The Next Conservative Leader

[ballz]

To be fair, that's why most measures of GDP are done in real dollars...

That still doesn't solve the problem here of people thinking that the GDP is the ultimate measure of an economy.

In real dollars, if the Federal government spends 1% of the GDP, the *real* GDP will grow by at minimum 1% (this is just simple math since the equation for GDP sums the total of spending, including government spending). It will most likely grow by more since whoever receives it will also spend some of it, and so forth and so on.

However, how does that increase in the GDP, be it 1%, 1.5% or 2.0%, indicate that the economy has improved? It measures consumption by taking the sum of all spending. Just because we are consuming more does not mean our economy is a) producing more (gross production) or b) producing more efficiently (producing with less inputs such as capital or labour). The United States GDP increased for decades prior to the 2008 recession, without actually increasing production.

 

[a_majoor]

The Economist used to have a marvellous method of making economic cross comparisons: How much of a person's time in country "x" would be spent earning enough to buy a Big Mac meal at McDonalds?

This actually covered a lot in a very simple to understand idea. The local franchise owners must be plugged into a wide range of markets to purchase the various ingredients of a Big Mac meal, and using the nation's median wage, you could see just what sort of purchasing power was available to the locals. Obviously, if the median income in Nation A allowed you to buy a Big Mac meal after an hour's work, while Nation B required 3 hours work to do the equivalent, you could peg "B" as being less productive per hour worked (hence the lower wages) or that "B" had an inefficient market system (hence the cost of ingredients to make a Big Mac meal was high) or both.

 

[ballz]

Very smart indeed, especially comparing it to an hour of one's time. Our time is a scarce resource that holds its value over time, and we all understand its value. Takes all that fiat currency stuff out of the picture that confuses people.

 

[dapaterson]

They're still tracking it:  http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index

 

[chanman]

If we doubled our money supply, our GDP would double as well. So would that mean our economy has strengthened?

When comparing GDP across time, the figures are adjusted for inflation to compare like to like. Check the fine print on graphs and you'll usually see something like *2013 CAD or *2012 USD

It'll almost always be using the currency value from a couple years ago after that year's tax numbers have been digested and distributed.


As for manufacturing - it's heavily correlated to resource demand. Falling prices (and oversupply) in structural steel and concrete are closely tied to slowdowns in construction (and construction worker/trades unemployment and wages) or energy to heavy manufacturing in general.

Simplifying greatly, there's an upper limit to how much of a particular good a market can absorb, especially if the goods are (or become more) durable. If modern cars last twice as long as those from 30 years ago, then they only need to be replaced half as often. Even if it takes the same number of man-hours to make car, if people aren't buying at least twice as many cars, there's going to be a permanent reduction in how many car factory workers are needed.

 

[dapaterson]

From the "Hey! Not my fault" department: Jenni Byrne on How the Conservative Party can avoid the political wilderness

Ten years ago, the Conservative Party formed government on a wave of change, aided by a weakened and disorganized Liberal Party. Today’s Conservative Party is nothing like the Liberal Party of 2006. If it remains united, keeps the organization strong, continues to train and motivate volunteers, raises money, and offers a sound alternative to this Liberal government, the fundamentals to a Conservative victory in the next election are there.

Of course, the alternative could also be true. If the Conservative Party doesn’t focus on the issues that matter and affect Canadians, maintain local organizations and build on strong campaign fundamentals, it could be years in the wilderness.

 

[Loachman]

Mind-numbing garbage, so I only skimmed it earlier.

I did not see anything about such faults as not actually governing like a conservative party, not doing the right things, or pissing off one's traditional supporters.

 

[Loachman]

Only the part regarding the Conservative Party's failures has been posted below. The rest can be read at the link.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/a_lesson_to_republicans_in_canadas_conservative_party_defeat.html

February 7, 2016

A Lesson to Republicans in Canada's Conservative Party Defeat

By David Solway and Janice Fiamengo

The failure of Canada's majority Conservative government to win re-election on October 17, 2015 should serve as an object lesson to the Republican establishment in the United States.  Among a number of reasons for the debacle, the abandonment or weakening of first principles in the name of pragmatic and ideological compromise was a major factor leading to the Conservative defeat.

