Advice to Conservatives: Think twice


Mowich
Conservative
+2
#1
I was quite ready to see Andrew Scheer turfed next April in favor of a new leader. I was disappointed with the Conservative's performance during the campaign. And to be perfectly honest when I first laid on eyes on Andrew after he was elected leader and knowing nothing about him - my first thought was ' Wow I hope the party didn't go for photogenic over ability'. I had occasion to remember that thought more than a few times during the run-up to the election. That said, I do not lay all the blame for our inability to form a majority at Andrew's feet and after reading the article below I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - for now.

"What’s to be done about Andrew Scheer? He’s the most Western-entrenched Conservative leader since—well, since Rona Ambrose, Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day, Preston Manning, Joe Clark and John Diefenbaker. He’s reduced the Conservatives to pariah status in the country’s big eastern cities, terrifying windswept concrete valleys of Laurentianism where gay people are prone to marry or parade without notice. He faces a leadership review vote at his party’s national convention next spring in—shudder—Toronto, and Conservatives are more or less openly discussing their options for a trade-in.

Sure, he gained 26 seats and a million votes over his predecessor Harper’s 2015 score, and he governs the largest opposition caucus, as a fraction of all seats in the Commons, since Pierre Trudeau’s brief turn as an opposition leader in 1979-80. He did win more votes and seats than other recent opposition leaders running their first national campaigns—more than Tom Mulcair in 2015, more than Harper in 2004—and more than Jack Layton did in the “Orange Wave” election of 2011, Layton’s fourth national campaign after three disappointing runs.

What preoccupies some Conservatives is what Scheer didn’t accomplish this time, and what he showed on the way. He ran a curiously passive campaign with a bean-counting message: his government would cost you less than Justin Trudeau’s. Running against a Liberal party with its most overtly values-based message since the Pierre Trudeau years, Scheer didn’t prepare an adequate defence against value attacks or mount a strong argument for a different worldview. He just hoped people wouldn’t ask him about abortion, sexuality, immigration, Indigenous issues or his own life story.

It’s clear now that Scheer’s staff spent the first two years of his leadership telling themselves that only The Liberal Media would ask such pesky questions. The problem is (a) they weren’t wrong about the media—reporters were going to keep asking—but also (b) they should have expected their opponents to ask the same questions. Relentlessly. For every day of the campaign. In that environment, it would have been a good idea to prepare answers.

Now Conservatives need to decide whether they want Scheer to lead them into the next election. If they do, they may not even want to wait until next April before they start pushing in hopes of getting the guy out sooner. A new leader takes time to get settled; plainly two years was less than either Scheer or Jagmeet Singh could have used. And a minority Parliament is a land of unpredictable timelines. So a decision looms for Conservatives.

I offer them no counsel, only gentle reminders. It’s often a good idea to let a leader stick around after a first disappointing campaign.

National campaigns are hard. A first campaign is a good chance to make your mistakes. That’s why Stephen Harper lost on his first attempt, as did Dalton McGuinty and Jean Charest in the two largest provinces. Losing was part of what helped them learn how to win.

I mean, the difference between McGuinty’s terrible 1999 campaign and his polished (and cheerfully mendacious—he even signed a Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation Pledge to hold the line on taxes, for goodness’ sake) 2003 sophomore effort is hard to exaggerate.

Ejecting a leader after that first defeat is often a good way to find another rookie who’ll then make brand-new mistakes, as the federal Liberals discovered when they replaced Stéphane Dion with Michael Ignatieff.

Arguably an even clearer recent case is the NDP, who took the second-best performance in the history of the party—Tom Mulcair’s in 2015—as a debacle, and voted to remove Mulcair before they’d begun to consider who might be available to replace him. They wound up with Jagmeet Singh, who managed to hold just over half of Mulcair’s seats. But even then, I wonder how much better Mulcair would fare if the leadership review were held again. Sometimes what determines a party’s decision is simply whether they feel right with the leader they have, and in Mulcair’s case it may have had less to do with results than with the leader’s personality, style and political philosophy.

Which is another way of saying, the answers to leadership questions are never obvious. Conservatives wondering whether to keep Scheer need to decide whether the weaknesses he displayed can be fixed, and whether the realistic alternatives are more attractive.

The weaknesses include lousy electoral performance in big cities; evident discomfort with discussing his own religious beliefs in a political context; a campaign that lacked an argument more compelling than a grocery bill; and the odd decision to focus so much attention and so many resources on the leader instead of on a broader Conservative team. The Conservative campaign seemed as much a cult of personality as the Liberals’ or the NDP’s, except that those latter parties’ leaders have personalities.

I won’t score Scheer in detail on the points I just listed. This is a game you can play at home. I will say that much of the list seems fixable. But I know Conservatives who cannot understand why their leader won’t show up at a Pride parade somewhere. It’s hard to write it off as a generalized antipathy for parades, given that it’s easy to find photos of Scheer at parades for Acadians, Sikhs and Portuguese-Canadians. Maybe he could ease into it, start with an Acadian Pride parade or something. Or maybe his evident hangup should in itself be disqualifying. Your call, Conservatives.

