Conservative Leadership September 10th

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Cutting taxes can only go with cutting spending, and that means cutting services so anybody who wants to frame themselves as doing things a new way has to be honest about that.

Curious if there been a precedent set about not misleading the taxpayers, changing directions, or campaign promises.  Justin ran on many broken promises or lies and the people still love the shit out of him. 

[Army Guy]

26 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Polievre is saying all the right things now, but talk is cheap.  He wants it too much.  People that crave the reins of power are the last thing we need.

Right now I'd vote for your pet goldfish if it had a chance of beating Justin 

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

You mean it hasn't been frozen already?  And how come mine isn't frozen given all the bad-mouthing of Trudeau that I engage in?

How do you explain it?

I've been telling you for ages now Eyeball it's your superpower, these are not the droids you're looking for... 

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

1. Curious if there been a precedent set about not misleading the taxpayers, changing directions, or campaign promises. 

2. Justin ran on many broken promises or lies and the people still love the shit out of him. 

1. The 1988 election was run on one issue, basically, so it was hard for anybody to lie on that. One of the Ontario progressive conservative elections had the leader being upfront about program cuts, and he was shown the door.

2. If you think people love Trudeau you are either in a liberal bubble or a populist bubble.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Poilievre uses the Convoy for political advantage.  As the pandemic subsides there will be little need to make policy changes, so pay attention to how much he talks about it.  Pure politics.

He's apparently also using the issue of housing affordability with good effect to Millennials.

Maybe there's some hope Poilievre is interested in associating the high price of real estate with allegations of money laundering through real estate. But this was back in January where is he now on the issue?

Quote

 

The House of Commons finance committee is to be congratulated, in the spirit of better-late-than-never, for opening hearings this week into the country’s dangerously high housing prices. “We risk the possibility of a major housing crash when interest rates go up, just like the Americans experienced in ’08-’09,” said Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative MP who requested hearings.

“It’s time for the finance committee to … begin emergency hearings into where all the money is coming from that is ballooning our housing market, making home ownership unaffordable to our youth and working class and risking a massive financial collapse later on.”

https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-shining-a-light-on-money-laundering-in-canadian-real-estate

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

He's apparently also using the issue of housing affordability with good effect to Millennials.

Maybe there's some hope Poilievre is interested in associating the high price of real estate with allegations of money laundering through real estate. But this was back in January where is he now on the issue?

 

I believe he referenced that today, money laundering.  

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I believe he referenced that today, money laundering.  

Whale oil beef hooked!

Really?

I'm honestly impressed.

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Curious if there been a precedent set about not misleading the taxpayers, changing directions, or campaign promises. 

Justin ran on many broken promises or lies and the people still love the shit out of him. 

There should be a law that requires politicians to fulfill their election promises.

I am pretty sure people did not "love" Justin much at all, but,  they just did not "love" Harper, Scheer or O'Foole at all.

[sharkman]

So two applicants for the leadership race have been rejected.  Sounds like foul play?

[Zeitgeist]

11 hours ago, sharkman said:

So two applicants for the leadership race have been rejected.  Sounds like foul play?

Yup.  The Conservative Party may have stifled free speech by keeping candidates off the ballot because they are social conservatives.  That’s according to the CBC, however, so I don’t know anymore.

https://apple.news/ApX2nyeZqRlyKZVVV2CvAqA

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yup.  The Conservative Party may have stifled free speech by keeping candidates off the ballot because they are social conservatives.  That’s according to the CBC, however, so I don’t know anymore.

https://apple.news/ApX2nyeZqRlyKZVVV2CvAqA

That is unfortunate. Canadians need to see the nether regions of the Big Tent so they know exactly who and what Conservatives are harbouring.

[Zeitgeist]

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That is unfortunate. Canadians need to see the nether regions of the Big Tent so they know exactly who and what Conservatives are harbouring.

I think the CBC is trying to sow division in the CPC.  I hope the CPC incorporates the PPC.  

[eyeball]

46 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think the CBC is trying to sow division in the CPC.