The Tories attempted to cater to non-conservative voters, to appeal to a broad constituency, to be liked, to be moderate, by softening the party's message and gutting many of its programs.  Perhaps most obviously, they drew back from significantly defunding and at least partially privatizing our deep-left state-supported national broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.  The CBC is a cultural Marxist production that never met a Conservative policy it liked.  It sees its mandate as constantly attacking every Conservative idea or piece of legislation while propagandizing on behalf of multiculturalism; Islam as a religion of peace; anti-Zionism; and radical movements such as Occupy Wall Street, Idle No More, and #BlackLivesMatter.  It sided with Canada's two socialist parties, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party (NDP).  But aside from legislating a small reduction in the CBC's operating budget, the Conservatives allowed the "MotherCorp" to continue shilling for the opposition.  Afraid of giving its foes something to be offended by, the Conservative government funded its own demise.

No less catastrophic, the Conservatives failed to pass legislation to radically protect free speech across the country – legislation that would outrank our provincial kangaroo courts, known as Human Rights Commissions, whose mandate has been to prosecute individual citizens and groups on the flimsy grounds of "hate speech."  Aside from the fact that leaving these provincial tribunals in place did not garner a single bit of support or sympathy from the social justice totalitarians, this signal failure guarantees that open discussions essential to Canada's future as a robust democracy – especially conversations about mass immigration, Islamic terrorism, and the relation between the two – will continue to be curtailed by the left-leaning proponents of censorship in the name of social "harmony."  Such conversations are also, not incidentally, essential to the survival of a genuine Conservative party.

The Conservatives also implemented half-measures on the subject of gun control, failing to fully disband the despised Gun Registry that makes it almost impossible for people to defend themselves against criminals.  Canadian gun control legislation prohibits individuals with gun permits from carrying guns on their persons except in narrowly defined circumstances, and elaborate storage protocols mean that a home-owner who experiences a home invasion by a burglar or worse would be unable to use his or her gun in self-defense.

Perhaps most damagingly, the Conservatives attempted to fight the election chiefly on the basis of fact and logical argument rather than engaging the passions and patriotic sentiments of the electorate.  They were unable to rebut progressivist attacks portraying them as hateful, bigoted, backward, divisive, and exclusionary.  They had no vision of Canada to offer that was not simply a less enthusiastic version of the feminist, multicultural, and "diverse" image championed by the other parties.  In trying to play it safe, the Conservatives not only failed to dislodge Liberal and NDP voters from their political homes, but also alienated their conservative supporters.

The Conservatives might have used their parliamentary majority to enact truly decisive, game-changing pieces of legislation that could have consolidated a center-right political orientation not easily undone – even in the case of electoral loss.  They didn't, and we are suffering for it now.

So much, then, for Canada's Conservatives.

 

[Old Sweat]

This report of an interview of Kevin O'Leary by Evan Solomon on CFRA in Ottawa, the CPC leadership candidate is opposed to Canada taking part in any combat mission. The story is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

O'Leary: No combat mission against ISIS; stick to Peacekeeping

Posted on 2/9/2016 10:39:00 PM by CFRA News Staff

Kevin O'Leary says Canada shouldn't be involved in any international military engagements other than peacekeeping - and that includes the allied mission against the Islamic State (ISIS).

The business TV star and possible Conservative Party leadership candidate made the comments on News Talk Radio 580 CFRA Tuesday.

"I don't want to bomb or get involved in any campaigns as a Canadian other than keeping the peace. We are the only country along with the Fins (Finland) that can do that, and we are wasting our equity," O'Leary told Ottawa Now host Evan Solomon. "I actually believe the last person or the last nationality ISIS wants to put a bullet through is a Canadian. I really believe that. The only country that has the moral authority in the history of the Middle East to actually act as a peacekeeper is a Canadian soldier."

O'Leary cited his early years spent in Cyprus in the 1960's as reason for his stance on peacekeeping for Canada.