As for alternatives, I don’t want to badmouth every potential leadership candidate the Conservatives have. But I will say it’s hardly unheard of for a party to prefer “anybody else” right up until that’s who they get. My first Maclean’s column, in 2003, was an interview with Peter MacKay several days before he became the last leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. It was one of those terribly unfair columns where I just let the candidate talk. MacKay has had 16 years to learn since then, and maybe he’d be better next time!

But Conservatives will want to be sure before they take the gamble, and they’ll want to remind themselves that not only did Scheer beat most of the likely other candidates to lead the party in 2017—so did Maxime Bernier.

If I were a partisan, I’d remind myself how much wishful thinking goes into the decision to remove a leader. And how often that wishful thinking is dashed by cold reality. What I do know is that there are Conservatives who like Scheer who hope he’ll move quickly to show he’s learned concrete, applicable lessons from the 2019 campaign. A leader who learns is easier to stick with."

www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/advice-to-conservatives-think-twice/
 
Walter
+1 / -1
#2
Scheer will be around for at least one election.
 
Hoid
#3
there is no good reason to vote conservative.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#4
Couldn't beat the worst PM in Canadian history. Andrew and the rest of the social conservatives should fack off so we can have a real conservative Conservative party.
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
+1
#5
Sheer is one of the many problems the Conservatives need to face if they want to win the next election.
 
Johnnny
No Party Affiliation
#6
My advice to conservatives is to shake away the trolls and the you guys might have an actual party with substance.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+5
#7  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Johnnny View Post

My advice to conservatives is to shake away the trolls and the you guys might have an actual party with substance.

It is unfortunate that thoughtful, principled conservatives around the world tend to get drowned out by racists, misogynists, homophobes, jingoists, and people who weren't smart, determined, or lucky enough to have their lives turn out like they wanted, and are now trying to pin the blame anywhere but where it belongs.

To be fair, liberals have their own set of perpetual malcontents and downright nutters to endure as well.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+4
#8
Right Now: Why Conservatives are grateful for the society we have

Across the free world, the rise of populism and the decline of open debate has stressed our traditional democratic and societal institutions. New parties and movements are emerging to represent constituencies that have little connection to the political ideologies of the past. What does conservatism mean in Canada today? Is there a set of principles that self-identified conservatives could agree on, and that political parties running on right-of-centre platforms would embrace? Would the country’s historical conservative thinkers recognize the moment as it stands today? In the first of a National Post series, Brian Lee Crowley assesses the current state of Canadian conservatism — and offers his thoughts on what it should be:

Modern conservatism springs, not from a central idea or policy, but from an emotional disposition. Conservatives are first and foremost grateful for what we as a society have.

This gratitude arises from an awareness of where we have come from. Poverty, disease, ignorance and intolerance are humanity’s default condition. Only a handful of societies have, slowly and painfully, evolved the institutions and behaviours that allow people to escape these ills on a broad front.

Canada is one of those nations. Our greatest endowment is thus neither our natural resources nor our people but a set of institutions and behaviours that includes the rule of law, judicial independence, robust property rights, respect of contracts, non-corrupt police and bureaucracy, a relatively stable regulatory and tax burden, non-violent resolution of disagreements, a strong work ethic and the certainty that elections actually choose governments, with the vanquished relinquishing power. Added to the civil freedoms of speech, religion, conscience and assembly, this makes an inheritance of order and freedom almost without peer in the world.

Conservatives do not think society is perfect; rather, imperfections signal that incremental adjustments that promise genuine improvements without endangering the gains of the past must continue.

This gratitude for our inheritance is in contrast to the left’s obsession with our mistakes, our moral, environmental and racial failings, for example. The past is no source of inspiration but is composed of endless sins whose stain can be removed only by endless apologizing, the abandonment of tradition and the reconstruction of our institutions and behaviours in accordance with fashionable opinion.

A corollary of our gratitude is a deep scepticism of grand schemes of social reconstruction. Too often have revolutions not only failed to improve conditions for the many, but they have destroyed the progress that had already been made in growing the institutions that confer success. Conservatives thus look with favour on the vast network of programs and private insurance that have grown up over the years to give most Canadians affordable access to prescription drugs but also agree that this must be supplemented by a scheme that extends coverage to the small minority not served by the current system. A universal “pharmacare” system that sweeps away approaches that work well for an untried government monopoly unnecessarily risks compromising benefits enjoyed by the majority in order to worship at the left’s altar of uniformity and bureaucratic control.

Moreover conservatives understand that some of our greatest social challenges do not come from the failure of our institutions. In the case of Indigenous people, for example, the challenge is their long-standing exclusion from those institutions: opportunity, education, infrastructure, self-government and many other things the rest of us take for granted. Indigenous leaders are making a conservative case when they call for the yoke of Ottawa’s bureaucracy to be lifted, for their communities to be granted self-government and for them to be able to build their economies to generate enough wealth for Indigenous people to make their own choices.

