Will Bernier start new party?

[Argus]

13 hours ago, turningrite said:

I don't concur with your view that immigration policy is too complicated to address, which I believe you stated in another post. What would you say about economic policy, then, which is much more complicated?

What economic policy is ever discussed during an election? Elections seem largely to consist of politicians making empty gestures, broad, sweeping statements of intent, and in terms of specifics, promises to pay more for this or that program in order to attract votes from this or that group. How dyou imagine you could discuss immigration? Bear in mind you will be given, at best, a 10 second news clip to make your case.

13 hours ago, turningrite said:

It's paternalistic to hold that voters can't effectively deal with complicated issues.

Given the limited attention span of most voters, and the laziness of the media, it's realistic, not paternalistic. 

13 hours ago, turningrite said:

And immigration isn't really that complicated anyway. Bernier and/or the CPC should start by addressing its many costs

I agree that costs are lacking. But the government does its best to ensure no costs are available, and spreads the costs over multiple departments and levels of government to help conceal them. The only realistic attempt to analyse the costs was done by the Fraser Institute. It not only recorded what governments spent on new immigrants, but compared immigrant earnings (on average) to government social costs in serving people, like education, health care, etc, to determine what additional costs we incur when bringing in many unskilled, uneducated people who are unlikely to ever earn enough to be actually paying income taxes.

13 hours ago, turningrite said:

.Australia, which largely copied Canada's system a few decades ago, fairly recently examined the failings of its immigration policies, concluding among other things that the "demographic" argument that's often mindlessly recited to justify high immigration levels doesn't actually stand up to objective scrutiny.

I've been saying as much here for years, and quoting demographics people. It appears to not be a convincing argument in the face of the usual counter argument "Racist!" by immigration supporters.

 

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, scribblet said:

Doctors are calling for a lot more health care funding but this article blames it all on seniors failing to mention the huge costs involved with sponsoring elderly parents whose numbers are set to increase substantially.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senior-health-care-federal-1.4749684

I read the article when it appeared on the CBC site a while back. Interestingly, it contains information about the average cost of providing health care to seniors in this country, which is pegged at $12K per capita annually. Extrapolating the health care burden associated with Trudeau's immigrant grannies and grandpas isn't that difficult. An immigrant who enters Canada at 65 and lives to 85 will on average cost taxpayers almost a quarter million dollars, not adjusting for inflation of course. Not a bad deal if you haven't paid a cent in taxes into the system during your working years, right? Assuming 20 years of longevity in this country per senior immigrant, Trudeau's yearly influx of 20,000 seniors will generate an additional unfunded liability of $5 billion for each annual cohort, again, not adjusting for inflation, and if this level is sustained for a decade will generate a $50 billion unfunded liability, not adjusting for inflation. As our health care system has deteriorated significantly over the past couple decades, we have to wonder whether this is sustainable. Can we afford Trudeaunomics (i.e. unlimited taxpayer money for Lib votes) or will it drive us collectively to the poorhouse?

Edited August 24, 2018 by turningrite

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

1.) What economic policy is ever discussed during an election? Elections seem largely to consist of politicians making empty gestures, broad, sweeping statements of intent, and in terms of specifics, promises to pay more for this or that program in order to attract votes from this or that group. How dyou imagine you could discuss immigration? Bear in mind you will be given, at best, a 10 second news clip to make your case.

2.) Given the limited attention span of most voters, and the laziness of the media, it's realistic, not paternalistic. 

3.) I agree that costs are lacking. But the government does its best to ensure no costs are available, and spreads the costs over multiple departments and levels of government to help conceal them. The only realistic attempt to analyse the costs was done by the Fraser Institute. It not only recorded what governments spent on new immigrants, but compared immigrant earnings (on average) to government social costs in serving people, like education, health care, etc, to determine what additional costs we incur when bringing in many unskilled, uneducated people who are unlikely to ever earn enough to be actually paying income taxes.

4.) I've been saying as much here for years, and quoting demographics people. It appears to not be a convincing argument in the face of the usual counter argument "Racist!" by immigration supporters.

 

1.) I believe we do discuss economic policy during elections, even if the discussions are often superficial. But politicians often discuss economic issues in terms costed policies and now this has pretty much become an expectation. Occasionally, as in the 1988 election, we debate substantive economic agendas, as in the case of free trade in that election.