So the CBC is who kept social conservatives off the ballot? That makes no sense. The easiest surefire way to ensure Conservatives lose elections is to showcase their social conservatives.

Quote

I hope the CPC incorporates the PPC.

I think it's pretty clear the division amongst conservatives is caused by sensitivity and resistance to the perception that the opposite is occurring - the parallels to the conservative experience in the US are clear but Canadian conservatives just aren't as populist or as willing to embrace the horror as their kin to the south are.

The timing of the direction that challenges to Roe vs Wade appear to be taking in the US couldn't be worse for the Conservative leadership race.

Edited May 3, 2022 by eyeball

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

So the CBC is who kept social conservatives off the ballot? That makes no sense. The easiest surefire way to ensure Conservatives lose elections is to showcase their social conservatives.

I think it's pretty clear the division amongst conservatives is caused by sensitivity and resistance to the perception that the opposite is occurring - the parallels to the conservative experience in the US are clear but Canadian conservatives just aren't as populist or as willing to embrace the horror as their kin to the south are.

The timing of the direction that challenges to Roe vs Wade appear to be taking in the US couldn't be worse for the Conservative leadership race.

I want the Conservatives to be conservative fiscally and socially.  We need our culture to move back to centre.

[ExFlyer]

29 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I want the Conservatives to be conservative fiscally and socially.  We need our culture to move back to centre.

The problem here is the conservatives themselves.

They have become splintered. Social conservatives are not the same group as fiscal conservatives or gun toting conservatives of pro life conservatives just plain conservatives let alone the PPC group.

They cannot seem to find a leader to please themselves. Harper, Scheer, O'foole and now looking for a new one (with the exception of the ones the leadership group does not like).

I am not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination but trying to be a conservative seems like a difficult chore nowadays.

[Army Guy]

On 5/1/2022 at 8:13 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. The 1988 election was run on one issue, basically, so it was hard for anybody to lie on that. One of the Ontario progressive conservative elections had the leader being upfront about program cuts, and he was shown the door.

2. If you think people love Trudeau you are either in a liberal bubble or a populist bubble.

Politicians will promise you the moon and deliver very little, hence why I think very few people trust any politician regardless of party. But at the same time, I don't think everyone has figured that out yet, we continue to vote for the guy that promises the most, and every election reality hits, and promises are washed off the board. either we are not smart enough to grasp this concept or we are extremely gullible.

Do you often vote for a guy that you can't stand or like, or is Justin the man with the best platform? how do you explain his continued support?

[Army Guy]

On 5/2/2022 at 8:31 AM, ExFlyer said:

There should be a law that requires politicians to fulfill their election promises.

I am pretty sure people did not "love" Justin much at all, but,  they just did not "love" Harper, Scheer or O'Foole at all.

Canadians love social programs, sometimes I think that the newer generations really think they are entitled to them, like a birthright, and yet when asked if they are willing to pay for them they suddenly rethink the whole idea. it is this thinking that is shaping politicians and their thinking.

Love, like or he'll do, they are still supporting a guy that is really lacking in leadership, job knowledge, problem-solving, initiative, charisma, honesty, integrity did I miss anything... And while it is OK for some Pte or corporal to not have any of these traits, we are talking about the leader of our nation, the man or woman that represents every Canadian on the planet, well I guess we are not that picky...

it kind of points toward our lack of caring in politics in general or lack of our character where we see these lack of traits as the new normal " they'll do" attitude.

[Queenmandy85]

The problem lies with voters. Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die to get there. Prime Minister Trudeau promised to legalize pot. He did that. He promised to change the electoral system but the NDP blocked that. He promised universal daycare. If he had not, he would not have been elected. The problem with that promise is it is fiscally unsustainable. In 2015, he was the only leader who acknowledged a balanced budget was unachievable. John Crosby said, "If we told you what we were going to do, you wouldn't have voted for us."

What other promises did Prime Minister Trudeau make that he didn't at least try to fulfill? 

[eyeball]

57 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

He promised to change the electoral system but the NDP blocked that. 

 Say what?