Gratitude for what we have inherited from our forebears entails an obligation to resist those who, from ignorance or self-interest, would damage this patrimony. It is thus a conservative impulse that saw Canadians rise up in disgust against the corruption and the abuse of the rule of law that underpinned the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We are united in not wishing to import such behaviour and in rooting it out wherever it is to be found. That same impulse animated outrage at the attack on a rules-based society represented by asylum-seekers letting themselves into Canada by simply walking across the border at Quebec’s Roxham Road in defiance of the spirit of a fair and orderly immigration system.

Conservatives believe that the greatest achievement of 1867 was a parliament and government endowed with the power and authority to act in the interests of Canada and are thus repelled by politicians’ failure to stand up for this authority, as when they offer a veto to provinces over infrastructure of national significance, such as pipelines or refuse to use federal power to sweep away barriers to trade between Canadians.

On the vexed question of identity, conservatives hold that in a society of free people it is neither possible nor necessary for us all to agree with each other’s choices of how to worship, conduct our sex lives or interpret our history.

In the conservative world view people are not first and foremost black or transgender or Chinese or Muslim or Irish or Indigenous.

They are Canadians who enjoy the freedom to choose the identities that matter to them. We do not protect only state-approved opinions, behaviours and identities because we are not servants of the state, but the other way around.

Progressives, who see these disparate identities as foundational, are outraged by the resistance shown by ordinary Canadians when they are told by law that they must use someone else’s choice of a pronoun or refrain from saying anything that might be construed as critical of Islam or must renounce their religious convictions to obtain government grants.

Conservatives say that all identities are private and must be accepted, just as others must not be forced to endorse them. When Justin Trudeau says he has spent the past four years bringing Canadians together, what he really means is he has demanded that ordinary Canadians be forced to embrace ever smaller and more militant minorities who demand not acceptance but enthusiastic endorsement.

It is not enough to say that sexual minorities are entitled to the same protections as all other Canadians. You must march in the Pride Parade or be labelled a bigot. Conservatives believe in a single public Canadians-of-All-Identities Pride Parade, followed by private side parties for those who want to celebrate particular identities.

Progressives want us to celebrate Canada because of social programs and multiculturalism, but they are wrong to see these as what makes Canada great.

When my ancestors, Laurence and Honora Crowley, set sail from Ireland in the 1820s for what was to become Canada, they didn’t come for free visits to the doctor. They didn’t wrestle a prosperous farm from a hostile wilderness for the quality of our public services. There weren’t any. And yet Laurence and Honora and millions of others flocked to Canada. Why? Plenty of people move to Canada from countries with more generous social programs, but few Canadians move the other way.

Multiculturalism isn’t the explanation. The U.S.S.R. was hugely ethnically diverse but people had to be prevented from leaving at the point of a gun. Multiculturalism in Canada isn’t the cause of our success, but a result. Diversity isn’t our strength; our strengths attract diversity. People from all nations come here because of the freedom, stability and opportunity Canada offers, not because people from all nations come here.

There is thus a Canadian mainstream after all, and it is the foundation on which repose the diverse identities of Canadians which so preoccupy progressives. That mainstream is deeply conservative. The fact that no political party has been able to articulate and defend it is the greatest reason for our divisive and fractured politics. This is a moment of great danger for Canada, but also great opportunity for those who know how to seize it.

Brian Lee Crowley is the Managing Director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an independent national think-tank based in Ottawa.

nationalpost.com/opinion/right-now-conservatives-know-diversity-isnt-our-strength-our-strengths-attract-diversity
 
Mowich
Conservative
+2
#9
Right Now: What conservatism ought to be

Across the free world, the rise of populism and the decline of open debate has stressed our traditional democratic and societal institutions. New parties and movements are emerging to represent constituencies that have little connection to the political ideologies of the past. What does conservatism mean in Canada today? Is there a set of principles that self-identified conservatives could agree on, and that political parties running on right-of-centre platforms would embrace? Would the country’s historical conservative thinkers recognize the moment as it stands today? Here, Andrew Coyne weighs in on what conservatism is or should be.

What is conservatism? Is it, as some have suggested, whatever those who call themselves conservatives happen to believe at any given moment? Is it, as others have claimed, merely a reflexive opposition to whatever the left proposes? Or is it a philosophy of government, a set of propositions about citizen, state and society with an enduring, if not immutable meaning?

The question is of more than passing interest, because conservatism is in such chaos around the world. A movement identified for many years with free trade, free markets and balanced budgets has, at least in its Trumpian version, been contorted to mean protectionism, interventionism and trillion-dollar deficits.

Conservatism used to mean restraint, skepticism of change and reverence for institutions that have stood the test of time; today, as we see in the crises convulsing the U.K. and the U.S., it has become a wrecking ball of ambition and authoritarianism. Conservatives were once properly dubious of the claims of intellectuals to knowledge they do not possess, such as how to plan an economy; now they sneer at knowledge itself.