2.) I think that on issues like immigration voters often over time develop a fairly clearheaded impression of whether or not polices are working. It's surprising, too, that this happens in Canada, where the MSM tend to present a one-sided view of immigration which largely reflects the tri-party consensus in Ottawa. The voting public is generally more objective, presumably based on real life experience and observation. I trust the instincts of ordinary voters far more than I do the motives of politicians.

3.) We seem to concur on this. I believe that Canadians are not well-served by having the costs associated with immigration and refugee policies divided on a piecemeal and jurisdictional basis as this undermines transparency and accountability. We're permitted to know what seniors programs cost taxpayers, so why is it problematic to believe that the all-in costs associated with the immigration and refugee programs be disclosed by government? From the standpoint of a preference for logic, efficiency and objectivity, the difference in treatment is absurd.

4.) I'm dismayed at the degree to which the "demographic" argument is so casually restated by politicians as well as by business leaders and in the MSM. I guess our self-serving politicians figure that if tall tales are repeated often enough people will simply believe them. Australia's Productivity Commission, after studying that country's large-scale immigration program, determined that the demographic benefit, which isn't particularly substantial, can't be sustained without the maintenance of constantly high levels of immigration. It concluded that Australia's program generates population growth rather than substantive sustainable change in the country's age structure and ageing trends. Essentially, then, from a demographic perspective, it's a kind of ponzi scheme. And the situation is probably worse in Canada because of the tendency of many younger and more productive working-age immigrants to leave the country following their arrival.

Edited August 24, 2018 by turningrite

[-1=e^ipi]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Elections are won by winning the centre, red tories and blue liberals.

In all these other developed countries, like Australia, France, UK, etc. the centre seems to involve not having a dairy cartel, pursuing free trade, and allowing for private healthcare to complete with public healthcare.

 

I don't think that Scheer or Harper's freedom hating views of being against gay marriage, being against choice with respect to abortion, and being against the legalization of marijuana is centrist.

Edited August 24, 2018 by -1=e^ipi

[Queenmandy85]

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

In all these other developed countries, like Australia, France, UK, etc. the centre seems to involve not having a dairy cartel

No dairy cartel in France? I always thought of French agriculture being a very powerful lobby. Perhaps I was mis-informed. 

I agree regarding "I don't think that Scheer or Harper's freedom hating views of being against gay marriage, being against choice with respect to abortion..."

[turningrite]

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

I don't think that Scheer or Harper's freedom hating views of being against gay marriage, being against choice with respect to abortion, and being against the legalization of marijuana is centrist.

Reportedly, CPC delegates in Halifax will vote this weekend on whether to reopen the abortion debate. This is a "third rail" of sorts in Canadian politics and if anti-abortion proponents within the CPC win the situation could well play into Bernier's hand. Were the CPC to transform itself into a socially conservative party, could it even be competitive in a federal election? Whatever his personal views, Harper understood the importance of keeping a lid on the social conservatives in the party.

[-1=e^ipi]

13 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

No dairy cartel in France? I always thought of French agriculture being a very powerful lobby. Perhaps I was mis-informed.

They have subsidies, not a cartel system.

A subsidy system would be an improvement over the cartel system.

But the parties in the house of commons aren't even interested in moving towards a subsidy system.

[Machjo]

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

They have subsidies, not a cartel system.

A subsidy system would be an improvement over the cartel system.

But the parties in the house of commons aren't even interested in moving towards a subsidy system.

Actually, I prefer a cartel over a subsidy. At least under a cartel, I can choose whether or not to buy over-priced milk products. Under subsidies, I would be subsidizing a product I don't even buy.

On that note, however much I dislike supply management, I'd still prefer that over corporate subsidies in any domain, be it steel or anything else, for the same reason I explained for the dairy cartel: at least the buyers are the ones subsidizing it.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Machjo

[scribblet]

On 8/24/2018 at 7:04 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

In all these other developed countries, like Australia, France, UK, etc. the centre seems to involve not having a dairy cartel, pursuing free trade, and allowing for private healthcare to complete with public healthcare.

I don't think that Scheer or Harper's freedom hating views of being against gay marriage, being against choice with respect to abortion, and being against the legalization of marijuana is centrist.

