• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Next Conservative Leader

Status
Not open for further replies.
CPC could reduce the Liberal majority to a minority with the right leader and a well run campaign. There's already fuel for the election fire: limos, child benefit actually is less benefit than CPC benefit it replaced, and atrocious job numbers. If we continue to shed jobs after 4 years of giant deficits, it's proof the Gerald Butts vision of Canada doesn't work. Then again, it will likely depend on whether the MSM rides Trudeau's honeymoon for 4 years longer than it should be.
 
PuckChaser said:
CPC could reduce the Liberal majority to a minority with the right leader and a well run campaign. There's already fuel for the election fire: limos, child benefit actually is less benefit than CPC benefit it replaced, and atrocious job numbers. If we continue to shed jobs after 4 years of giant deficits, it's proof the Gerald Butts vision of Canada doesn't work. Then again, it will likely depend on whether the MSM rides Trudeau's honeymoon for 4 years longer than it should be.
With weed being legal and taxed next year I'm figuring those deficits won't be quite as large as promised.

As for job numbers, I agree; to a point.

If it continues to be isolated in Alberta and the resource sector fallout will be minimal. It's not like he rode the red wave into alberta and Saskatchewan. If there is widespread stagnation and weakness throughout multiple sectors nationwide he's probably done.

I don't know about you but I'm loving the new CCB. I get more money and it's tax free. Starting 2020 it will be indexed to inflation(something the PBO declined to mention)and MSM went with the sexier story of how the new CCB will be worth less as years go by.

As for the limos, they were repaid within the week so if you think that story will have the same legs as the 16 dollar cup of orange juice and 1000 dollar limorides that wasn't repaid for months you are free to think that.
 
Interesting spin on the media hammering Kellie Leitch's "anti-Canadian values screening" proposal: Survey shows 2/3s of Canadians support it:

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/10/canadians-favour-screening-immigrant-values-poll-shows.html

Canadians favour screening would-be immigrants for ‘anti-Canadian’ values, poll shows

Two-thirds of Canadians want prospective immigrants to be screened for “anti-Canadian” values, a new poll reveals, lending to idea stirring controversy in political circles.
A new Forum Research poll showed that 38 per cent of Canadians think the country admits too many immigrants while 13 per cent say too few are admitted. But 41 per cent think the number of admission is about right.
By Bruce Campion-Smith Ottawa Bureau
Sat., Sept. 10, 2016

OTTAWA—Two-thirds of Canadians want prospective immigrants to be screened for “anti-Canadian” values, a new poll reveals, lending support to an idea that is stirring controversy in political circles.

Conservative MP Kellie Leitch, a candidate in her party’s leadership contest, has floated the idea of screening newcomers for their attitudes on intolerance toward other religions, cultures and sexual orientations and reluctance to embrace Canadian freedoms.

A new Forum Research Inc. poll for the Star shows that Leitch may be tapping into an idea that Canadians favour with 67 per cent saying immigrants should indeed be screened for “anti-Canadian values.”

More importantly for Leitch, the poll shows that the idea is especially popular among Conservative supporters with 87 per cent backing the idea and just 8 per cent opposed compared to 57 per cent support among Liberals and 59 per cent for New Democrat voters.

That’s certain to be the reason that Leitch (Simcoe-Grey) proposed the idea — and has stuck by it in the face of criticism, said Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research.

“If you’re going after the base, this is like red meat for them. They’re going to love this,” he said Friday. “This is hitting the nail right on the head.”

When asked to choose the values respondents believe are important, equality came out on top (27 per cent), followed by patriotism (15 per cent), fairness (12 per cent) and tolerance (11 per cent).

Conservative backers put patriotism at the top their list of important values. Liberals and New Democrats ranked equality as their first choice.

Just one-quarter of respondents disagreed with the idea of screening for values and nine per cent had no opinion.

The idea finds most support among those ages 45 to 64 (73 per cent); more men (70 per cent) than women (64 per cent); living in Quebec (71 per cent) and Ontario (70 per cent) than those in the Atlantic provinces (56 per cent).

Leitch raised the idea of screening would-be immigrants in a survey sent out by her campaign seeking input on issues.

But it has drawn flak, even from among Conservatives, who have sought to distance themselves from Leitch’s stance. Conservative interim leader Rona Ambrose said she doesn’t support the idea. Fellow Ontario MP Michael Chong, also contesting the leadership, said the suggestion that some immigrants are anti-Canadian “does not represent our Conservative party or our Canada.”

Very interesting that the support for the proposal is high among self-identified Liberal and NDP voters.
 
That article simply demonstrates that John Ibbotson was essentially correct in "The Big Shift", and that the same sort of unravelling of trust in the "elites" that propels Trump in the US, the Brexit in the UK and Nativist parties in Europe is not only just possible in Canada, but may almost be inevitable.

The extreme disconnect between the "Laurentian Elites" who champion mass immigration and other nonsense at *our* expense is going to create a larger and larger portion of the population who see that Canadian politics is not working for them or the supposed benefits of trade, multi billion dollar deficits or immigration are *not* accruing to them and eventually they will go looking for a Trump or Le Pen to lead them against these predatory "elites".