Limited government and checks and balances have been replaced by populism’s worship of strongmen, who must be liberated from such restraints if they are to protect “us” (the people) from “them” (not the people). Love of one’s own country has curdled into hostility to others, a narrow, nasty nationalism that sees immigrants as a threat and foreign allies as a burden.

Here in Canada, this sort of populist nationalism — though it exists — has not made the same inroads. Conservatism here is less out of control than it is out of ideas. Not so long ago, conservative parties used to run, and win, on bold proposals for free trade, tax reform and privatization; their ambition was not merely, in William F. Buckley’s famous formulation, “to stand athwart history yelling stop,” but to repair some of the damage done by decades of headlong state expansion.

Today it is the parties of the left who are on the march, with proposals for universal pharmacare, dental care and child care, not to mention plans to completely overhaul the economy in the service of environmental targets that grow more radical by the day. To which the right responds with … tax credits for children’s fitness, free museum admissions and a climate-change plan that is just as meddlesome as the left’s but only half as effective.

As in other countries, it is not that conservative parties are not winning elections — seven of the 10 provincial governments would answer to the description, if not the name — but that they are doing so at the cost of conservatism. Or at least, a conservatism that is recognizable as such.

Which brings us back to the question that kicked off this essay. To shrug that conservatism is whatever conservatives believe does not get us very far. For different groups of self-styled conservatives believe very different things. Perhaps there is no one “true” conservatism — but if not, on what basis can these competing claims to represent it be resolved?

Perhaps the question is better framed, not as what conservatism is, but what it ought to be. To be sure, it is at least relevant, in any discussion of what conservatism should stand for, to recall what it has stood for, in the past. As long as we understand that it is the principles that matter, not the package they come in.

I have always found it odd to hear people cite a particular idea approvingly solely because it is the conservative approach. Surely it is the other way around; you define yourself as a conservative because you believe in certain things.

The reason one might regret that conservatism is now straying from the principles for which it once stood is not out of blind attachment to a particular definition of conservatism, but because and to the extent these underlying principles have value in themselves.

Protectionism has not suddenly won the intellectual argument over free trade, nor has the case been made that the executive should no longer be accountable to the legislature. It has just suited (some) conservatives to pretend they have.

This is not to say that conservatism should not adapt itself to the times. If conservatism in Canada has degenerated into mush, it is equally true that, in the United States, it had congealed into a remote and immutable orthodoxy that, whatever relevance it might have had 30 years ago, had less and less to say about current issues and concerns. Trumpism simply invaded that vacuum. But modernizing conservatism need not mean jettisoning its foundational principles, but applying them in new ways, to different problems.

Very well. But what are those principles? What do I mean by conservatism? As alluded to above, it is in part dispositional, a general bias in favour of the accumulated wisdom of tradition over the fads of the moment, society over state, small over large, voluntarism over coercion.

Much of what it wishes to conserve in this vein is the inheritance of the Enlightenment, and the intellectual and political traditions — reason, pluralism, liberalism — associated with it. Conservatism, at least as it has evolved on this continent, is thus really a species of liberalism, in the sense we mean when we talk of “Western liberalism.”

Recognizing that the reforming zeal of liberalism is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness, it seeks to save liberalism from the liberals — to preserve what is best in it, adapting it where it must but guarding it from the sorts of reckless or ill-considered changes that would weaken it at its roots.

At its core is the principle of limited government — not small, or large, but limited: government that remains confined to predictable boundaries, obeys certain rules, in all remains, as Winston Churchill said, our servant and not our master. Power is never to be left unchecked, for those who wield it are, like other mortals, prone to error and abuse. Rather, it is at all times to be contained: by the law, by Parliament, by a free press, but mostly by the burden of proof.

It is not that the state may never assert its power to control and regulate, but the onus is always on it to make the case that it must: in the political realm, by obtaining Parliament’s assent for any laws; in the legal, by establishing guilt to a level sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence; in the economic, by demonstrating, not only that the market has failed to provide a particular good or service, but that “government failure” would not be worse.

It is in this last respect that conservatives have perhaps had a unique role to play: as sticklers for proof of the necessity of any government intervention, in effect acting as representatives of the field of economics, which has much to say on such questions, to the world of politics. They have been imperfect ambassadors, to be sure, for politics is, as I have written, in many ways the opposite of economics: where economics is based on the idea that everything is scarce, politics is based on the idea that nothing is.

Nevertheless, it has been up to conservatives to take this on: to point out that resources are finite, that more of one thing means less of another, that the subsidy government gives to one firm comes at the cost of every other, that the money it “injects” into the economy via deficit spending must somehow be extracted from it, that there is indeed, in the end, no free lunch. The left simply aren’t as likely to concern themselves with these points.

But if conservatives have been quicker to object to government interventions in the absence of demonstrable market failure, they have also been slower to propose interventions in its presence. There is a difference between free markets and laissez-faire: conservatism cannot serve as an excuse for inaction, where action is warranted. The trick, rather, is to design such interventions on conservative lines, with due regard to such traditional conservative concerns as individual initiative and consumer choice; not to replace the market with the state, but to harness each to the task for which it is best suited.