"We have an opportunity, we shouldn't squander it, I think what Trudeau is doing is a huge mistake," O'Leary said, citing that Prime Minister Trudeau is increasing Canadian special forces in the region while withdrawing the RCAF. "We shouldn't be proud of killing people, we should be proud of keeping the peace between them."

O'Leary is scheduled to speak at the Manning Centre Conference in Ottawa later this month.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Well, that's lost any chance he might have down the road of my support.

 

[Kirkhill]

"I actually believe the last person or the last nationality ISIS wants to put a bullet through is a Canadian. I really believe that.

Failure to understand the enemy and the nature of the conflict.

The more Canada touts itself as the rational, enlightened country - the avatar of western thought and moral authority - the more likely that ISIL will not like us.

 

[Loachman]

Well, that's lost any chance he might have down the road of my support.

Pretty much...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You guys just don't understand Mr. Wonderfull:

He is opposed to combat mission because nobody showed him "the money" in it: "How do I make mmmoooonnnneeeeyyy!!!

Show hime the money, He'll back the mission until the cows come home.

 

[George Wallace]

Those comments just left me with the impression that he has little or no knowledge of what the CAF is and does. 

Listening to the discussions on the radio, I am of mixed feelings on this topic.  The Problem in Iraq and Syria is so complex, I see it as a no win/no win situation all around.  His comments on Cyprus, although praising the Canadian soldiers, does not reflect on the fact that Cyprus is still a divided island and there is only the most rudimentary form of "Peace" to be found there.  In fact, the numbers of cases where we actually did bring "Peace" to a country/Region is very small. 

With more exposure to what DND and the CAF do, I am sure he will become more informed than he appears now.

 

[ballz]

When comparing GDP across time, the figures are adjusted for inflation to compare like to like. Check the fine print on graphs and you'll usually see something like *2013 CAD or *2012 USD

It'll almost always be using the currency value from a couple years ago after that year's tax numbers have been digested and distributed.

I guess you didn't read this, here it is again for you:

That still doesn't solve the problem here of people thinking that the GDP is the ultimate measure of an economy.

In real dollars, if the Federal government spends 1% of the GDP, the *real* GDP will grow by at minimum 1% (this is just simple math since the equation for GDP sums the total of spending, including government spending). It will most likely grow by more since whoever receives it will also spend some of it, and so forth and so on.

However, how does that increase in the GDP, be it 1%, 1.5% or 2.0%, indicate that the economy has improved? It measures consumption by taking the sum of all spending. Just because we are consuming more does not mean our economy is a) producing more (gross production) or b) producing more efficiently (producing with less inputs such as capital or labour). The United States GDP increased for decades prior to the 2008 recession, without actually increasing production.

As for this,

As for manufacturing - it's heavily correlated to resource demand. Falling prices (and oversupply) in structural steel and concrete are closely tied to slowdowns in construction (and construction worker/trades unemployment and wages) or energy to heavy manufacturing in general.

Simplifying greatly, there's an upper limit to how much of a particular good a market can absorb, especially if the goods are (or become more) durable. If modern cars last twice as long as those from 30 years ago, then they only need to be replaced half as often. Even if it takes the same number of man-hours to make car, if people aren't buying at least twice as many cars, there's going to be a permanent reduction in how many car factory workers are needed.

What is the point to this ramblings, that technological advancements are bad for the economy? Or are you aimlessly stating common sense that I don't think any one is disagreeing with, with no real point?

If cars become twice as durable for the same price, that is a technological advancement, and that means people and businesses now get to spend half as much money in cars and have more money for other things. A permanent reduction in car factory workers required does not mean the economy has weakened. In this case it would be the exact opposite as production has increased. What you would find is that all of those lost car factory jobs, and then some, appear in other industries which are now more affordable since business / consumers have more money to spend on other things / invest / etc.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Whazzup with one of the (alleged?) contenders ...

A former Tory cabinet minister will be feted at a cocktail fundraiser today, informally kicking off what is expected to be a long and costly Conservative Party leadership race.

CBC News has obtained an email copy of an invitation to an event to drum up funds and support for Kellie Leitch, a pediatric surgeon and the former minister of labour and status of women who is expected to mount a leadership bid.

