Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

[Good2Golf]

A leadership review automatically happens at their next party convention. Why the early review and challenge?

Perhaps the party constitution is considered by some to be just a suggestion when it suits?

 

[QV]

Probably about time to just pull off the bandaid and reverse the 2003 Alliance and PC deal, and just move forward as the progressive and SOCON entities separately…

I would like more choices. I'd be interested to see how a libertarian (PPC), a progressive conservative (CPC), and a SOCON (re-newed Alliance?) party would work together in a coalition to govern.

 

[Good2Golf]

I would like more choices. I'd be interested to see how a libertarian (PPC), a progressive conservative (CPC), and a SOCON (re-newed Alliance?) party would work together in a coalition to govern.

It would depend heavily on how such a structure would attract the Blue Liberals to the fold.

 

[Halifax Tar]

On the flip side, do you really need a leadership review when the party is continually undermining the party message to support fringe elements?

People don't trust the official party line on pro-choice, climate change and some other key issues specifically because of vocal support for the opposite of that by seniour people and significant segments of the base. No one really trusts politicians, but when even the party is internally inconsistent, it's not really helping your cause, and loses all kinds of swing voters. None of the partie's core base is enough to form a government, but the current CPC is pretty adept at actively alienating anyone on the fence.

100%

We don't seem to realize there are more votes up for grabs around the center than further into the right.

I want a party that's firmly pro choice, pro LGBTQ+, pro gun, pro small government and pro balanced budgets. Why is that so hard ? Stay out of my bedroom and concentrate on being effective and economical.

 

[QV]

100%

We don't seem to realize there are more votes up for grabs around the center than further into the right.

I want a party that's firmly pro choice, pro LGBTQ+, pro gun, pro small government and pro balanced budgets. Why is that so hard ? Stay out of my bedroom and concentrate on being effective and economical.

That's the PPC.

 

[YZT580]

100%

We don't seem to realize there are more votes up for grabs around the center than further into the right.

I want a party that's firmly pro choice, pro LGBTQ+, pro gun, pro small government and pro balanced budgets. Why is that so hard ? Stay out of my bedroom and concentrate on being effective and economical.

if you want what you say you want then you do not want pro lgbtq but rather a totally neutral position where our existing laws on prejudice and discrimination can work. Conservatives don't necessarily have an anti stance they simply want the government to butt out. If the party had simply taken a pro gun (with a carefully written and clear explanation as to what that meant), a pro small government and a pro balanced budget and clearly stated their position on the hot button issues that were predictable right from the start they could easily have attracted a larger number of votes. It was no wonder that O'Toole lost; there was no difference between his and the liberals stance so people simply stayed with the status quo. That is where Altair's position makes perfect sense. Might just as well have re-named the PC's the Me-Too party

 

[Remius]

100%

We don't seem to realize there are more votes up for grabs around the center than further into the right.

I want a party that's firmly pro choice, pro LGBTQ+, pro gun, pro small government and pro balanced budgets. Why is that so hard ? Stay out of my bedroom and concentrate on being effective and economical.

I’ve said this before. The CPC could easily drop the anti abortion discussion and come up with a real pro life position. Accept a the pro choice position but create and craft as many laws as they can to encourage pro life decisions. So more funding and tax breaks for single moms, childcare options, education grants etc etc. Get behind actual pro life legislation that would encourage women to see their babies come to term. and just drop the whole abortion thing outright.

 

[KevinB]

I’ve said this before. The CPC could easily drop the anti abortion discussion and come up with a real pro life position. Accept a the pro choice position but create and craft as many laws as they can to encourage pro life decisions. So more funding and tax breaks for single moms, childcare options, education grants etc etc. Get behind actual pro life legislation that would encourage women to see their babies come to term. and just drop the whole abortion thing outright.