This idea of the “social market” offers one possible route to a conservative intellectual revival. In general, the idea is to redistribute rather than to regulate: to provide a minimum income in place of fixing a minimum wage; shelter allowances, in place of rent controls; social benefits in cash, rather than as services. More broadly it encompasses such notions as “internal markets” within the publicly funded health-care system; independent or charter schools within the publicly funded education system; and so on.

The great missed opportunity in this regard, of course, was carbon pricing. What better proof that markets are social institutions in their own right — representing not the abandonment of social responsibilities, but another way of fulfilling them. Conservatives could have used the success of carbon pricing to make the case for market approaches more generally. Instead they succumbed to the moronic dogma of “a tax is a tax,” and marginalized themselves yet again.

One has to think that the left’s earlier embrace of carbon pricing had something to do with this. But conservatives could have offered their own distinct version of it — one that used carbon pricing as a replacement for existing programs, not a supplement, at the same time using any revenues raised to cut income tax rates. Perhaps if they had they might not appear quite so alien to educated and younger voters as they do today.

There’s a lesson in this experience. People are inclined to sign up for ideology as a package deal; you believe everything it believes, and reject everything the others do. But each of the traditions — conservatism, liberalism socialism, libertarianism — has something to teach us. To wish for a coherent, humane conservativism is not necessarily to desire it should replace the others, but that it should also be available, as an alternative, a counterweight, or at least an influence on the others, as they are on it. The question is: do conservatives themselves want that?

nationalpost.com/opinion/right-now-what-conservatism-ought-to-be


More food for thought.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+5
#10
Conservatism is the very practical realization that the U.S. and Canada have provided their people with more peace, prosperity, and freedom than any other system in history, period. And proven more willing to correct their mistakes than any other system (western Europe is a close second).

Conservatism looks at proposed fixes to our problems with a sceptical eye, asking for facts and sound reasoning that the proposed fix will actually make things better, and that the cost is not too high. It proceeds from the notion that the system as is has worked pretty damn well, and is reluctant to sacrifice its features without a careful analysis of what may be lost and what may be gained.

This isn't a quote, it's my own conclusions. And that's coming from a member of a traditionally disadvantaged race.
The real difference between me and the tight whitey righties is that I don't deny the problems exist. I just want the facts and reasoning about how your whiz-bang solutions will actually fix them.
 
Mowich
Conservative
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Conservatism is the very practical realization that the U.S. and Canada have provided their people with more peace, prosperity, and freedom than any other system in history, period. And proven more willing to correct their mistakes than any other system (western Europe is a close second).

Conservatism looks at proposed fixes to our problems with a sceptical eye, asking for facts and sound reasoning that the proposed fix will actually make things better, and that the cost is not too high. It proceeds from the notion that the system as is has worked pretty damn well, and is reluctant to sacrifice its features without a careful analysis of what may be lost and what may be gained.

This isn't a quote, it's my own conclusions. And that's coming from a member of a traditionally disadvantaged race.
The real difference between me and the tight whitey righties is that I don't deny the problems exist. I just want the facts and reasoning about how your whiz-bang solutions will actually fix them.

 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Conservatism is the very practical realization that the U.S. and Canada have provided their people with more peace, prosperity, and freedom than any other system in history, period. And proven more willing to correct their mistakes than any other system (western Europe is a close second).
Conservatism looks at proposed fixes to our problems with a sceptical eye, asking for facts and sound reasoning that the proposed fix will actually make things better, and that the cost is not too high. It proceeds from the notion that the system as is has worked pretty damn well, and is reluctant to sacrifice its features without a careful analysis of what may be lost and what may be gained.
This isn't a quote, it's my own conclusions. And that's coming from a member of a traditionally disadvantaged race.
The real difference between me and the tight whitey righties is that I don't deny the problems exist. I just want the facts and reasoning about how your whiz-bang solutions will actually fix them.

Yeah, fiddling with the tax code every election might produce some good results but it's hard to imagine that the really big questions are being answered by giving us a tax deduction for our kid's hockey enorolement.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

Right Now: Why Conservatives are grateful for the society we have

Across the free world, the rise of populism and the decline of open debate has stressed our traditional democratic and societal institutions. New parties and movements are emerging to represent constituencies that have little connection to the political ideologies of the past. What does conservatism mean in Canada today? Is there a set of principles that self-identified conservatives could agree on, and that political parties running on right-of-centre platforms would embrace? Would the country’s historical conservative thinkers recognize the moment as it stands today? In the first of a National Post series, Brian Lee Crowley assesses the current state of Canadian conservatism — and offers his thoughts on what it should be:

Modern conservatism springs, not from a central idea or policy, but from an emotional disposition. Conservatives are first and foremost grateful for what we as a society have.

This gratitude arises from an awareness of where we have come from. Poverty, disease, ignorance and intolerance are humanity’s default condition. Only a handful of societies have, slowly and painfully, evolved the institutions and behaviours that allow people to escape these ills on a broad front.