I agree about living without a dairy cartel as supply management is why I can buy dairy products in the USA for a lot less than what it costs in Canada. It does not just impact Quebec farmers, it is ultimately visited upon the consumer. 

That's quite a charge there, which I won't repeat.  You do know that Scheer has promised not to open the issue of abortion and a resolution to that effect was just passed.  The rest is just poppycock. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by scribblet

[Machjo]

17 hours ago, scribblet said:

I agree about living without a dairy cartel as supply management is why I can buy dairy products in the USA for a lot less than what it costs in Canada. It does not just impact Quebec farmers, it is ultimately visited upon the consumer. 

That's quite a charge there, which I won't repeat.  You do know that Scheer has promised not to open the issue of abortion and a resolution to that effect was just passed.  The rest is just poppycock. 

I'm tempted to suggest a country-wide boycott of milk and milk products (not necessary for good health anyway). My concern is that that would prompt the government to then subsidize it which would be even worse.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Machjo

[-1=e^ipi]

3 hours ago, scribblet said:

That's quite a charge there, which I won't repeat.  You do know that Scheer has promised not to open the issue of abortion and a resolution to that effect was just passed.  The rest is just poppycock. 

He still is anti-freedom, even if he doesn't open these issues. He did say that he will take action against porn, he will continue to be anti-prostitution legalization, he will continue to be against drug legalization, and he will likely move against sex robot legalization.

Edited August 26, 2018 by -1=e^ipi

[scribblet]

12 hours ago, Machjo said:

I'm tempted to suggest a country-wide boycott of milk and milk products (not necessary for good health anyway). My concern is that that would prompt the government to tehn subsidize it which would be even worse.

Can't boycott dairy as it is necessary for good health, especially in children.  It's hard to understand how a small cartel can hold so much power with such a price fixing ponzi scheme with price fixing and quotas.  

[scribblet]

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

He still is anti-freedom, even if he doesn't open these issues. He did say that he will take action against porn, he will continue to be anti-prostitution legalization, he will continue to be against drug legalization, and he will likely move against sex robot legalization.

And rightly so...   'specially the robot porn thing, can't wait   

[turningrite]

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

He still is anti-freedom, even if he doesn't open these issues. He did say that he will take action against porn, he will continue to be anti-prostitution legalization, he will continue to be against drug legalization, and he will likely move against sex robot legalization.

That's an underlying problem with the CPC, an umbrella party that had to accommodate the entire spectrum of conservatives from far-right social conservatives on the one hand to the moderate PC faction on the other. Even under Harper there was always a concern that social conservatism would bubble up to the top. There was even a name for the suspicion that it could rise to prominence during Harper's reign  - the "hidden agenda." The motion in Halifax to open up the abortion debate in Canada failed but reportedly the motion to deny foreign aid abortion funding succeeded. The social conservatives are still there. If Bernier peels away the economic conservatives, will the CPC become an explicit political home for social conservatives?

[Machjo]

4 hours ago, scribblet said:

Can't boycott dairy as it is necessary for good health, especially in children.  It's hard to understand how a small cartel can hold so much power with such a price fixing ponzi scheme with price fixing and quotas.  

No, it's not necessary. Speak to your doctor if you don't believe me. Alternatives do exist.

[turningrite]

On 8/23/2018 at 7:49 PM, Argus said:

Yes, but the Tory heartland is not Quebec. Basically, anything they get there is cream. The Tory heartland is western Canada and Ontario, so it makes sense if you're going to have a leader with halting language skills, it be halting FRENCH language skills, not ENGLISH.

I believe Chretien demonstrated that heavily accented English isn't an impediment to appealing to English-speaking Canadians. He was generally more popular outside his home province of Quebec than inside it. As for Bernier, people will no doubt wait and watch as his political brand takes shape. Much will depend of whether he can attract good candidates to run in the next federal election.

I think Bernier's potential appeal is pretty broad. The Abacus polling results released on the weekend indicate that 49 percent of respondents will either vote for his new party or are at least open to considering doing so, which is a stunning result for a party that doesn't yet exist. This suggests widespread dissatisfaction with the tri-party cartel that dominates policy discussion in Ottawa at present. So, I wouldn't focus on Bernier's accent but instead consider what his new party might have to offer. A lot of Canadians might well be receptive to its message.

