Newfoundlander

So you're talking about a more decentralized federation, similar to what would have been implemented with the beech lake accord?

Explain?

This story in The Rebel also supports the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. http://www.therebel.media/3_fiscally_conservative_ideas_tory_leadership

So the Manning Centre has invited those who have publicly expressed interest in the leadership to speak at their conference next month. Michael Chong, Kellie Leitch, Kevin O'Leary, Tony Clement and Maxime Bernier have thus far agreed to go.

I haven't done a lot of research on the subject, though it does intrigue me, but my understanding is that it can be setup in a way that nobody would be worse off than they are now. The fact that you can significantly shrink government is why the idea resonates with some conservatives.

Michael Chong says he is seriously considering a leadership bid.

While I think there could be savings found by just simply eliminating social programs targeted towards those with low incomes the fact that you'd be able to get rid of so many public service employees would be huge. As well we will eventually struggle to pay for some of these programs as the population ages. There are people who work minimum wage jobs because they want to, not because they're forced into it. I think you could see more people working those jobs because they're standard of living would be so much better. If someone is currently making $20,000 in a minimum wage job why do you think they wouldn't want to make 40,000? They wouldn't be living in poverty, they could afford to spend more money on themselves, they could afford a better place to live or buy a home if they have someone with a second income. You'd have progressive taxes similar to now. So someone already making 40,000 would pay back some of that 20,000. Someone making $200,000 would see their taxes at a level whereby they don't necessarily benefit from the guaranteed income. Or something similar to that. I'm not sure of all those details but people who study this program have taken it into account.

Well you'd get taxes back from people making over a certain amount, which would be most people. Then you get rid of Employment Insurance, Social Assistance, Old Age Security and other programs that target low income individuals.

The Alliance and PCs are one party again now just like they were for decades. While many who considered themselves "PCs" might not have been fussy on Harper it wasn't always because of his broad policy ideas. The Conservative's need to find someone who appeals to all factions of the party, which is the case for any party that is a broad coalition.

Exactly.

While it's important for a leader to be putting forth policies they believe in it's also important for policies to be grassroots driven. If a person doesn't like policies put forth by their party then maybe they shouldn't consider a leadership bid.

It's more viable for people to work those jobs in many instances. A lot of people cannot survive financially in those jobs as it is. And a guaranteed income doesn't need to be huge by any means. Would you not work if you had a guaranteed annual income of say $20,000? While I understand your concern why would so many groups be encouraging this idea if all it did was increase the unemployment rate to 40%?

Why would the unemployment rate be 40%

His name is being mentioned by Conservative MPs and his record is still being applauded by them. Rona Ambrose doesn't shy away from using his name or talking about his government's record. She has distanced herself from some of his polices.

I highly doubt they'll be running away from Harper. He's the most successful leader a conservative party has had in decades.

The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Incomehttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ Just another point of view on the idea.

I don't know a lot about guaranteed income but there are mechanisms to try and avoid what you're saying. As some reports on it have shown it can be setup so that people are always better off working than not working. Right now people can choose to go on income support rather than work, some do but most don't. As well, in some instances now people are better off not taking a minimum wage job - even if they wanted to - and being on income support.

There's been talk lately of having a guaranteed income in Canada. If the Liberals don't follow through with it then it could be something the Conservatives could champion. While many think of it as being a lefty social program, the federal and provincial governments could save money and shrink the size of the public service by bringing in a guaranteed income. It would take major reform but if we had a guaranteed income we could get rid of income support programs, old age security and other programs targeted to low income individuals. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/idea-guaranteed-annual-income-appealing-implausible-canada

People think Harper because he's the only leader the party ever had and he's only be gone a few months. The Liberals faced a lot more issues than the Conservatives throughout the 2000s but didn't need to change their name to regain the public's trust. They needed to show that they were a different party who were not defined by the leaderships of Chretien, Martin, Dion or Ignatieff.

What kind of emphasis on immigration?

Bernier is well educated with a good professional background, him and his father are well known in Quebec, and he's done exceptionally well in his own riding. He faced a political scandal - Lisa Raitt faced a similar one - that cost him his cabinet post but that was 8 years ago. While I don't think he can win he will likely have a large following. I imagine he could also gain traction with younger Canadians. If Bernier enters he'll add a lost to the race and I think a future leader will adopt some of his policy positions.

No he left it at his girlfriend's house. It was a big deal but a bit different than leaving it on some type of public transportation.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Who are these people? I imagine a good few Conservative members are happy he's gone let alone the general public.

Except the vast majority of Canadians don't know or care that world leaders called Harper. I also doubt many realize hat Trudeau embarrassed us, like you say he did.

What "progressive" issues do the Conservatives need to champion exactly?