Canada is one of those nations. Our greatest endowment is thus neither our natural resources nor our people but a set of institutions and behaviours that includes the rule of law, judicial independence, robust property rights, respect of contracts, non-corrupt police and bureaucracy, a relatively stable regulatory and tax burden, non-violent resolution of disagreements, a strong work ethic and the certainty that elections actually choose governments, with the vanquished relinquishing power. Added to the civil freedoms of speech, religion, conscience and assembly, this makes an inheritance of order and freedom almost without peer in the world.

Conservatives do not think society is perfect; rather, imperfections signal that incremental adjustments that promise genuine improvements without endangering the gains of the past must continue.

This gratitude for our inheritance is in contrast to the left’s obsession with our mistakes, our moral, environmental and racial failings, for example. The past is no source of inspiration but is composed of endless sins whose stain can be removed only by endless apologizing, the abandonment of tradition and the reconstruction of our institutions and behaviours in accordance with fashionable opinion.

A corollary of our gratitude is a deep scepticism of grand schemes of social reconstruction. Too often have revolutions not only failed to improve conditions for the many, but they have destroyed the progress that had already been made in growing the institutions that confer success. Conservatives thus look with favour on the vast network of programs and private insurance that have grown up over the years to give most Canadians affordable access to prescription drugs but also agree that this must be supplemented by a scheme that extends coverage to the small minority not served by the current system. A universal “pharmacare” system that sweeps away approaches that work well for an untried government monopoly unnecessarily risks compromising benefits enjoyed by the majority in order to worship at the left’s altar of uniformity and bureaucratic control.

Moreover conservatives understand that some of our greatest social challenges do not come from the failure of our institutions. In the case of Indigenous people, for example, the challenge is their long-standing exclusion from those institutions: opportunity, education, infrastructure, self-government and many other things the rest of us take for granted. Indigenous leaders are making a conservative case when they call for the yoke of Ottawa’s bureaucracy to be lifted, for their communities to be granted self-government and for them to be able to build their economies to generate enough wealth for Indigenous people to make their own choices.

Gratitude for what we have inherited from our forebears entails an obligation to resist those who, from ignorance or self-interest, would damage this patrimony. It is thus a conservative impulse that saw Canadians rise up in disgust against the corruption and the abuse of the rule of law that underpinned the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We are united in not wishing to import such behaviour and in rooting it out wherever it is to be found. That same impulse animated outrage at the attack on a rules-based society represented by asylum-seekers letting themselves into Canada by simply walking across the border at Quebec’s Roxham Road in defiance of the spirit of a fair and orderly immigration system.

Conservatives believe that the greatest achievement of 1867 was a parliament and government endowed with the power and authority to act in the interests of Canada and are thus repelled by politicians’ failure to stand up for this authority, as when they offer a veto to provinces over infrastructure of national significance, such as pipelines or refuse to use federal power to sweep away barriers to trade between Canadians.

On the vexed question of identity, conservatives hold that in a society of free people it is neither possible nor necessary for us all to agree with each other’s choices of how to worship, conduct our sex lives or interpret our history.

In the conservative world view people are not first and foremost black or transgender or Chinese or Muslim or Irish or Indigenous.

They are Canadians who enjoy the freedom to choose the identities that matter to them. We do not protect only state-approved opinions, behaviours and identities because we are not servants of the state, but the other way around.

Progressives, who see these disparate identities as foundational, are outraged by the resistance shown by ordinary Canadians when they are told by law that they must use someone else’s choice of a pronoun or refrain from saying anything that might be construed as critical of Islam or must renounce their religious convictions to obtain government grants.

Conservatives say that all identities are private and must be accepted, just as others must not be forced to endorse them. When Justin Trudeau says he has spent the past four years bringing Canadians together, what he really means is he has demanded that ordinary Canadians be forced to embrace ever smaller and more militant minorities who demand not acceptance but enthusiastic endorsement.

It is not enough to say that sexual minorities are entitled to the same protections as all other Canadians. You must march in the Pride Parade or be labelled a bigot. Conservatives believe in a single public Canadians-of-All-Identities Pride Parade, followed by private side parties for those who want to celebrate particular identities.

Progressives want us to celebrate Canada because of social programs and multiculturalism, but they are wrong to see these as what makes Canada great.

When my ancestors, Laurence and Honora Crowley, set sail from Ireland in the 1820s for what was to become Canada, they didn’t come for free visits to the doctor. They didn’t wrestle a prosperous farm from a hostile wilderness for the quality of our public services. There weren’t any. And yet Laurence and Honora and millions of others flocked to Canada. Why? Plenty of people move to Canada from countries with more generous social programs, but few Canadians move the other way.

Multiculturalism isn’t the explanation. The U.S.S.R. was hugely ethnically diverse but people had to be prevented from leaving at the point of a gun. Multiculturalism in Canada isn’t the cause of our success, but a result. Diversity isn’t our strength; our strengths attract diversity. People from all nations come here because of the freedom, stability and opportunity Canada offers, not because people from all nations come here.

