Jump to content

Bernier claims Scheer won due to Dairy Cartel


Recommended Posts

Maxime Bernier claims that Andrew Scheer won the leadership race with 50.95% of the vote due to 'fake conservative' people from the dairy cartel buying conservative memberships in order to block the elimination of the dairy cartel known as supply management.

 

This is from a newly released chapter from Maxime Bernier's planned book for November.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-mp-maxime-bernier-says-scheer-won-tory-leadership-thanks-to-fake/

 

For those who don't know, the dairy cartel is an awful system that makes consumers, including poor people, suffer and pay twice as much for milk, eggs and poultry in order to create trade disputes with other countries and prevent long term resolutions to trade disputes such as the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. It also makes it difficult for farmers to enter the 'protected' industries as they have to cough up tens of thousands of in order to buy a quota just so that the government gives them permission to own a single milk cow.

 

Here is a video of the arrogant Andrew Scheer showing he serves the dairy cartel at the expense of the Canadian people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4XP5_qzBuk#t=5m40s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, PIK said:

The dairy cartel is not that big.

Are you trying to tell us it doesn't cost much to buy Scheer ?  

Maybe just a few brewskis ?  or frothy white Russians I guess ?

 

You can't spell Scheer without spelling CHEERS ! (clinks mug, downs it, passes out under the 'Drink Milk' banner hanging over the bar) ;)

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, PIK said:

The dairy cartel is not that big.

It's what it represents.

 

Should the government act in the best interests of it's citizens? Or should the government be bought out by special interest groups at the expense of the people? And also, with respect to the politicians that are stupid enough to believe that supply management is good due to the propaganda of the cartel, shouldn't our elected politicians who make issues that affect our economy not have a better better understanding of economics than they currently have?

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those hoping that this starts an internal squabble, let's not forget the overall context of what Bernier said........

 

Quote

Still, he says he doesn’t blame his opposition to supply management for his loss, calling it a “double-edged sword.” He writes, “In the end, I believe it brought me more votes than it cost me. I probably would have lost with an even bigger margin if I had campaigned differently.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernier probably brought in flat-earthers and Socialist Creditors  as fake conservatives. His former biker-gang girl friend revealed he thinks climate change is a hoax. Sheer has shown himself to be thoughtful and reasoned. If we want to bring down the Grits, Sheer is our best bet. If we want to see the CPC become the third party, Bernier was the way to go. He would have split the party.

I don't have a position on the dairy marketing boards other than it will help Sheer defeat Trudeau. In the Federal election, do you, ( -1=e^ipi), honestly think the Grits or the NDP will advocate doing away with supply management? If the CPC does, it will lose the election.

Bernier is an ideologue and an idiot. You cannot run a winning campaign based on some silly ideology, and you certainly cannot govern based on ideology, any ideology. There are not enough votes in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In the Federal election, do you, ( -1=e^ipi), honestly think the Grits or the NDP will advocate doing away with supply management?

Martha Hall Findlay ran on a platform that included abolishing supply management in the 2013 liberal leadership race and came 3rd.

 

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You cannot run a winning campaign based on some silly ideology, and you certainly cannot govern based on ideology, any ideology. There are not enough votes in it.

Australia abolished supply management. New Zealand abolished supply management. It seems that all of these parties in other countries can run on platforms that include abolishing supply management and win. Why is Canada so different?

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Martha Hall Findlay ran on a platform that included abolishing supply management in the 2013 liberal leadership race and came 3rd.

The word to note is 3rd. Findley lost. Bernier lost. A political party has only one function- win elections. If a party ties its self to an ideology, it will lose votes. Conservatives in Canada gave government support for the transcontinental railway, created the CBC and old age pensions. 

Why make an issue out of supply management when there is no great push by voters. Dairy farmers will vote against it and nobody else gives a darn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The word to note is 3rd. Findley lost. Bernier lost.

They lost leadership contests, not general elections. Leadership contests are more easily swayed by special interest groups (such as 10,000+ dairy farmers signing up) compared to general elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The die is likely already cast for a slow death to Supply Management - especially since every other country has already done so. The TPP is the first step - and who knows what the NAFTA Agreement will bring.......so the argument about who is for - and who is against is becoming moot.

Quote

 

Even though the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) opens up just 3.25% of Canada’s dairy market to imports, the National Farmers Union says it is the beginning of the end of supply management for dairy farmers.

That’s based on the belief that the Canadian government will provide $4.3 billion in relief to dairy farmers over the next 10 to 15 years. That amount of compensation far exceeds the losses dairy farmers would experience from a 3.25% quota cut and another 1% loss in a trade agreement with the European Union. 

 

Link: https://www.agweb.com/article/canadian-farmers-say-tpp-beginning-of-the-end-for-supply-management-naa-jim-dickrell/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

..so the argument about who is for - and who is against is becoming moot.

So why bring it up? Why risk10,000 + votes? Remember 1972? Bob Stanfield lost that election by about 100 votes. Do you want another 4 years of Mr. Trudeau? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As anyone who has worked a campaign knows, you search out a source of votes, rope them in and get them to vote for you. This is what Mr. Sheer did. He is now chipping away at the grits by identifying where they are weak and exploiting it. There were a lot of voters who switched to Justin Trudeau in 2015. Mr. Sheer's task is to bring them back by demonstrating competence in contrast to the Grits lack of it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So why bring it up? Why risk10,000 + votes? Remember 1972? Bob Stanfield lost that election by about 100 votes. Do you want another 4 years of Mr. Trudeau? 