Honestly the moral issues on Abortion are a tough pill for some to swallow.
As far as a middle ground move you are right that the best option there is encouragement and programs to encourage non abortion solutions.
I wouldn't necessarily work it as Pro-Life, but Pro Educated and Responsible Choice.
You can also backdoor more life begins at conception education in schools, and provide better contraceptive options for the sexually active members of society who are not yet ready to have a baby.

Additionally as noted before you don't have to be Pro LBGTQ+XYZCVX whatever - just leave it alone - don't attempt to do anything to address it at all - leave the issue and refer people back to the ubiquitous rights of everyone.

Will some hardliners be annoyed - sure, but they aren't one issue voters most likely - and you are better off finding more middle of the road slightly right leaning voters, than trying to appease small subsets of the population.

The problem is the squeaky wheel gets the grease - and a lot of small more extreme view point issues squeak a lot.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Honestly the moral issues on Abortion are a tough pill for some to swallow.
As far as a middle ground move you are right that the best option there is encouragement and programs to encourage non abortion solutions.
I wouldn't necessarily work it as Pro-Life, but Pro Educated and Responsible Choice.
You can also backdoor more life begins at conception education in schools, and provide better contraceptive options for the sexually active members of society who are not yet ready to have a baby.

Additionally as noted before you don't have to be Pro LBGTQ+XYZCVX whatever - just leave it alone - don't attempt to do anything to address it at all - leave the issue and refer people back to the ubiquitous rights of everyone.

Will some hardliners be annoyed - sure, but they aren't one issue voters most likely - and you are better off finding more middle of the road slightly right leaning voters, than trying to appease small subsets of the population.

The problem is the squeaky wheel gets the grease - and a lot of small more extreme view point issues squeak a lot.

I get your point. Trying to keep everyone happy.

Not sure it's effective in today's world. Leaving any room for the opposition to create boogymen is showing to be detrimental.

The opposition will be able to continue to use things like LGBTQ+ and abortion to paint the party as it wishes until the party unequivocally puts those issues to bed. This includes allowing their debate in internal politics.

Canada has decided it's position on these. It's over, we grasp that and move on or get left behind.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I want a party that's firmly pro choice, pro LGBTQ+, pro gun, pro small government and pro balanced budgets.

The CPC can/should easily fit the last 3. It's not going to get much past neutral on the first 2, which happens to approximately be its official position. That's good enough for me. I don't care about the cranks; I tolerate them. Some people additionally require a conservative party to actively suppress or evict those cranks as the price of a vote, but the conservative party that does that can't win enough seats to form government (voters peel off regardless whether two or more actual parties form). I weight points 4 and 5 much more strongly than purity of thought on points 1 and 2. I see some truth in "government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it away".

 

[KevinB]

I get your point. Trying to keep everyone happy.

Not sure it's effective in today's world. Leaving any room for the opposition to create boogymen is showing to be detrimental.

The opposition will be able to continue to use things like LGBTQ+ and abortion to paint the party as it wishes until the party unequivocally puts those issues to bed. This includes allowing their debate in internal politics.

Canada has decided it's position on these. It's over, we grasp that and move on or get left behind.

You can address it: We are committed to the current laws in Canada, and rights of the individuals in respect to those issues, and have no plans to change them.

 

[QV]

You can address it: We are committed to the current laws in Canada, and rights of the individuals in respect to those issues, and have no plans to change them.

The CPC's one major and fatal problem is they haven't fully recognized the legacy media is not their friend. Once this has been fully accepted, they can strategize how to defeat or at least properly counter the onslaught of negative media that will portray them as anti-abortion/anti-immigration etc. The CPC needs a far more effective PR wing to successfully communicate the kinds messages you and Remius suggest.

 

[Altair]

100%

We don't seem to realize there are more votes up for grabs around the center than further into the right.

I want a party that's firmly pro choice, pro LGBTQ+, pro gun, pro small government and pro balanced budgets. Why is that so hard ? Stay out of my bedroom and concentrate on being effective and economical.