According to the email, the event at Edmonton's Royal Glenora Club offers a chance to hear from the Ontario MP about why "she is the best candidate to lead the Conservative Party of Canada into the next election." It also delivers a reminder that donors can give up to $1,525 each calendar year for the cause.

The organizer declined to comment on the "private" event, and a call to Leitch was not returned ...

 

[dapaterson]

Hmm... is political leaders schmoozing for money a "barbaric cultural practice"?

 

[Kirkhill]

Hmm... is political leaders schmoozing for money a "barbaric cultural practice"?

No.  It's wynnesome.

 

[Old Sweat]

No.  It's wynnesome.

Groan!!  :cheers:

 

[ballz]

Well I'm a little bit saddened this hasn't already been posted so I will do so...

https://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/07/quebec-mp-maxime-bernier-makes-conservative-party-leadership-bid-official/

Quebec MP Maxime Bernier makes Conservative party leadership bid official

Why wait?

Quebec MP Maxime Bernier became the second official contender for the permanent leadership of the Conservative party Thursday, saying while there may be more than a year to go until the winner is chosen, he’s ready now.

“It’s time for our conservative movement to have a leader who speaks openly, with passion and conviction, what it is to be a conservative and that’s what I want to do,” Bernier said as he arrived at Conservative headquarters in Ottawa to file his nomination forms.

Bernier, 53, may end up with the distinction of being the lone contender from Quebec, the only province where the Tories actually increased their seat count in the last election.

He was drawn into federal politics in 2006 in an effort by the Tories to reverse their failure to win any seats at all Quebec in 2004. He captured his riding of Beauce with 67 per cent of the vote that year and has easily won re-election every time since.

He said he expects he’ll have a strong campaign in Quebec but that he’s running to represent all Canadians.

Ontario MP Kellie Leitch filed her papers on Wednesday. Others contemplating a run include Ontario MPs Tony Clement, Lisa Raitt and Michael Chong; Saskatchewan MP Andrew Scheer; Alberta MP Jason Kenney; and former Nova Scotia MP Peter MacKay.

Bernier has long been a champion of supply management in his province, an economic philosophy seemingly out of step with his other more libertarian views about removing government involvement from the private sector.

He said Canadians should stay tuned for more discussion of those and other policies.

He’s also aware he has baggage. Bernier was turfed from his post as foreign affairs minister in former prime minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet after leaving confidential papers at the home of his then-girlfriend.

“I dealt with that seven years ago and I showed to Canadians that I learned from that and I showed to Canadians that I’m a principled politician and Canadians will discover me in the near future in more detail,” he said.

“They will know the man behind the politics.”

While Bernier says he’s running now because he’s ready, there are other factors at play for him, as well as anyone else deciding when to officially enter the race.

Annual limits on donations to leadership campaigns mean anyone who signs up in 2016 can get people to donate the maximum twice — this year and next. Conservatives will vote for a new leader on May 27, 2017.

Selling memberships is another key goal. Members who want to vote in the race must have been signed up prior to March 28, 2017, but there’s an incentive in place to get it done faster.

The party is reimbursing candidates $5 for every member they sign up between now and the end of October and a $5 fee if they’re signed up after Feb. 28, 2017 — the cut-off date for registering to run in the race.

There are currently more than 100,000 members of the Conservative party. A single year’s membership costs $25.

During the last election, a lot of people expressed to me that they wished the Libertarian Party of Canada had a candidate in their riding so they could vote for them. IMO, Maxime Bernier winning the Conservative leadership race would be a libertarian's wet dream. I will most definitely be joining the party and doing anything I can do help his campaign. For those that expressed a desire to vote libertarian, hopefully you will be able to vote libertarian by voting for a Maxime Bernier-led CPC in 2019. It's a gamble because if some social conservative wins the race I will lament for my membership fees which are gone to support something I despise, but c'est la vie.

My fear right now, however, is that the mainstream media will deliberately ignore Maxime Bernier, much like the mainstream media in the US seemed to deliberately ignore Ron Paul. I have already seen signs of this, such as a CBC article a month ago showing all the potential leaders of the party, and not even mentioning Maxime Bernier.