Jump to content

What can Conservatives do?


Recommended Posts

Traditional Conservative parties don't have a plan for becoming the Government with current Canadian voter preferences.  They've tried Liberal-light approaches but those don't work.  Do they need to go back to traditional Conservative values and either win or lose on principles and integrity?  I've put together a YouTube video with some suggestions.  I hope you find it interesting.  Thanks in advance for looking at it and I look forward to comments.

There's an error at 4:53 where I say "lower cost of living". I meant to say "lower standard of living".

   

 

Edited by Tony Hladun
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to your talk, and appreciate that you've put forth some ideas of how Conservatives might strengthen their attraction to Canadians. For me, and I think for many people, the Conservatives association with certain social conservatives does not work to make them an attractive option.  However, you did not address this in your talk.

I'm not sure a 'balanced budget' is an absolute necessity for a well-functioning government or country; the last time the US had a balanced budget was in 1998.  That's not to say I think that the government can just spend like there's no tomorrow, either.  The amount of money spent must have some relation to the amount of revenue brought in.  My understanding (and I don't claim to be any kind of expert) is that the debt Canada carries is tied to the GDP and that as long as we remain below a certain threshold, there are no issues.  Currently, Canada's debt to GDP ratio is around 90%, while the US is around 107%.  Of the two economies, which would you say is the stronger?

I would like to see stronger support from Conservatives on climate change; I'd likely vote for them if they presented a plan that was well-thought out and achievable.  God knows the Liberals have done very little.  However, at this point, I don't think there is much that can be done, realistically.  While there is great support for doing "something", few want to pay for what the "something" might cost. In this case, it's not so much the politicians shooting themselves in the foot, it's the people.

I agree that Canada is an energy producer and that the energy produced will be needed for many decades to come.  I also think that this does come at a cost to the climate and its unclear to me, at least, how both needs can be reconciled.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are some fundamental misconceptions presented in this video that are problematic.  

First, Big C Conservatism is precisely why the Liberals keep getting elected.  You are talking primarily about fiscal conservatism, which is something a lot of people in the middle or middle-right can get behind (this is an important small-c issue), but the social conservatism is what has turned all of these folks away for years, as dialamah explains.  

For climate change, you are talking about focusing on consumption but then criticize the carbon tax, which focuses on consumption.  That's an odd take, but maybe I missed something. 

Your argument about central banking is overly simplistic and not really a specifically Canadian issue.  Everything our central bank does is in the context of what the US Fed is doing, and it's really not just a matter of the money machines printing off cash to bail the government out of their spending.  This is the narrative that conservatives and crypto-bros are pushing everywhere, but it's pretty detached from actual economics or monetary theory.  Transitory inflation, for example, was the argument that supply chains were causing most of it and that this would ease over time.  The economists at the time were not counting on China shutting down and promoting zero-COVID, nor did they anticipate another massive supply shock from the Russian invasion in Ukraine.  In hindsight it's easy to say they got it wrong (and they did) but this is a horseshoe and hand-grenade sort of "science" that's never precise.  The average voter (and the media at large) aren't exactly interested in an economists' Monte Carlo simulations.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dialamah,

Thanks, you make good points.  I'll add a few comments.

If Conservatives had a plan I'm hoping that would take away some of the support for the extreme right.  There's a vacuum there now and the extremists fill it.

In talking about government debts you have to include provincial debts which add a lot.  The problems with debt become more of an issue as interest rates rise; as is happening now.  If you look at Canada as a resource supplier than our economy is stronger than the US, but if look at technology than the US is stronger.  So, as always, it depends.

Regarding CC I would say WHAT CAN WE DO NOW.  Here are four quick suggestions:

  1. In Alberta we've converted our coal plants to run on gas.  Trouble is those plants have a thermal efficiency of about 30% when a phone call to GE could get gas turbine combined cycle plants that are 60% efficient.  Good publicity but bad engineering.
  2. EV's are not the answer, PHEV's are.  PHEV's allow for a gradual transition that can start today.  The batteries in one EV could electrify about 10 PHEV's so you get leverage.  Also, most commutes are short and could be done on electric power rather than lugging 1,500 lbs of batteries you never use.
  3. Over 160 ships and submarines are powered by small nuclear reactors like is being talked about today.  They have long operational records.  Stop talking and build them!
  4. When I grew up on the farm we put storm windows on in the fall.  Let's do things to make buildings more energy efficient.  Not just gimmick new construction but what about existing buildings.

Canada is two countries in one.   We are an energy producer and and energy consumer rolled into one.  It's like taking Kuwait and gluing it onto France.  Right now I say the energy consumers are blaming and crippling the energy producers but doing nothing positive.  

 

Edited by Tony Hladun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moonbox,

Thanks for your comments.

