CPC Leadership Discussion 2020-21

[mariomike]

Ahh, I missed the original post reference. Sorry. We should make an option to rescind +/- millpoints.

That's ok. I have never deducted a single negative Mil-point from anyone. I like to award positive ones. So, + 300 to you!

I thought posting millpoints comments in the discussion thread was considered bad form?

My bad. But, if I have something to say, ( like, "thats a shitty article" ) I do it in the forum. Or, send a PM. That way, the member has a chance to defend themselves.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=mariomike]

That's where the jobs are, especially for anyone who wants to join the emergency services. They come in from far and wide to apply.
[/quote]
It looks like the GTA has the highest unemployment rate by region in Ontario.

 

[mariomike]

It looks like the GTA has the highest unemployment rate by region in Ontario.

I'm not surprised. There is a long line of qualified out of town applicants for the city emergency services. When I came on, there was a residency requirement. But, now they can - and do - come in to apply from all over Ontario.

The city is seen as the place to go when you’re looking for work. It attracts a lot of  young people from out of town, and recent immigrants to Canada.

The problem is, once they arrive, finding work - especially work they are interested in - isn’t always as easy as they expected.

This movie is a classic example of that,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goin%27_Down_the_Road
"Nova Scotia to Toronto with the hope of meeting up with their relatives in the city who might be able to help them find jobs".

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Lot's of employment opportunities in Vancouver, sadly they don't pay enough to actually live in Vancouver.

 

[mariomike]

Lot's of employment opportunities in Vancouver, sadly they don't pay enough to actually live in Vancouver.

Right. Even if you get the job you want, the cost of housing must be a challenge for young people trying to buy into the market,

Feb. 6, 2020

Toronto house prices are expected to soar by nearly 10 percent in 2020
https://www.thestar.com/business/2020/02/06/toronto-house-prices-expected-to-climb-nearly-10-per-cent-in-2020.html

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's so bad I know of several businesses that have closed or moved out to the valley because they can't find employees.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Meanwhile...

Victoria has Lowest Unemployment Rate in Canada

https://www.iheartradio.ca/cfax-1070/news/victoria-has-lowest-unemployment-rate-in-canada-1.1999978

#governmenttownheartsndp-greengovernment

 

[mariomike]

Meanwhile...

Victoria has Lowest Unemployment Rate in Canada

Also,

A greater population density than Toronto.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/170208/t001a-eng.htm

Canada’s most dangerous cities
https://web.archive.org/web/20120630014856/http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/14/national-crime-rankings-2010/

WORST CITIES  PERCENTAGE ABOVE THE NATIONAL CRIME SCORE: ( Caps not mine - mm )

#2 Victoria, B.C. +81%

#57 Toronto, Ont. -9.03

 

[Jarnhamar]

Greater Victoria records one of the lowest homicide rates in Canada
https://www.vicnews.com/news/greater-victoria-records-one-of-the-lowest-homicide-rates-in-canada/

Greater Victoria recorded two homicides in 2018, a drop of three from the previous year, according to Statistics Canada.

Measured by homicides, Winnipeg (population: 816,741) was Canada’s most violent CMA with 2.69 homicides per 100,000. In terms of absolute numbers, the Toronto CMA (population: 6.27 million) led the way with 142 homicides, up from 93 in 2017. Overall, Canada recorded 651 homicides or 1.76 homicides per 100,000 population, a drop compared to 2017.

 

[mariomike]

In terms of absolute numbers, the Toronto CMA (population: 6.27 million) 

Guess I'm one of the 6,269,858 lucky survivors. 

Since I retired, all I really know about the CMA is our neighbourhood of 11,000.

If we didn't like it, or felt unsafe, we would move to another area of the CMA, or Ontario, or Canada, or the US, or the EU.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Meanwhile...

Victoria has Lowest Unemployment Rate in Canada

https://www.iheartradio.ca/cfax-1070/news/victoria-has-lowest-unemployment-rate-in-canada-1.1999978

#governmenttownheartsndp-greengovernment

Lowest unemployment but I have no idea what anyone actually does for a living? Outside Seaspan there is no actual industry here.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A few things:
1) BC government, as an employer.
2) Greater Victoria and the peninsula have a lot of elderly folks who consume services but don't work.
3) A university.
4) Tourism.

No idea how significant these factors are, but they have to have some influence.

 

[Remius]

Most of that list are fairly stable industries.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

A few things:
1) BC government, as an employer.
2) Greater Victoria and the peninsula have a lot of elderly folks who consume services but don't work.
3) A university.
4) Tourism.

No idea how significant these factors are, but they have to have some influence.

5) DND/CAF

Outside of the BC Govt, it is probably the largest employer in Victoria.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

I'll admit I don't know much, if anything, about MacKay. He's got an Iranian wife who seems pretty entrenched in humanitarian business?

I don't know much about him either, but his reputation is that he's very much a "Red Tory" and would take the CPC in a "Liberal Lite" direction.