There is thus a Canadian mainstream after all, and it is the foundation on which repose the diverse identities of Canadians which so preoccupy progressives. That mainstream is deeply conservative. The fact that no political party has been able to articulate and defend it is the greatest reason for our divisive and fractured politics. This is a moment of great danger for Canada, but also great opportunity for those who know how to seize it.

Brian Lee Crowley is the Managing Director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an independent national think-tank based in Ottawa.

nationalpost.com/opinion/right-now-conservatives-know-diversity-isnt-our-strength-our-strengths-attract-diversity

Sadly only Harper has seized it lately and allowed his advisers to lose it . We will eventually get Trumped .
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Conservatism is the very practical realization that the U.S. and Canada have provided their people with more peace, prosperity, and freedom than any other system in history, period. And proven more willing to correct their mistakes than any other system (western Europe is a close second).

Conservatism looks at proposed fixes to our problems with a sceptical eye, asking for facts and sound reasoning that the proposed fix will actually make things better, and that the cost is not too high. It proceeds from the notion that the system as is has worked pretty damn well, and is reluctant to sacrifice its features without a careful analysis of what may be lost and what may be gained.

This isn't a quote, it's my own conclusions. And that's coming from a member of a traditionally disadvantaged race.
The real difference between me and the tight whitey righties is that I don't deny the problems exist. I just want the facts and reasoning about how your whiz-bang solutions will actually fix them.

As do most thinking people .
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
-1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

As do most thinking people .

So why do you like it, pigs?
 
AnnaEmber
No Party Affiliation
+1
#16
Right on, T-bones.
And I might add, that we prefer replacing emotion with reason when making decisions. Which is not to say we don't have emotions, obviously.
Last edited by AnnaEmber; 4 weeks ago at 11:22 AM..
 
spaminator
#17
GOLDSTEIN: Amateur hour federal Conservatives imploding
Lorrie Goldstein
Published:
November 2, 2019
Updated:
November 2, 2019 5:39 PM EDT
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer speaks at a press conference in Regina, October 22, 2019. (Photo by GEOFF ROBINS/AFP via Getty Images)
So as it turns out, it was the Conservatives, not the Liberals, who weren’t as advertised in the federal election.
In the days leading up to the Oct. 21 vote, Conservatives told us they were united behind Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, who was ready to lead the country.
But in the days following the election, they’ve been stabbing each other in the front, with many disingenuously complaining, in so many words, that they are “shocked, shocked” to discover Scheer is an unelectable social conservative.
They have as much credibility as Captain Louis Renault in the famous scene from Casablanca, where he tells the owner of Rick’s Cafe Americain, played by Humphrey Bogart, that he’s shutting down his restaurant because he’s, “shocked – shocked – to find that gambling is going on in here,” moments before his winnings are handed to him.
The Conservatives knew Scheer was a social conservative when they elected him on May 27, 2017 — that he personally opposed same-sex marriage and abortion, that he wouldn’t march in gay pride parades.
But it didn’t matter to “party insiders” then because in 2017 they were basically conceding the 2019 election to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals.
Their thinking was Trudeau would win a second majority and the Conservatives would then regroup, replacing Scheer, whom they considered a caretaker leader, with a higher-profile Conservative, who would then have a good chance to dethrone Trudeau in 2023.
But that was before scandals like gropegate. Before two ethics commissioners found Trudeau repeatedly broke conflict of interest rules in the Aga Khan and Lavscam affairs. Before the failed prosecution/persecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. And, of course, before Blackface.
With each new scandal, Conservative hopes of defeating Trudeau’s inaugural majority government after one election — accomplished only twice before in Canadian history — soared.
Too many Conservatives foolishly believed all they had to do was show up for the 2019 election and they’d win.
That’s why the result — the Liberals reduced to a minority government with the Conservatives gaining seats and winning the popular vote — an outcome Conservatives would have been turning cartwheels over when they elected Scheer in 2017, is now described by Conservative elites as a defeat.
Instead of viewing what happened rationally — Conservative fortunes have dramatically improved at the expense of the Liberals — the Conservatives, to the delight of Trudeau and Co., because it masks their own political failure, are imploding.
A Conservative party that was ready to govern would have understood that Sheer, having significantly improved the party’s electoral standing, should be given a chance to demonstrate he can learn from the weaknesses he displayed in this election.
TOWHEY: 3 must-learn lessons for Canada's Conservatives
GUNTER: Conservatives must dump Scheer before next election
Primarily his inability to convince Canadians that he understands his personal views as a social conservative on abortion and same-sex marriage are irrelevant to the job of being the prime minister and protecting the rights of all Canadians.
If Scheer fails to convince his party he can do that, then the Conservatives, following their normal procedure, can dump him during a leadership review six months from now, through a non-confidence vote, and hold a new leadership campaign.
But the unseemly spectacle of Conservatives now pretending they had no idea of who Scheer was when they elected him in 2017 is not only intellectually dishonest, it exposes their party as a nest of vipers lusting for a messiah (Peter MacKay…seriously?) who can return them to power.
They might as well be Liberals.
lgoldstein@postmedia.com
http://torontosun.com/opinion/column...-are-imploding
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminator View Post