When I talk about carbon tax to have it work you need to have a family sit at the kitchen table and decide whether they will buy food or gasoline.  We're not, and won't be, doing that.  A refundable carbon tax has not reduced consumption.

We can study and debate monetary theory forever and I admit I'm no expert, but I think the explanation is actually simple.  If the central bank aggressively buys government bonds (QE) you will have trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your video. I enjoy listening to intellect even if I don't agree with some things, same as@Moonboxmessaging. 

You presented respectfully your rebuttal. Quality posters, only the strong admit errors/flaws in their messaging:

"There's an error at 4:53 where I say "lower cost of living". I meant to say "lower standard of living".

👍

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

39 minutes ago, Tony Hladun said:

When I talk about carbon tax to have it work you need to have a family sit at the kitchen table and decide whether they will buy food or gasoline.  We're not, and won't be, doing that.  A refundable carbon tax has not reduced consumption.

That's not really true though. Higher gas prices have demonstrable impact on consumer behavior.  Though it's true that there's a floor for a lot of people who still have to commute to work or job sites, an expensive tank of gas or flight fuel costs have obvious impact on discretionary choices.  

39 minutes ago, Tony Hladun said:

We can study and debate monetary theory forever and I admit I'm no expert, but I think the explanation is actually simple.  If the central bank aggressively buys government bonds (QE) you will have trouble.

It's not that simple at all though.  QE can be problematic, or it can be very helpful as a policy tool when properly managed.  This is a topic that's poorly understood, with even 4th year bus/econ grads having limited grasps. The average person understands it only on a conceptual level, making it an easy target for scapegoating and strawman.  Every opposition government in the world right now is blaming the sitting government for inflation they didn't cause, and that's because this is an easy narrative to push that requires too much technical knowledge to debunk.  

Edited by Moonbox
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I think there are some fundamental misconceptions presented in this video that are problematic.  

First, Big C Conservatism is precisely why the Liberals keep getting elected.  You are talking primarily about fiscal conservatism, which is something a lot of people in the middle or middle-right can get behind (this is an important small-c issue), but the social conservatism is what has turned all of these folks away for years, as dialamah explains.  

Is it? Down south it is social conservatism which is drawing people to the Republicans, because people see the Democrats as abandoning basic morals and values in favor of identity politics and woke nonsense like gender fluidity and teaching little kids that white people are oppressors and everyone else a victim. More Blacks and Hispanics are turning to the Republicans in search of decent schools and safe streets.

I think the only thing which is supporting the Liberals here is largely supine media and sky-high immigration. They are importing new Liberal supporters much as Mulroney did in the 1980s. And the ones who are here want to see more of their friends and relatives coming in. Trudeau presents to them as a happy fool who will pay for all kinds of parties and festivals and ethic community halls and the like. But eventually those immigrants who have established themselves and start to care more about the shape of the country vs bringing over their relatives and friends are going to turn on him. At least, those who intend to stay. A lot of them are here to make money and use it to set themselves up back 'home'. We saw that in the last Lebanese mess, where we suddenly had to extricate tens of thousands of 'Canadians of convenience' who had gone 'home' to live.

Of course, it helps that they haven't been presented with a strong, confident conservative voice since Harper. And even he was far too much the compromiser and had too few communication skills to really present the case for conservatism.

Because it's a lot more difficult to make a complicated explanation for why people are better off in the long run with more conservative fiscal policy over a ten second sound byte (if you're lucky to get that long) than it is to just send people cheques. How much money is the government sending out now to individuals everywhere, becoming everyone's generous daddy? That's easy to see when you paid, and easy to see that if you want that to continue you better keep on voting for the happy, spendthrift fool. But eventually we're going to run out of money and it's going to become obvious to everyone that this path he's paved is going over a financial cliff.

 

Edited by I am Groot
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tony Hladun said:

Moonbox,

The quote at the end of your post is quite demeaning, but I'll ignore it.  You seem to want to take the esoteric intellectual high ground.  So OK, in simple terms why do we have inflation?

It wasn't meant to be demeaning.  Monetary policy and inflation economics are esoteric to probably 99% of the population.  It's not simple theory with simple problems and simple answers, and even the average 4 year econ grad only has a baseline understanding.  I'm not what would be considered an expert either, but I do speak to and listen the people who are.

Today's unusual inflation is still almost all supply-driven.  The COVID lockdowns were disastrous on supply chains and many of these issues have still not been sorted.  Russia and Ukraine have made that problem a whole lot worse.  The supply chain is healing gradually, but we're seeing a cocktail of inflation drivers still pushing prices.  Now it's mostly labour/service driven, since the cost of goods has stabilized to an extent.  Demand for everything is high still after 2 years of lockdown, so we have a booming labor market and workers who are demanding higher wages not only because they have more options but also because they need more to cover the increased of goods (a trickle-down effect).  