That said, he at least seems to have some charisma and I'm willing to listen to what his actual policies are before passing judgement (or submitting my vote for CPC leader).

Not to succumb to identity politics but a saucy part of me wants Dr Leslyn Lewis to win just to mess with the Liberals and their conservative white male racist rwar grandstanding. We seen how ineffective Jody Wilson-Rayboulds intersectionality  was when crossing JT so I'm curious what kind of attacks the LPC would make on the good doctor.

Also will she repeal the firearm laws and let us conceal carry assault rifles?  :dunno:

First time I heard of her was today, when I read an email Jim Karahalios expressing outrage over Richard Décarie's ejection from the leadership race by the CPC insiders. All I know if Mr. Décarie is that he made some highly controversial comments in the media. So the CPC tossed him because they don't want too much controversy. Reading through this threat I take it that many in the CPC would approve of not allowing a person like that to even run. I personally am more of a fan of "let the people decide" and in my view CPC cowardice and fear of the media has borne no good fruits. The media is going to attack and denigrate the CPC no matter what, so I think a more confrontational and fearless approach is warranted. Cowering in fear just emboldens more attacks and neuters the Party. I believe this was one of the major flaws in Mr. Scheer's approach.

But I digress ... back to Dr. Lewis. I can't really find anything about her other than what I've read in this thread. It does not inspire confidence in me that she couldn't even win her seat locally. She might have great policies (I don't know because her website doesn't say much) but we need a "winner" leading the party.

All that said, I have to admit I agree with you Jarnhammer -- I'd be really interested to see how the "conserative = old white racist" narrative would be handled by the media and the LPC with a lady like her, who goes against their stereotypes, at the helm.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Doesn't mean you've got to believe any of it, or even do anything. Just that you've got to get along and play ball.

It's more than merely "playing ball" ... it's become a mandatory requirement. Like offering incense to the Emperor in Ancient Rome, it almost has a religious significance. It's in that vein that I highly object to "playing ball" because it is essentially "coerced speech" insofar as it is coerced public declaration of being in favour of everything LGBT lobby stands for, otherwise you're a pariah. It is essentially an attempt to disqualify social conservatives/Christians from politics. Not sure if the same outrage would ensue if there were a high profile Muslim candidate who refused to march.

And because you're a pariah if you don't, I think it would be difficult for a CPC leader who doesn't march in the parade to win ... but I don't think it's impossible. I think that a leader who took the issue head-on and said "I'm not marching" and gave a principled reason (rather than trying to skirt the issue and give weasel answers like Scheer) could gain respect from the average Canadian. S/he would of course be absolutely reviled by the media, but I think that certain politicians in other countries have shown us that bad press is still press and can be used to advantage. So I'm not convinced that the incense must be offered to Caesar, I think it just needs to be done in the right way.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

I looked at his Campaign Life Coalition evaluation for the last election and he was awarded a "Yellow" category because of his pro homosexual etc rights position, his pro marijuana position, and his "not re-open abortion debate" position (although he was considered "educable" due to his voting in favour of Bill 225 (criminalizing hurting or killing pre-born child while assaulting pregnant mother).

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/view/level/mp/id/11259/name/erin-o-toole#votes

Seems he's not part of the social conservative cartel.

:cheers:

Not sure what exactly constitutes the "social conservative cartel" ...

For what it's worth, I'm as socially conservative as it gets, but I also understand that politics is the "art of the possible" and that abortion isn't going anywhere. Juries were acquitting abortionists via "jury nullification" and that is what ended abortion as a crime, not anything parliament directly did. Abortion remained a crime "on the books" for years until the Supreme Court ruled the laws unconstitutional. Any law concerning abortion would be at best an exercise in futility because the people would not support it, juries would not convict, and the Supreme Court would strike it down. Therefore, Mr. O'Toole's position re: abortion doesn't bother me.

Regarding marijuana, I frankly think the entire war on drugs has been a failure and a money pit. Re-criminializing marijuana would be stupid. If you don't like marijuana don't smoke it. Prohibition on everything that is fun or makes you feel good isn't even particularly conservative in my opinion. But marijuana in particular is quite benign; I'd actually rather people smoke it to drinking alcohol. So this doesn't trouble me at all ... to the contrary I'd probably not vote for someone who thinks attempting to re-criminalize marijuana would be a good idea.

Re: "pro-homosexual" depends on what that means. I've tried emailing Mr. O'Toole's campaign asking for clarification on some positions and they never answer. So I don't know what exactly his position is. I am socially conservative and I am not in favour of homosexuality BUT I also don't think government should be regulating what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Government should not care who you sleep with so to me "sexual orientation" should be something that's simply outside the scope of government. Leave it alone and let people live their lives. That also cuts the other way -- allow people who aren't pro-homosexuality to hold their own personal or religious/moral beliefs without molesting them and without forcing them to say they're in favour.

 

[FJAG]

Not sure what exactly constitutes the "social conservative cartel" ...

