Bernier's Party at 13% in the polls

[turningrite]

38 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

As for polling, Genier does an analysis of all the major polls so his results are based on a much broader sample and therefore more accurate. Hence that is why the US has President Clinton and Prime Minister Trudeau's minority government continues to struggle. ;-) As you say, it is the campaign that makes all the difference.

The problem, however, is that Grenier's system includes older polling in its weighting formula. Polling firms only very recently started including Bernier's PPC and it's very likely that a large percentage of voters don't even know the party's name. I haven't recently been contacted by a polling firm but when I was in the past the format generally only included the names of the various parties without further elucidation or explanation. I suspect that a great number of voters contacted now still don't know what the PPC is. Bernier has to start to correct this situation quickly if his party hopes to gain traction ahead of next year's election. Interestingly, there has been quite a bit of vilification of Bernier and his nascent party in the MSM, which could have the potential impact of undermining the willingness of voters to indicate their support of it to polling firms. 

Edited November 22, 2018 by turningrite

[Queenmandy85]

I still can't get past Bernier's shacking up with the girlfriend of a Hells Angel, and leaving secret documents at her place. I remember her saying he did not believe in climate change. I can forgive the first two but to have a cabinet minister so functionally illiterate in science is crimminal. 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If you remove the Grits, NDPers and CPP, Bernier has a shot at a majority, if he can somehow defeat the Greens and the BQ.

Bernier's party is at 1.5% and sinking according to Eric Grenier's analysis of polls.

Because most people have very little idea about what it's about or where it's going or even if it's a serious party. When it starts to field candidates and starts talking about issues it's going to attract a lot more attention and a lot more support. And no, it's not going to win election, but it will certainly damage the Conservatives by drawing away actual conservatives from a party which has no conservative policies. 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I agree that campaigns do matter. We have to be careful to keep an objective view. Any co-operation between Mr. Sheer and Mr. Bernier would be complicated by their challenging personal relationship. It would be like a Clark - Manning co-operation or President Trump - Secretary Clinton coalition.

Sheer is smart enough to court the Red Tories rather than the Libertarians. Red Tories and Blue Grits are where the votes lie.

Courting red tories. But to hell with blue tories? Those are the people who are going to defect to Bernier, the people he and Harper have ignored.

And frankly if this "Conservative" party is too far to the right for you I have to presume you vote NDP. 

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I still can't get past Bernier's shacking up with the girlfriend of a Hells Angel, and leaving secret documents at her place. I remember her saying he did not believe in climate change. I can forgive the first two but to have a cabinet minister so functionally illiterate in science is crimminal. 

Bernier hasn't said that he doesn't believe climate change is real. What he has said is that he won't offer an opinion on its cause(s) as he doesn't have the qualifications or credentials to be able to do so. I think that's a remarkably honest and principled position. The climate change issue has become a game of whack-a-mole in any case, with Western countries agreeing to curb emissions just as other parts of the world are ramping up emissions. And much of Canada's emissions issue emerges from our position (well, at least for the time being) as a major carbon-based energy producer and exporter. Otherwise, domestically, Canada has done a fairly good job of promoting conservation and efficiency and reducing carbon-based emissions. Notably, we've achieved a significant reduction in coal-generated electricity, a policy which if adopted worldwide (as if that's going to happen) would be enormously beneficial. Personally, I believe Canada should permit its provinces to adopt their own carbon pricing and energy efficiency policies, a strategy that has been quite successful in the U.S., as a 'one size fits all' policy is impractical for Canada. I suspect Bernier would agree with this approach. 

As for Bernier's dating history, I couldn't care less. One of the few legitimate virtues of the Canadian political culture in comparison to its American counterpart is the avoidance on this side of the border of moral Puritanism. Let's hope that difference remains intact.

Edited November 22, 2018 by turningrite

[Queenmandy85]

We need to transition from being a carbon-based energy producer and exporter to a nuclear producer, consumer and exporter. It means more long term prosperity for western Canada. 