Edited August 27, 2018 by turningrite

[WestCanMan]

On 8/24/2018 at 9:56 AM, Argus said:

What economic policy is ever discussed during an election?

 

Trudeau discussed economic policy before the last election. He promised a $30 Billion dollar deficit and he managed to hit that target in only 7 minutes. He's a drastic overachiever in some respects. 

[turningrite]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Trudeau discussed economic policy before the last election. He promised a $30 Billion dollar deficit and he managed to hit that target in only 7 minutes. He's a drastic overachiever in some respects. 

He's trying hard to make things worse. He really is! The problem is that many of the cost burdens he's willing to foist on the shoulders of Canadian taxpayers, including with his refugee and sponsored immigrant policies, actually impact provincial budgets. So he can take the credit for playing Santa Claus while provincial governments scramble to reallocate resources to pay for these policies.

Edited August 27, 2018 by turningrite

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, turningrite said:

He's trying hard to make things worse. He really is! The problem is that many of the cost burdens he's willing to foist on the shoulders of Canadians, including with his refugee and sponsored immigrant policies actually impact provincial budgets. So he can take the credit for acting like Santa Claus while provincial governments scramble to reallocate resources to pay for these policies.

Couple his deficit spending & long-term economic drain with his ability to drive away investment & kill off major sectors of the economy and you have a recipe for north Venezuela.

[WestCanMan]

 Is supply chain management a big enough issue that it's worth splitting the conservative vote, and gving Trudeau another majority government? Who the hell is Maxime Bernier working for, the Saudis? If Trudeau gets in again this country is ROYALLY SCREWED! At every chance we get we need to tell Maxime Bernier and his followers to do the right thing - stick with the Conservative party for the 2019 election. Otherwise you're basically casting a vote for Trudeau.

[WestCanMan]

36 minutes ago, turningrite said:

 

I think Bernier's potential appeal is pretty broad. The Abacus polling results released on the weekend indicate that 49 percent of respondents will either vote for his new party or are at least open to considering doing so, which is a stunning result for a party that doesn't yet exist. This suggests widespread dissatisfaction with the tri-party cartel that dominates policy discussion in Ottawa at present. So, I wouldn't focus on Bernier's accent but instead consider what his new party might have to offer. A lot of Canadians might well be receptive to its message.

He is going to end up like Judge Roy Moore in the States. The Libs will let him drag the PC party down for a while, and then right before the election they'll bring up his history which will be enough to put him out of te race too.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bernier-quits-cabinet-post-over-security-breach-1.723124

Now he has a series of tweets out there that the Liberal media will churn into the headline "Maxime Bernier is the second coming of Adolf Hitler", plus he has a Hillary-esque history with protecting classified information, and a former biker girlfriend (another reason for the CBC to link him to racism) who should probably sign a non-disclosure agreement but is too fond of the spotlight to be bound by it anyways. And we all know what NDAs are worth now lol.

Honestly the Conservatives can't even attack Bernier in the election because they welcomed him back and almost made him their leader last time round. Bernier will no doubt continue to run the PC into the ground all day and he's considered to have insider knowledge, so it has a lot of credibility with voters (helping Trudeau, again). 

On the other hand, the Libs and NDP can have a field day raking Bernier's reputation over the coals, and Trudeau gets to lock down that SJW vote, which he would have had a harder time doing if it was just Trudeau vs Scheer.

Up until Bernier started his party I was pretty certain that Trudeau had no chance. Now he's the big odds-on favourite to win. Bernier is nothing but a back-stabber and he's either the dumbest man on earth or he secretly supports Trudeau.

 

 

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

I believe Chretien demonstrated that heavily accented English isn't an impediment to appealing to English-speaking Canadians.

Not when the opposition is divided into multiple parties and none has a leader that appeals to English Canada anyway...

Quote

 think Bernier's potential appeal is pretty broad. The Abacus polling results released on the weekend indicate that 49 percent of respondents will either vote for his new party or are at least open to considering doing so,

I think you are wildly exaggerating the results. And since nothing is known about his party the poll was really just a reflection of Canadian concerns on three issues.

Quote

So, I wouldn't focus on Bernier's accent but instead consider what his new party might have to offer. A lot of Canadians might well be receptive to its message.