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The problem lies with voters. Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die to get there. Prime Minister Trudeau promised to legalize pot. He did that. He promised to change the electoral system but the NDP blocked that. He promised universal daycare. If he had not, he would not have been elected. The problem with that promise is it is fiscally unsustainable. In 2015, he was the only leader who acknowledged a balanced budget was unachievable. John Crosby said, "If we told you what we were going to do, you wouldn't have voted for us."

What other promises did Prime Minister Trudeau make that he didn't at least try to fulfill? 

1: Revenue neutral middle-class tax cut

Trudeau said his middle-class tax cut would pay for itself. It hasn’t. The tax cut is costing all Canadians $1.2 billion annually from the federal treasury, a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

2: Small business tax cut

Trudeau promised to lower the rate from 11% to 9%. He hasn’t.

3: Modest deficits

Trudeau said annual deficits over his first term in office would total $24.1 billion. Last week’s federal budget pegs them at $93.3 billion, an immodest increase of 287%.

4: Balanced budget

Trudeau said the budget would be balanced, with a $1 billion surplus, in 2019-20. Last week’s budget predicts the deficit in 2019-20 will be $20.4 billion, $18.7 billion deficit in 2020-21 and $15.8 billion in 2021-22. It gives no indication of when the budget will be balanced, if ever.

5: Reduce debt-to-GDP ratio

Trudeau promised this ratio, a key indicator of the government’s economic health, would be reduced from 30% to 27% by the end of his first term in office. Last week’s budget replaces this with a vague statement the ratio will be lower in 2020-21 than 2016-17, without specifics.

6: Revenue neutral carbon pricing

Trudeau said his carbon pricing plan would be revenue neutral for the federal government. This was misleading because his government is not lowering other federal taxes to offset new federal revenues gained from carbon pricing, which is the definition of revenue neutrality. Instead, Trudeau has set a mandatory national carbon price for provincial governments to implement, with no requirement that their carbon pricing schemes must be revenue neutral for them.

7: Reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions

Before the 2015 election, Trudeau and the Liberals said then prime minister Stephen Harper’s proposed emission cuts were inadequate. Post-election, Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna said they were the “floor” on which the Liberals would build. Today, Harper’s floor is Trudeau’s ceiling since he hasn’t changed Harper’s targets.

8: Electoral reform

Trudeau said the 2015 election would be the last using “first past the post” balloting and would be replaced with some form of proportional representation. He has abandoned this promise.

9: Open and transparent government

The opposition parties complain Trudeau is proposing to reduce weekly parliamentary sittings from five days to four (eliminating Fridays), appear only one day a week to answer their questions, limit their power to delay legislation and give the government more time to answer their written inquiries.

10: Restore home mail delivery

Trudeau’s government is studying the issue, but his promise appears to have been downsized to not cutting home mail delivery any further, rather than restoring previous cuts.

[Jack9000]

Gotta be Charest or brown who win for me I would listen then anyone else and it's a Trudeau vote for me 

[Queenmandy85]

Thanks. I was uncomfortable defending a Liberal government. On the electoral reform issue, however, it was the NDP that killed it. I don't recall the Grits ever promising Proportional Representation. Only the NDP is stupid enough to advocate that.

If any politician promises lower taxes, you can be sure they can't actually do that. Yet, nobody will vote for them unless they make that promise. Covid threw everyone's budget plans out the window and now the war in Europe is crippling. However, the big tsunami of climate change will force us to completely re-evaluate the whole economic structure world wide.

[Queenmandy85]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

 Say what?

The NDP insisted on proportional representation and would not budge from that. Changing the electoral system requires all party support and the NDP blocked it with their insistance on PR. It was a poison pill.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The NDP insisted on proportional representation and would not budge from that. Changing the electoral system requires all party support and the NDP blocked it with their insistance on PR. It was a poison pill.

I see it the other way around where a Liberal insistence for their own favoured system poisoned things.  It's the elector's electoral system not electee's and so it's our support that should matter most. But that's not just poison it's pure Kryptonite.

Edited May 4, 2022 by eyeball

[Queenmandy85]

Trudeau should never have made that promise. It was clear that it would lead to this issue and the potential catastrophe of PR.