NB and parts of Ontario would snub her as well.  And her father did her no favours when he appeared on Tout le monde en parle.  She's damaged goods.  

My take is that if he wins, then he should stay obviously.  If he only manages to force a Liberal minority given the current climate, I'm not so sure.  He should be given a chance but I suspect that there will be internal pressures for him to move out of the way.  A Liberal minority would get maybe 2 years in before another election and the last thing they would want is another 4 years of Trudeau after that.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> To be honest I think she shot herself in the foot with Doug Ford's dealings with the Franco Ontarian issue.  She'll never be able to get votes in Quebec after that.  A good chunk of NB and parts of Ontario would snub her as well.  And her father did her no favours when he appeared on Tout le monde en parle.  She's damaged goods.
> 
> My take is that if he wins, then he should stay obviously.  If he only manages to force a Liberal minority given the current climate, I'm not so sure.  He should be given a chance but I suspect that there will be internal pressures for him to move out of the way.  A Liberal minority would get maybe 2 years in before another election and the last thing they would want is another 4 years of Trudeau after that.



I think the likes of MacKay and Rona Ambrose are kicking themselves right now.  Both of these folks would have been excellent alternatives to JT and his team.  

Having said that, a Liberal minority is a conservative victory, especially with all the provinces being moved to Conservative governments.  I predict Scheer stays on in this case. But failing to win an elections after the collapse of a Liberal minority I suspect Scheer is ousted and MacKay or Ambrose take the reigns.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Apr 2019)

From the Toronto Star.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Apr 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think the likes of MacKay and Rona Ambrose are kicking themselves right now.  Both of these folks would have been excellent alternatives to JT and his team.



Not sure about that. Ambrose couldn’t run as the interim leader, I believe, and MacKay was still focusing on his family.  That said, I could see either pre- or post-election changes given certain conditions that could develop in the coming months. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Apr 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not sure about that. Ambrose couldn’t run as the interim leader, I believe, and MacKay was still focusing on his family.  That said, I could see either pre- or post-election changes given certain conditions that could develop in the coming months.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I am of the camp that believes they chose their paths at that time expecting a very strongly supported Liberal party for 2 election cycles with little chance of victory until a third election.


----------



## Remius (24 Apr 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am of the camp that believes they chose their paths at that time expecting a very strongly supported Liberal party for 2 election cycles with little chance of victory until a third election.



I'm of the same belief.  They are or were planning a return shortly after a 2nd Trudeau win.  Those plans might be in question now for some.


----------



## Loachman (25 Apr 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Our memberships needs to come to grips with the fact that gay rights an abortion are decided in Canada.



A good number of other matters "are decided in Canada" as well.

As we don't need to revisit any of them either, barring anything completely new, why bother with Parliament at all?

Many people have very different viewpoints on many subjects. Should they also "come to grips" with a/the standardized/officially-mandated viewpoint?

I don't know that too many people are hung up on "gay rights" (really nothing more than ensuring that all people are treated fairly and equally), but there are a lot of people who understand that abortion involves killing an unborn human being and are very, very unlikely to be convinced otherwise.

Neither abortion nor the conflict surrounding it are ever likely to go away. Recognizing the political impracticality/impossibility regarding banning it outright, I'd rather at least see a legislated end to late-term abortions, especially partial-birth abortions, and more support, including adoption services, offered to potential mothers in order to truly give them a "choice".

The only two women that I've ever known who were open about having had abortions harboured deep regrets and remorse many years later, and wished that they'd made a different decision.


----------