As I said, inflation isn't a purely Canadian or North American problem.  It's a global problem with global inflation almost doubling the average compared to the last 10 years.  This by itself should prove Justinflation and Liberal spending aren't to blame, but that's the narrative that opposition leaders around the world are peddling and voters aren't generally inclined to listen to detailed technical explanations when they can opt for a one-liner instead.  

Edited by Moonbox
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Is it? Down south it is social conservatism which is drawing people to the Republicans, because people see the Democrats as abandoning basic morals and values in favor of identity politics and woke nonsense like gender fluidity and teaching little kids that white people are oppressors and everyone else a victim. More Blacks and Hispanics are turning to the Republicans in search of decent schools and safe streets.

I'd say we're seeing the opposite, and the fact that more moderate, non-Trumpian candidates fared better in the mid-terms would signal this.  There are of course exceptions like Ron DeSantis, or people like Boebart in extremely safe republican districts succeeding, but by and large the culture-warriors and the election deniers were the ones who fared worse.  When you have a lame-duck president like Biden presiding over poor economic conditions and general anxiety, we can probably both agree that the midterms should have gone better for the Republicans?   

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Of course, it helps that they haven't been presented with a strong, confident conservative voice since Harper. And even he was far too much the compromiser and had too few communication skills to really present the case for conservatism.

Harper was a pragmatist.  He won because he muzzled the social conservatives in the base.  I miss Harper and the leadership he offered, regardless of how he managed to look like Darth Vader in a sweater.  The fiscal conservative message he offered (but didn't always deliver) resonated with the swing voters in Canada that the Conservatives need, despite their wishes that it were otherwise.  

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

But eventually we're going to run out of money and it's going to become obvious to everyone that this path he's paved is going over a financial cliff.

Which should serve as an indication on how unpalatable the CPC bases' social conservatism is to the RoC outside of the Prairies and rural Ontario.  My vote for Trudeau in the last election was my first Federal Liberal vote since Paul Martin in like...2004 or something (I can't remember the year), and it was only because I had zero patience for O'Toole playing footsie with vaccine deniers and Bible Thumpers until right before the election.  Cut that crap out and urban Ontario will fall in line.  After 15 years of crappy Ontario Liberal governments blowing holes in our pockets, we're not keen on seeing it happen Federally. 

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

38 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Too many now popular YouTube videos are young blonde women smiling.

And I still find even better videos, where those blonds get undressed.😉

What can I say....Tony, if you enjoy talking and thinking about that kind of stuff, by all means continue doing it.

If you however think you can make a difference, I think it would be a waste of your time, while you could be enjoying life a bit more instead of being frustrated.

I do not believe liberals will fix anything, but I do not believe conservatives, NDP,  Greens or whoever will make a difference either.

We are in the wrong game.  Best case solution for me is to click the ignore button and go fishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a member of the CPC for 30 years by 2022, but I lost faith in the Conservative Party when they chose O'Toole as their leader.  He came across as a liberal in conservative clothes and when he embraced the progressives, that finished me.  I realized politics is an immoral, anti-God sport.  That ended any further support for the CPC from me.  The only reason I vote for them is because they are the lesser evil.  I could never vote for liberals, NDP, or any kind of progressives that support abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual orientation/gender identity agenda as it is promoted and taught now to children in schools.  This country as I see it is going downhill.  When someone says they support progressives and progressive policy such as abortion or same-sex marriage, what they are saying is they oppose our Christian heritage that western civilization was built on and prefer the licentious iniquity that we see today. 

I realize a small percentage of people cannot change the direction of the country or system.  Where a country heads more likely depends on the wishes of the majority.  Government reflects the majority.  Sadly that is what is wrong with politics.  But as long as I am still able to cast a vote, it will be against the iniquity I observe as much as possible.  Hopefully there are others who will see the light sooner and also stand up to be counted.  It is not the popular thing to do.  Going with the flow and the gang is the easy way to go.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 and it was only because I had zero patience for O'Toole playing footsie with vaccine deniers and Bible Thumpers until right before the election.  Cut that crap out and urban Ontario will fall in line..

Very sad.  When one disparages Bible believers by calling them Bible thumpers, we know which side he is on.

He is on the anti-Christian, anti-Bible side or the side that follows the Devil.  There are only two key powers in this world.  God and the Devil but they are not equal.  The Bible tells us God is of infinite power and the Devil is not.  The Devil's power is limited and only temporary.  He is on the losing side and will ultimately be defeated.  Everyone is following one or the other.  The Devil's side is the losing side and on the wrong road.  There are only one of two places to go, either heaven or hell.  We know from the Bible which place the followers of the Devil are heading unless they turn to Christ and repent and believe the gospel that Jesus died for his/her personally and paid the price for his/her sins, and was raised from the dead. This is the central message of the Bible.