Bernier was rejected as Tory leader in large measure because he was considered unstable. I think this stunt amply demonstrates those fears were not groundless.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

58 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Trudeau discussed economic policy before the last election. He promised a $30 Billion dollar deficit and he managed to hit that target in only 7 minutes. He's a drastic overachiever in some respects. 

In fact, his economic promise said he'd have a surplus next year. Now it's a balanced budget in 30 years - maybe.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Argus

[turningrite]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

He is going to end up like Judge Roy Moore in the States. The Libs will let him drag the PC party down for a while, and then right before the election they'll bring up his history which will be enough to put him out of te race too.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bernier-quits-cabinet-post-over-security-breach-1.723124

Now he has a series of tweets out there that the Liberal media will churn into the headline "Maxime Bernier is the second coming of Adolf Hitler", plus he has a Hillary-esque history with protecting classified information, and a former biker girlfriend (another reason for the CBC to link him to racism) who should probably sign a non-disclosure agreement but is too fond of the spotlight to be bound by it anyways. And we all know what NDAs are worth now lol.

Honestly the Conservatives can't even attack Bernier in the election because they welcomed him back and almost made him their leader last time round. Bernier will no doubt continue to run the PC into the ground all day and he's considered to have insider knowledge, so it has a lot of credibility with voters (helping Trudeau, again). 

On the other hand, the Libs and NDP can have a field day raking Bernier's reputation over the coals, and Trudeau gets to lock down that SJW vote, which he would have had a harder time doing if it was just Trudeau vs Scheer.

Up until Bernier started his party I was pretty certain that Trudeau had no chance. Now he's the big odds-on favourite to win. Bernier is nothing but a back-stabber and he's either the dumbest man on earth or he secretly supports Trudeau.

 

I disagree with much of your analysis. Bernier's past security misstep in essence boiled down to a tempest in a D cup, so to speak. Leaving confidential docs at a girlfriend's place, while perhaps indiscreet, isn't likely to be seen by the public as suggesting compromised loyalties.

Bernier's political concerns speak to broad public angst with the state and direction of the country and its dominant traditional parties, which between them represent virtually no variety of opinion on many important policy fronts. It's telling that the Abacus poll indicated that Bernier's prospective new party is cutting into both Lib and NDP support in addition to CPC support. In fact, were the polling to reflect an election held today the Libs would be in minority government territory at 34% while without Bernier's party they remain close to majority territory at 37%. Obviously, Scheer's CPC isn't resonating.

Supporters of all three existing mainstream parties will of course try to attack Bernier's party, but that will only likely increase its visibility and credibility. They can call him a racist and xenophobe all they want, as they will no doubt be tempted to do. The problem is that this could well backfire as many Canadians could feel they are equally being labelled and castigated for having and/or expressing reasonable concerns about issues like immigration levels and refugee policies. Will Bernier's supporters be labelled as "northern deplorables" in an attempt to dissuade them from supporting Bernier, who after all is no Trump? It seems a very risky strategy to pursue as it could pit a significant percentage Canadians on one side against a cadre of self-appointed "progressives" on the other. Such a contest could well serve to illustrate Bernier's point that the traditional parties are essentially the same and leave the field open for him to promote an alternative populist agenda.

[turningrite]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

1.) Not when the opposition is divided into multiple parties and none has a leader that appeals to English Canada anyway...

2.) I think you are wildly exaggerating the results. And since nothing is known about his party the poll was really just a reflection of Canadian concerns on three issues.

3.) Bernier was rejected as Tory leader in large measure because he was considered unstable. I think this stunt amply demonstrates those fears were not groundless.

1.) Right now, Bernier's impact would appear to have reduced Lib. support to minority territory (34%). CPC supporters and others should be thanking him.

2.) Well, results are results. That 49% indicate they'd at least consider supporting Bernier's prospective party suggests that a vacuum exists in the current party system. Three issues may dominate, but elections can turn on one or two issues.

3.) I believe Bernier was defeated as a result of the voting system used for the CPC leadership contest, where new and reportedly temporary members put Scheer over the top, particularly in Quebec where the supply management proponents were able to take advantage of the lack of CPC members in many ridings. Otherwise, I  believe analysis suggests Bernier was more popular among grassroots CPC members. Where did you come up with the "unstable" theory? Can you provide a citation to illustrate how it might have played a role?