Maybe Bernier's climate skepticism was just pillow talk.

[Queenmandy85]

34 minutes ago, Argus said:

And frankly if this "Conservative" party is too far to the right for you I have to presume you vote NDP. 

So far, Mr. Sheer and my local CPC MP are better than any of the alternatives. If I had to choose between the NDP and Reform, I wouldn't vote. I grew up under the BC version of Reform. They called themselves Social Credit but they were nothing but a gang of communists.

[turningrite]

9 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We need to transition from being a carbon-based energy producer and exporter to a nuclear producer, consumer and exporter. It means more long term prosperity for western Canada. 

 

We are already a major uranium producer and exporter. But my guess is that environmentalists would go ballistic at the idea of vastly expanding the role of nuclear energy, just as they detest building hydro dams. Their view of the future revolves around the widespread adoption of solar and wind energy, which won't be practical unless and until electricity storage technologies are vastly improved.

[Queenmandy85]

43 minutes ago, Argus said:

Courting red tories. But to hell with blue tories? Those are the people who are going to defect to Bernier, the people he and Harper have ignored.

I think we need to examine what a Red Tory and a Blue Tory are. Prime Minister Clark was a Red Tory. George Hees was a Blue Tory. The people who will move to Bernier are the libertarians. Sheer is not out to alienate Blue Tories but he needs to hold all Tories while attracting the right wing of the Liberal Party supporters.

Bernier has a long way to move and some key policies to dis-own if he is going to make a dent. He is handicapped by being too idealogical. His party is in danger of just being a right wing version of the NDP. Governments are elected by the centre.

Grenier's latest seat projevtions show the Grits with 194 seats to 123 CPC. However, as one wiser than me said, Campaigns change everything.

[Queenmandy85]

10 minutes ago, turningrite said:

We are already a major uranium producer and exporter. But my guess is that environmentalists would go ballistic at the idea of vastly expanding the role of nuclear energy, just as they detest building hydro dams. Their view of the future revolves around the widespread adoption of solar and wind energy, which won't be practical unless and until electricity storage technologies are vastly improved.

That is an indictment of the education system. They would rather let their great great grandchildren be barbequed than use nuclear power. More people have been killed in motor vehicle accidents in Saskatchewan this year than have been killed by nuclear power world wide, in history.

[turningrite]

9 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is an indictment of the education system. They would rather let their great great grandchildren be barbequed than use nuclear power.

I think they'd rather we freeze than acknowledge that we live in a vast country with a cold climate where using practically available sources of energy for transportation, heating and light is a necessity.

Edited November 23, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

On 11/22/2018 at 1:58 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

I think we need to examine what a Red Tory and a Blue Tory are.

A blue tory cares about eliminating unnecessary government spending, balancing the budget, and making the economy as efficient as possible,  and recognizes that all the money government spends it has to forcibly take from those who earn it so seeks to minimize taxes. In addition, a blue tory cares about the traditions and history of this country, its values and culture, it's security (including the military) and believes in individual responsibility - which includes stiff punishment for criminals. A blue tory believes the best way you help people is by giving them the tools to help themselves, not by giving them handouts.

There is damn little of that in today's Tory party.

 

[Queenmandy85]

A farmer on a phone in show said the problem with the government is taxes are too high and they don't fix the roads.

Most of what you ascribe to Blue Tories applies to Red Tories as well. "Eliminating unnecessary government spending" is a subjective thing. One person's waste is another's necessity. It costs a lot of money to run a modern government in the 21st century. By continuously reducing taxes, we are forced into deficit spending. We are already cutting healthcare to the point where it is severely stressed. 

I agree about preserving the traditions and history of the country. The primary purpose of a tory is loyalty to the Crown.

All major parties want to have security for the people. Finkleman once said, people will ive up a lot of fredom in exchange for being able to walk down the street at night without fear. One thing I learned on the job is that the length of the sentence isn't what deters crimminals. It is the likelihood of getting caught. The longer you incarcerate someone, the more expensive it is and that goes back to balancing the budget. The money should go into better recruiting and training for police and money for community based policing.