For what it's worth, I'm as socially conservative as it gets, but I also understand that politics is the "art of the possible" and that abortion isn't going anywhere. Juries were acquitting abortionists via "jury nullification" and that is what ended abortion as a crime, not anything parliament directly did. Abortion remained a crime "on the books" for years until the Supreme Court ruled the laws unconstitutional. Any law concerning abortion would be at best an exercise in futility because the people would not support it, juries would not convict, and the Supreme Court would strike it down. Therefore, Mr. O'Toole's position re: abortion doesn't bother me.

Regarding marijuana, I frankly think the entire war on drugs has been a failure and a money pit. Re-criminializing marijuana would be stupid. If you don't like marijuana don't smoke it. Prohibition on everything that is fun or makes you feel good isn't even particularly conservative in my opinion. But marijuana in particular is quite benign; I'd actually rather people smoke it to drinking alcohol. So this doesn't trouble me at all ... to the contrary I'd probably not vote for someone who thinks attempting to re-criminalize marijuana would be a good idea.

Re: "pro-homosexual" depends on what that means. I've tried emailing Mr. O'Toole's campaign asking for clarification on some positions and they never answer. So I don't know what exactly his position is. I am socially conservative and I am not in favour of homosexuality BUT I also don't think government should be regulating what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Government should not care who you sleep with so to me "sexual orientation" should be something that's simply outside the scope of government. Leave it alone and let people live their lives. That also cuts the other way -- allow people who aren't pro-homosexuality to hold their own personal or religious/moral beliefs without molesting them and without forcing them to say they're in favour.

Let me say briefly that based on your position you are not a true social conservatist like you may believe. You're positions are entirely too reasonable and believe in "live and let live" in many ways. That's not social conservatism.

The distinction amongst conservatists (boiled down to their simplest) is between fiscal conservatists (who believe in balanced budgets and the like) and social conservatists (who believe that all society must conform to certain standards that they espouse)

Social conservatism is the belief that society is built upon a fragile network of relationships which need to be upheld through duty, traditional values and established institutions.[1] This can include moral issues.[2] Social conservatism is generally sceptical of social change, and believes in maintaining the status quo concerning social issues such as family life, sexual relations, and patriotism

In Canada that focuses on certain religious norms, rejection of homosexuality as being capable of being a family norm and prohibition of abortion.

My problem with social conservatists in the Conservative Party is that they are trying to hijack the party so that they can push their restrictive agenda. That makes the party unelectable in this country and therefore leaves fiscal conservatives like me out pounding sand in frustration as the Liberals keep up their feel-good cash giveaway.

:cheers:

 

[daftandbarmy]

My problem with social conservatists in the Conservative Party is that they are trying to hijack the party so that they can push their restrictive agenda. That makes the party unelectable in this country and therefore leaves fiscal conservatives like me out pounding sand in frustration as the Liberals keep up their feel-good get re-elected cash giveaway.

:cheers:

The truth will out

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Let me say briefly that based on your position you are not a true social conservatist like you may believe. You're positions are entirely to reasonable and believe in "live and let live" in many ways. That's not social conservatism.

I suppose I would say I'm a "pragmatic social conservative" if that's a thing. The quote you gave describing "social conservative" fits me to a tee, I do believe "society is built upon a fragile network of relationships which need to be upheld through duty, traditional values and established institutions" ... although I'm not skeptical of social change since we live in a liberal society, so I'm all for social change in the current milieu.

Where the difference may come is that I do not see "duty" and "traditional values" as something that should or even can be enforced coercively by the state. These are things that need to develop organically in society. As for "established institutions" they definitely play a role but, here's where the "pragmatic" part comes in ... forcing people to live their lives a certain way is nearly impossible to do without creating a dystopian hellhole, doesn't really work, and above all, you can't rule a liberal nation with a conservative government. Politics are downstream of culture, not the other way around. I think this is the biggest problem most "social conservatives" have ... they want to just impose their values on every one by winning an election once every four years and pour their resources into that. Liberals are much wiser -- they try to "win hearts and minds" by focusing on culture.

So I say if social conservatives want a more conservative country, don't vote for a guy who's going to artificially impose your values on other people. Instead, be the change you want to see in the world. Live your life the way you think life should be lived and spread your positive message. Try to win people over instead of trying to control them.

My problem with social conservatists in the Conservative Party is that they are trying to hijack the party so that they can push their restrictive agenda. That makes the party unelectable in this country and therefore leaves fiscal conservatives like me out pounding sand in frustration as the Liberals keep up their feel-good cash giveaway.

:cheers:

I agree that any party will be unelectable running on a platform of "we're going to force our conservative values on you". The Liberal can get away with forcing their leftist values because they have the backing of the media, the teachers who are educating the young, and therefore a good chunk of society.

Also as I noted above, in my view, it would actually do more harm than good to try to impose abortion laws or outlaw homosexuality. There would be a backlash and the social conserve positions would become even MORE unpopular than they are now.