I had an interesting conversation with a correspondent who had the opportunity to sit in and discuss some of these issues with a cross section of these "elites" in a Toronto boardroom, and his impression is they simply have no idea of how their actions affect *us*, and unstated, since they have $500,000 to $1,000,000/year incomes and live in gated communities isolated from the rest of us, really don't care, since the effect of their policies and ideas on them will be minimal.

In any case, Canadians may well see their own Trump emerge soon. I rather hope there is a Canadian Trump, because the alternative is "the man on the white horse".
 

Attachments

  • 285.jpg
    285.jpg
    194.1 KB · Views: 45
[quote author=Thucydides] because the alternative is "the man on the white horse".
[/quote]

and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer?
 
Altair said:
With weed being legal and taxed next year I'm figuring those deficits won't be quite as large as promised.
That's a preeeeeeeeeeeeeeety optimistic timeline ...
 
Jarnhamar said:
and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer?

No, not that man on the white horse.

For those who did not get the historical allusion, Napoleon is the "man on the white horse", who promised to provide peace and security to the French after the chaos of the Revolution and there of the Revolutionary committees. The French were happy to trade freedom for security, until they saw hat happened next.....
 
milnews.ca said:
That's a preeeeeeeeeeeeeeety optimistic timeline ...
http://globalnews.ca/news/2650706/canada-to-introduce-pot-legalization-legislation-in-2017/

Hmm?
 
Altair said:
http://globalnews.ca/news/2650706/canada-to-introduce-pot-legalization-legislation-in-2017/

Hmm?

Yep, and how about those 25,000 refugees by December? Only moved left by 3 months (27 Feb 16), and that's a relatively straight forward screening and transport process. Or maybe the defense policy review that was promised to be completed by this fall, and now is shifting to the nebulous target of "early 2017".
 
PuckChaser said:
Yep, and how about those 25,000 refugees by December? Only moved left by 3 months (27 Feb 16), and that's a relatively straight forward screening and transport process. Or maybe the defense policy review that was promised to be completed by this fall, and now is shifting to the nebulous target of "early 2017".
Or the middle class tax cut that was done right away, the new CCB which was done in the first budget.

Sure, you can focus on things that didn't meet their time frame but quite a few of those promises were fulfilled in a timely manner.
 
Altair said:
Or the middle class tax cut that was done right away, the new CCB which was done in the first budget.

Sure, you can focus on things that didn't meet their time frame but quite a few of those promises were fulfilled in a timely manner.
Those are completely different things. Of course they made that timeline, it was literally made for them as budgets are always delivered in Feb. You also fail to remember that Trudeau said he'd start legalizing pot on "day one", causing massive headache for LEOs by people thinking pot was legal after he won the election. He didn't even start the process until 6 months later, and it will be at least 18 months after "day one" until anything resembling a bill will be ready. Then it'll take a few months of debate in the Commons, before having debate shut down because it will have to get done before summer recess 2017. Then it'll get kicked around in the Senate, adding another month or two. We very likely end up 2 full years late, with legislation on the books fall 2017.
 
Altair said:
Or the middle class tax cut that ...
... was actually a tax cut to above median income earners and benefit individuals up into the 90 something percentile.
 
PuckChaser said:
Those are completely different things. Of course they made that timeline, it was literally made for them as budgets are always delivered in Feb. You also fail to remember that Trudeau said he'd start legalizing pot on "day one", causing massive headache for LEOs by people thinking pot was legal after he won the election. He didn't even start the process until 6 months later, and it will be at least 18 months after "day one" until anything resembling a bill will be ready. Then it'll take a few months of debate in the Commons, before having debate shut down because it will have to get done before summer recess 2017. Then it'll get kicked around in the Senate, adding another month or two. We very likely end up 2 full years late, with legislation on the books fall 2017.
I really don't understand you.

So if the Liberals just went about starting day one, legalized pot with little study on the consequences, the legality,  etc they would have been seen as reckless.

When they take their time and consult, study and come up with a timeline of 2017 give or take a few months they are tardy? 

So they just can't win I guess.

Whatever.

My point was that pot will be legal in 2017 and tax revenue from that will start coming in. I stand by that. The forecasted deficits will be smaller when that new revenue stream comes online.
 
jollyjacktar said:
Keep sipp'n that Kool-aid
As long as you keep blindly hating everything team red does up to and including drawing breath.

:cheers:
 
MCG said:
... was actually a tax cut to above median income earners and benefit individuals up into the 90 something percentile.
And a tax hike on those making more than 200 thousand. Not exact a tax break for the rich.

Seriously, complaining about a tax break effecting too many people? Really? Must be doing something right.
 
Altair said:
As long as you keep blindly hating everything team red does up to and including drawing breath.

:cheers:

Just as long as we understand each other...
 
Altair said:
Seriously, complaining about a tax break effecting too many people?
Nope.  Disagree with false advertising though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top