That's the beauty of Maxime - and what he was trying to say in his book. He said it because he believed it. Naive? Maybe. But there are things that politicians SHOULD take a stand on. Guess he thought this was one of them. Regardless of how the media attacked him on his forgetting documents, he's proven more than once to be a man of principle. I like the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Regardless of how the media attacked him on his forgetting documents, he's proven more than once to be a man of principle. I like the guy.

This is a guy who had a girl friend associated with the Hells Angels. This is a guy who thinks climate change is a hoax. I agree that politicians should stand on principle. But first they should get an education and use their brains. Political parties have one function, and that is to win elections so we can be governed by women and men of principle. The party has an obligation to weed out the half-wits like Bernier and Pocklington. I know lots of people who stick to their principles. Unfortunately, these principles are not shared by enough voters to warrant becoming policy.  These people have every right to their principles but these principles are not the path to winning elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

This is a guy who had a girl friend associated with the Hells Angels. This is a guy who thinks climate change is a hoax. I agree that politicians should stand on principle. But first they should get an education and use their brains. Political parties have one function, and that is to win elections so we can be governed by women and men of principle. The party has an obligation to weed out the half-wits like Bernier and Pocklington. I know lots of people who stick to their principles. Unfortunately, these principles are not shared by enough voters to warrant becoming policy.  These people have every right to their principles but these principles are not the path to winning elections.

You're entitled to your opinion. I still like the guy. And she WAS really good looking!

Edited by Centerpiece
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2018 at 9:41 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

This is what Mr. Sheer did. He is now chipping away at the grits by identifying where they are weak and exploiting it.

He's not chipping away at the Grits. Rather, Trudeau is alienating a lot of people and losing voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QueenMandy, let's just establish a few things since you go on and on about the electability of Scheer.

1. Scheer is Harper 2.0. He ran on a platform that the conservatives need to change absolutely nothing with respect to policy during the leadership race. If Harper lost to Scheer, why would it make sense to choose Harper 2.0? Scheer can only win if Trudeau does things that make him unpopular (which he is currently doing).

 

2. Scheer is a social conservative. He doesn't want gay people to marry and doesn't want women to be allowed to have abortions. The is extremely alienating to a lot of voters and makes him less electable. Maxime Bernier, on the other hand, isn't a social conservative and instead supports freedom. With respect to social issues, Scheer is the far-right extremist.

 

3. I'm not an conservative and no way I'm voting for Scheer (or Trudeau). I'd vote for Bernier but not Scheer. You on the other hand would vote for either. The people who think that Scheer is more electable than Bernier are generally those in the conservative party who are stuck inside their bubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never vote for Bernier based on his denial of climate change. I haven't decided whether to vote for Sheer or Trudeau. Sheer is a social conservative in his personal life but it doesn't appear that he will let that affect his policies. Abortion and same sex marriage are already decided.

As John Ibbitson  said on the Sunday Scrum, the CPC dodged a bullet by electing Sheer over Bernier. Sheer strikes me as being pragmatic. I'm hoping he will advocate transitioning the country towards nuclear power. Being from Saskatchewan, he has pretty good motivation. Since my party was stabbed in the back by Peter MacKay, I am free to be non-partisan in my choices.

I have to give Trudeau credit for the way the government has negotiated NAFTA with the help of people like Ambrose, Moore, et al.

I will make up my mind closer to election day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2018 at 9:00 PM, Centerpiece said:

The die is likely already cast for a slow death to Supply Management - especially since every other country has already done so. The TPP is the first step - and who knows what the NAFTA Agreement will bring.......so the argument about who is for - and who is against is becoming moot.

Link: https://www.agweb.com/article/canadian-farmers-say-tpp-beginning-of-the-end-for-supply-management-naa-jim-dickrell/

I tend to agree, Centrepiece, and I think that Bernier understands this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2018 at 7:06 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

Maxime Bernier claims that Andrew Scheer won the leadership race with 50.95% of the vote due to 'fake conservative' people from the dairy cartel buying conservative memberships in order to block the elimination of the dairy cartel known as supply management.

....

I tend to disagree. I don't think that Bernier claimed that. Here's what reports say that Bernier wrote, in English, about Scheer:

"He did what he thought he had to do to get the most votes, and that is fair game in a democratic system,” Mr. Bernier writes.

“But this also helps explain why so many people are so cynical about politics, and with good reason.”

======

Based on these media quotes, I agree with Bernier. We in Canada are held hostage to various minority groups who can influence/decide our "national interest" - as PM Justin Trudeau now describes his "issue of the day".

Bernier understands that milk is not language; I suspect that Trudeau Jnr is clueless about both.

 

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I would never vote for Bernier based on his denial of climate change.

Almost the entire conservative party is bad with respect to climate change. Harper, Bernier and Scheer. Scheer and Harper will pretend to believe in climate change while being against all mitigation policies except extremely vague "work with industry" claims which means nothing. Bernier has claimed he has doubts about climate change, but at least he is honest about that.

 

The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions is through a tax on CO2 emissions. But the economically-illiterate conservative party is against that and make the ridiculous claim that CO2 emission taxes have zero impact of CO2 emissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions is through a tax on CO2 emissions. But the economically-illiterate conservative party is against that and make the ridiculous claim that CO2 emission taxes have zero impact of CO2 emissions.

The babbling Left use this argument. Conveniently though, they neglect to say how high the tax must be - and what they would actually do with the money. Until you quantify and PROVE how these two items will change habits, your claim is in fact - ridiculous. What habits would you change? Who would be affected. How would it affect peoples' lives? If you were honest enough to lay out a blueprint to tell Canadians the sacrifices they would have to make - in the face of the United States, China and India doing next to nothing - I'd venture to say there might be a teeny bit of opposition? Just another example of the elite knowing what's best for the unwashed masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...