Pro gun when cities are more and more anti gun? And there are more and more Canadians living in cities?

Good luck!

 

[KevinB]

Pro gun when cities are more and more anti gun? And there are more and more Canadians living in cities?

Good luck!

The gun issue is a red herring.

No one wants rampant firearms access for criminals - while urban areas don't always understand that having a firearm doesn't mean you have the intent to go mow down the neighborhood, simply as the majority these days have not been around sporting usage of firearms - in either competition or hunting.

The difference is some believe that disarming a populace is a way to passivate it, and they hedge their platform on public safety.
Instead of actually dealing with mental health issues, and criminal gang violence, and on the far right, they are often to deadlocked on individual rights to acknowledge with rights come responsibilities.

Legals guns are not the issue in Canada - so further repressing firearms owners in Canada is just a way to disarm the populace - not actually do anything with crime, but it is sold to the uneducated as "Safety".

 

[Remius]

Pro gun when cities are more and more anti gun? And there are more and more Canadians living in cities?

Good luck!

How many cities have banned hand guns?

 

[Altair]

The gun issue is a red herring.

Yes.

No one wants rampant firearms access for criminals - while urban areas don't always understand that having a firearm doesn't mean you have the intent to go mow down the neighborhood, simply as the majority these days have not been around sporting usage of firearms - in either competition or hunting.

Urban areas don't understand that, but it's urban areas that are dealing with the brunt of gun violence and they want concrete solutions.

Gun bans are straightforward.

The difference is some believe that disarming a populace is a way to passivate it, and they hedge their platform on public safety.
Instead of actually dealing with mental health issues, and criminal gang violence, and on the far right, they are often to deadlocked on individual rights to acknowledge with rights come responsibilities.

A lot of this is coming from the bottom up. 7 out of 10 canadians believe in more restrictions on firearms. Best of luck to the political party willing to go against 7 out of 10 people.

Legals guns are not the issue in Canada - so further repressing firearms owners in Canada is just a way to disarm the populace - not actually do anything with crime, but it is sold to the uneducated as "Safety".

The populace wants this. Political parties are shift their policies to the reality on the ground. It's telling that the CPC immediately did a 180 on their gunnpolicy when questioned about it on the campaign trail.

They know the math as well as any other.

 

[QV]

A misinformed population wants a gun ban. A misinformed population is exactly what the LPC needs.

 

[KevinB]

Yes.

Urban areas don't understand that, but it's urban areas that are dealing with the brunt of gun violence and they want concrete solutions.

Gun bans are straightforward.

Well yes - but it won't change gun violence - none of the Major Cities in Canada have crimes to any significant % being conducted with legal firearms.
90% are with firearms already prohibited in Canada - so the ban won't do SFA

A lot of this is coming from the bottom up. 7 out of 10 canadians believe in more restrictions on firearms. Best of luck to the political party willing to go against 7 out of 10 people.

The populace wants this. Political parties are shift their policies to the reality on the ground. It's telling that the CPC immediately did a 180 on their gunnpolicy when questioned about it on the campaign trail.

They know the math as well as any other.

It isn't math - it's the fact Liebrals love to misconstrue the story - anyone honest and semi intelligent looking at the firearms crime in Canada can see that further restrictions aren't going to change anything.

 

[Altair]

A misinformed population wants a gun ban. A misinformed population is exactly what the LPC needs.

The populace is the populace.

I suppose the CPC could try to educate the populace and hope that urban Canadians see things the way rural Canadians do, or they can accept the fact that 71 percent of Canadians in a most recent poll wants more restrictions on firearms.

Best of luck if they choose the former. Meanwhile the Bloc, NDP and LPC can continue to get the lions share of the vote from those who want the more restrictions. But seeing as the CPC very quickly changed their platform to get onside with the majority of Canadians, I am of the opinion that they are not going to do that.

But the PPC exists, right?

 

[Remius]

Again, how many cities have enacted hand gun bans? My understanding is they can now.