The military: Canadians don't want a viable military. They like the fantasy of it but they refuse to pay for an effective military. I have always advocated for re-building the armed forces. When Stockwell Day was running, I wrote and asked him how he expected to keep his promise to rebuild the CF while cutting taxes. His response was a clear demonstration he didn't have a clue on how much an effective military would cost.

The tools people need to help them selves are available in the education system. That means more money for recruiting and training teachers in the hard sciences. Currently, when someone graduates form an engineering college, the last profession they think of is teaching. That is why so many people have an irrational fear of nuclear power and are so ignorant of climate change.

You are still going to have the care of those who are unable to provide for themselves, usually for health reasons, physical and mental. The Crown has always had the duty to care for her subjects.

 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A farmer on a phone in show said the problem with the government is taxes are too high and they don't fix the roads.

Most of what you ascribe to Blue Tories applies to Red Tories as well. "Eliminating unnecessary government spending" is a subjective thing. One person's waste is another's necessity. It costs a lot of money to run a modern government in the 21st century. By continuously reducing taxes, we are forced into deficit spending. We are already cutting healthcare to the point where it is severely stressed. 

The trick is in funding - fully funding - what needs to be done, like road maintenance, and discarding things which aren't essential. By way of example, the Liberal announcement the other day of three quarters of a billion dollars for 'social funding'. Or six hundred million for media, or most corporate handouts. Health care is one of those 'need to fund' things, and it's problem, as far as I can see, is a poor model. That ought to be revamped in line with some of the ones in Europe, but the current Tory leader hasn't got the balls to address this any more than the previous one did.

It ought to be against the law to run a deficit except in an economic emergency or war.

Quote

I agree about preserving the traditions and history of the country. The primary purpose of a tory is loyalty to the Crown.

And what has this Tory party done about it? One of the way of preserving the traditions and culture and values of a country is to not flood it with people whose traditions, cultures and values are diametrically opposed to the one here. And the Tories are enthusiastic supporters of doing that very thing.

Quote

All major parties want to have security for the people. Finkleman once said, people will ive up a lot of fredom in exchange for being able to walk down the street at night without fear. One thing I learned on the job is that the length of the sentence isn't what deters crimminals. It is the likelihood of getting caught. The longer you incarcerate someone, the more expensive it is and that goes back to balancing the budget. The money should go into better recruiting and training for police and money for community based policing.

It is actually, the certainty of being punished. Being caught is meaningless if its a catch and release program, where they're laughing and joking with each other because they don't care and know little will be done. And that means severe and immediate sentences, not two years down the road with a 2 for 1 off for being in jail and then out after one third of your sentence. It's also cheaper to put them away for a long time than to have them in and out repeatedly using up legal services every time. We also lack the number of police necessary to ensure they're caught. Toronto, for example, has less than half the number of police per population as New York does.

Quote

The military: Canadians don't want a viable military. They like the fantasy of it but they refuse to pay for an effective military.

No one ever asked them. Politicians have directed money towards programs which directly benefit people as bribes, and naturally directed it away from everything else. Yes, a sizable number of people will always hold their hands out eagerly but I don't see any real opposition to military spending except among the left.

Quote

The tools people need to help them selves are available in the education system. That means more money for recruiting and training teachers in the hard sciences. Currently, when someone graduates form an engineering college, the last profession they think of is teaching. That is why so many people have an irrational fear of nuclear power and are so ignorant of climate change.

Canada generally does a poor job of career training. Our universities are overstaffed with overpaid people and too long on theory. Our colleges long to be universities and they do a lousy job of training people in the trades we need. The Germans have a much better system we ought to investigate.

Quote

You are still going to have the care of those who are unable to provide for themselves, usually for health reasons, physical and mental. The Crown has always had the duty to care for her subjects.