We also know that Bible believers will always be disparaged because that is what Jesus said would happen.

"19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also."  John 15:19-20  KJV

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Tony Hladun said:

Traditional Conservative parties don't have a plan for becoming the Government with current Canadian voter preferences.  They've tried Liberal-light approaches but those don't work.  Do they need to go back to traditional Conservative values and either win or lose on principles and integrity?  I've put together a YouTube video with some suggestions.  I hope you find it interesting.  Thanks in advance for looking at it and I look forward to comments.

There's an error at 4:53 where I say "lower cost of living". I meant to say "lower standard of living".

   

 

Well thought out but one big miss, leadership.

The conservatives have not had a palatable leader and failed.

Even mediocre plans and promises can win if you have a good leader. Obama is a good example of an orator with little political substance. Trump is another example.

You can have all sorts of plans and criticism of the other side but if you have no one to deliver, you lose. Look at all the scandals and embarrassment  and failures of Trudeau yet, he was decided to be a better leader than anything the conservatives could produce.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cougar said:

And I still find even better videos, where those blonds get undressed.😉

What can I say....Tony, if you enjoy talking and thinking about that kind of stuff, by all means continue doing it.

I'm retired and don't have a fat government pension.  I manage my own money and so I need to understand what is happening to protect myself.

If you however think you can make a difference, I think it would be a waste of your time, while you could be enjoying life a bit more instead of being frustrated.

I might not make a difference but you, and others, have heard me.  Somewhere it might make a difference.  On of the things, amongst may others, that I enjoy is watching people yell.

I do not believe liberals will fix anything, but I do not believe conservatives, NDP,  Greens or whoever will make a difference either.

We are in the wrong game.  Best case solution for me is to click the ignore button and go fishing.

Hope you don't catch a plastic bottle.

 

Edited by Tony Hladun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

Very sad.  When one disparages Bible believers by calling them Bible thumpers, we know which side he is on.

Nope, sorry.  Bible-thumpers are a very different breed than everyday Christians.  You'd be considered one - the tasteless type prone to preaching and proselytizing to people uninterested in your religious messages.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Well thought out but one big miss, leadership.

The conservatives have not had a palatable leader and failed.

Even mediocre plans and promises can win if you have a good leader. Obama is a good example of an orator with little political substance. Trump is another example.

You can have all sorts of plans and criticism of the other side but if you have no one to deliver, you lose. Look at all the scandals and embarrassment  and failures of Trudeau yet, he was decided to be a better leader than anything the conservatives could produce.

Yes I didn't talk about leadership. Firstly, the Conservative parties need a plan.  Then they need to pick a leader that is consistent with that plan.  In Alberta we have made picking the UCP leader a popularity contest and what have we gotten?  I like the way counties do it where you elect the councillors and then they elect a reeve.  The media would never tolerate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tony Hladun said:

Yes I didn't talk about leadership. Firstly, the Conservative parties need a plan.  Then they need to pick a leader that is consistent with that plan.  In Alberta we have made picking the UCP leader a popularity contest and what have we gotten?  I like the way counties do it where you elect the councillors and then they elect a reeve.  The media would never tolerate that.

Leadership is and always has been a popularity contest. When a real leader is amongst the popular, that is when it works out well.

Selecting a leader from elected members is also popularity contest except now, it is internal politics and keeps out you and me.

The media does not need to "tolerate" they should just report. Headlines are reports. Opinion pieces are not news, they are opinions from writers, not necessarily reporters and can and do play favourites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

uh why not?  

Here's why

a96945_a586_14-footbal-player2.jpg?w=809

I was CEO of a software company dealing with the DoD and the Minister of Defence  at the time was Kim Campbell.  The media decided she would be the next PM and it was interesting to watch how the media made that happen.  Allison Redford had little (none I believe) support from the MLA's and look at her reign.  On the other hand, Trudeau studied drama and that's the perfect qualification today.

Edited by Tony Hladun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tony Hladun said:

 On the other hand, Trudeau studied drama and that's the perfect qualification today.

Fair criticism of Trudeau, but then the alternative on-offer is Pierre Poilievre, who was first elected without any post-secondary degree and who's never held a real job in his whole life.  The guy only earned his "Bachelor of Arts" degree when he was close to 30, and is a pure career politician. 

  • Thanks 1
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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,355
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    JoshDotoli
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • whoshere earned a badge
      First Post
    • TomT earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • TomT went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Tony Hladun went up a rank
      Explorer
    • TomT earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...