The question is how well. The current idea among many that people 'deserve' a 'living wage', which they translate to mean enough money to have a number of consumer products as well as an active entertainment life is silly and unsupportable. We don't want people starving or freezing in the dark, but aside from those who are physically incapable of looking after themselves I see no reason to give people enough money, either through public welfare or publicly mandated minimum wage increases, to buy a car and computers and Iphones and high speed internet and playstations.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Argus

[turningrite]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

1.) The trick is in funding - fully funding - what needs to be done, like road maintenance, and discarding things which aren't essential. By way of example, the Liberal announcement the other day of three quarters of a billion dollars for 'social funding'. Or six hundred million for media, or most corporate handouts. Health care is one of those 'need to fund' things, and it's problem, as far as I can see, is a poor model. That ought to be revamped in line with some of the ones in Europe, but the current Tory leader hasn't got the balls to address this any more than the previous one did.

2.) And what has this Tory party done about it? One of the way of preserving the traditions and culture and values of a country is to not flood it with people whose traditions, cultures and values are diametrically opposed to the one here. And the Tories are enthusiastic supporters of doing that very thing.

3.) No one ever asked them [about military spending]. Politicians have directed money towards programs which directly benefit people as bribes, and naturally directed it away from everything else. Yes, a sizable number of people will always hold their hands out eagerly but I don't see any real opposition to military spending except among the left.

4.) Canada generally does a poor job of career training. Our universities are overstaffed with overpaid people and too long on theory. Our colleges long to be universities and they do a lousy job of training people in the trades we need. The Germans have a much better system we ought to investigate.

5.) The question is how well. The current idea among many that people 'deserve' a 'living wage', which they translate to mean enough money to have a number of consumer products as well as an active entertainment life is silly and unsupportable. We don't want people starving or freezing in the dark, but aside from those who are physically incapable of looking after themselves I see no reason to give people enough money, either through public welfare or publicly mandated minimum wage increases, to buy a car and computers and Iphones and high speed internet and playstations.

1.) Agree

2.) True, the Conservatives have played the same identity politics game the Libs play.

3.) True, except that few Canadians, if asked, would likely want to spend a whole lot more on the military. We're largely satisfied with existing under the American umbrella.

4.) Completely true.

5.) I largely agree. We've focused too much on the problems and needs of the subsidy class and too little on promoting real economic growth and productivity. If we pursued the latter approach, real wages would rise in tandem. .

 

[Queenmandy85]

A bit short of time here, but I want to remind you that the purpose of a political party is to win elections. Ideology has no place in that objective. The way to win elections is to give the voters what they want, not what I want. If it were up to me, we would adopt the Swiss model of defence and we would had a strong Monarchy and no PM. I can only think of one vote that would get.Me and Maxine Bernier are a pair. 

[Argus]

On 11/24/2018 at 2:28 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

A bit short of time here, but I want to remind you that the purpose of a political party is to win elections. Ideology has no place in that objective. The way to win elections is to give the voters what they want, not what I want

Then what's the point of even running? I mean, what are you in politics for? Why should I vote for you if all you are is copy of the other guy, both of you wanting to govern by polls, neither of you with vision or leadership abilities?

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 9/25/2018 at 10:50 PM, Argus said:

For that matter, imperfect English, especially in writing, tends to be instinctively equated with incompetence and lack of intelligence in many people.

That’s a sweeping generalization. In my experience, written English skills are a poor guide to competence. The new test of English skills for physicians in our province stopped a very bright McGill grad, originally from China, from even applying for a job with us. 

[Argus]

On 12/8/2018 at 3:36 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

That’s a sweeping generalization. In my experience, written English skills are a poor guide to competence. The new test of English skills for physicians in our province stopped a very bright McGill grad, originally from China, from even applying for a job with us. 

I said it is instinctively equated. I didn't say it was true.

[OftenWrong]

I would like to see a coalition, if necessary, to defeat Justin Trudeau. Scheer and Bernier running things is better than Scheer alone, and far better than another Trudeau government. Bernier should have a voice.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I said it is instinctively equated. I didn't say it was true.

The Liberal guy, Stephane Dion.

[SpankyMcFarland]

FPTP only works tolerably well with two parties. Beyond that weird results start happening. Conservatives are a minority in Canada and a new party that draws primarily from their ranks will keep them on the Opposition benches.

[turningrite]

14 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

FPTP only works tolerably well with two parties. Beyond that weird results start happening. Conservatives are a minority in Canada and a new party that draws primarily from their ranks will keep them on the Opposition benches.

Don't forget that Lib supporters, too, are in a minority in this country. Trudeau's party won the 2015 election with less than 40 percent voter support. FPTP can generate unusual results in a multiparty system, as illustrated by the result in the recent New Brunswick election that saw the PC party win more seats than the incumbent Libs despite the Libs winning the popular vote by 6 percentage points. Vote splits in individual ridings become crucial in multi-party elections conducted under the FPTP model.

Straw polling done prior to Bernier formally registering his party indicated that his message held appeal across party lines (up to 49 percent according to one poll, as I recall), although admittedly held more appeal among CPC supporters than others. It's notable that Scheer and Bernier have adopted similar positions against the UN Compact for Migration that's being signed this week by the Trudeau government on Canada's behalf. There are likely a lot of votes available for any party willing to directly tackle immigration policy before and during next year's election. It will be interesting to see whether Bernier's party can generate enough buzz to shift CPC policy on the contentious immigration file and whether Scheer can look sincere in this process rather than seeming to succumb unwillingly to pressure. Trudeau has recently benefited in polling due to the renegotiated NAFTA/USMCA deal, but as time goes on if that deal looks less solid (i.e. GM's pullout in Oshawa) and given the looming possibility of a recession, Trudeau could be very vulnerable.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

FPTP only works tolerably well with two parties. Beyond that weird results start happening. Conservatives are a minority in Canada and a new party that draws primarily from their ranks will keep them on the Opposition benches.

As long as we have FPTP I fear you are correct. On the other hand, as someone or other suggested earlier, perhaps Coyne, it could also expand the conversation. If they have the balls to talk openly about things the Tories fear to bring up it might get Canadians thinking more seriously about those things. And it might get people to start questioning the existing agreement among the elites as to how all these topics be addressed. For some years now the Tories have been cowed to the point they simply don't bring things up at all.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

This is painfully accurate in its depiction of how cowardly the Conservatives are in terms of confrontating the Liberals on immigration.

The same day the migration compact was ratified, Pew released a sweeping survey of global attitudes on immigration. Canadians were skeptical as ever, with a large majority stating they’d like to see Canada’s immigration rates capped or lowered. (The rate favoring the capped-or-lowered position, 80 percent, was higher than the number of Americans saying the same, 73 percent — a fact to keep in mind the next time you read some paean to “Canadian exceptionalism”).

In other words, an overwhelming majority favors the opposite of what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in October: a steady increase of Canada’s immigration intake over the next three years. The Conservative Party, however, has elected not to complain about the increase, instead suggesting Trudeau’s Liberals are just vaguely bad at managing Canada’s immigration bureaucracy. Trudeau’s immigration minister called it “empty criticism for the sake of criticism.”

If the Tories are being timid, it’s likely because they’d be hypocrites for protesting given they themselves raised Canada’s immigration intake to unpopular heights during their time in power. On a deeper level, however, it’s hard to avoid concluding that the Tories simply don’t believe the public’s opinion on this issue is legitimate. Within the Canadian elite, opinions on immigration tend to be unflinchingly supportive, united in belief that Canada’s immigration system is the most ingenious in the world and the least in need of critical reexamination. Public dissatisfaction with liberal attitudes toward immigration must therefore be carefully redirected to only the most extreme, stylized representations of it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/14/canadas-conservatives-prefer-symbolism-over-substance/?noredirect=on&utm_source=reddit.com&utm_term=.05fcbab2152d