GOLDSTEIN: Amateur hour federal Conservatives imploding
Lorrie Goldstein
Published:
November 2, 2019
Updated:
November 2, 2019 5:39 PM EDT
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer speaks at a press conference in Regina, October 22, 2019. (Photo by GEOFF ROBINS/AFP via Getty Images)
So as it turns out, it was the Conservatives, not the Liberals, who weren’t as advertised in the federal election.
In the days leading up to the Oct. 21 vote, Conservatives told us they were united behind Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, who was ready to lead the country.
But in the days following the election, they’ve been stabbing each other in the front, with many disingenuously complaining, in so many words, that they are “shocked, shocked” to discover Scheer is an unelectable social conservative.
They have as much credibility as Captain Louis Renault in the famous scene from Casablanca, where he tells the owner of Rick’s Cafe Americain, played by Humphrey Bogart, that he’s shutting down his restaurant because he’s, “shocked – shocked – to find that gambling is going on in here,” moments before his winnings are handed to him.
The Conservatives knew Scheer was a social conservative when they elected him on May 27, 2017 — that he personally opposed same-sex marriage and abortion, that he wouldn’t march in gay pride parades.
But it didn’t matter to “party insiders” then because in 2017 they were basically conceding the 2019 election to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals.
Their thinking was Trudeau would win a second majority and the Conservatives would then regroup, replacing Scheer, whom they considered a caretaker leader, with a higher-profile Conservative, who would then have a good chance to dethrone Trudeau in 2023.
But that was before scandals like gropegate. Before two ethics commissioners found Trudeau repeatedly broke conflict of interest rules in the Aga Khan and Lavscam affairs. Before the failed prosecution/persecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. And, of course, before Blackface.
With each new scandal, Conservative hopes of defeating Trudeau’s inaugural majority government after one election — accomplished only twice before in Canadian history — soared.
Too many Conservatives foolishly believed all they had to do was show up for the 2019 election and they’d win.
That’s why the result — the Liberals reduced to a minority government with the Conservatives gaining seats and winning the popular vote — an outcome Conservatives would have been turning cartwheels over when they elected Scheer in 2017, is now described by Conservative elites as a defeat.
Instead of viewing what happened rationally — Conservative fortunes have dramatically improved at the expense of the Liberals — the Conservatives, to the delight of Trudeau and Co., because it masks their own political failure, are imploding.
A Conservative party that was ready to govern would have understood that Sheer, having significantly improved the party’s electoral standing, should be given a chance to demonstrate he can learn from the weaknesses he displayed in this election.
TOWHEY: 3 must-learn lessons for Canada's Conservatives
GUNTER: Conservatives must dump Scheer before next election
Primarily his inability to convince Canadians that he understands his personal views as a social conservative on abortion and same-sex marriage are irrelevant to the job of being the prime minister and protecting the rights of all Canadians.
If Scheer fails to convince his party he can do that, then the Conservatives, following their normal procedure, can dump him during a leadership review six months from now, through a non-confidence vote, and hold a new leadership campaign.
But the unseemly spectacle of Conservatives now pretending they had no idea of who Scheer was when they elected him in 2017 is not only intellectually dishonest, it exposes their party as a nest of vipers lusting for a messiah (Peter MacKay…seriously?) who can return them to power.
They might as well be Liberals.
lgoldstein@postmedia.com
http://torontosun.com/opinion/column...-are-imploding

They might as well be liberals , is the telling line in a nut shell .
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+2
#19
Long and complicated subject. I am a fiscal conservative but have no use for the religious wing nuts that Call themselves conservative. They are not, and trying to include them in the conservative big tent is simply not realistic.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
+1
#20
Just note which of those religious freak bunches finance both sides of the Aisle.

..and note who gets all the military aid, ILLEGAL money and lives spent on them.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

there is no good reason to vote conservative.

Yes, one should vote for conservatives just for the simple reasons you HATE them: because they are not nazis or communists and aren't into little drag kids and sex children.
 
spaminator
#22
LILLEY: Scheer needs to act before others act for him
Brian Lilley
Published:
November 5, 2019
Updated:
November 5, 2019 9:26 PM EST
Federal Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer addresses journalists during a news conference in Toronto, on Thursday, August 29, 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young
Andrew Scheer is quickly becoming a lonely man.
Trying to find supporters for the Conservative leader as he heads into a crucial meeting of the Conservative caucus on Wednesday afternoon is becoming more difficult by the day. It’s not that Conservative MPs and supporters suddenly hate the man that they were rallying around during the election just days ago, it’s worse than that.
They are now indifferent. That’s my take away from conversations with close to two dozen Conservative MPs, staffers, workers and insiders.
There are Conservative candidates who — after putting the last six to 12 months of their lives on hold to run for the party — still have not been called by Scheer. That’s pretty basic and customary for a leader to do, yet Scheer has failed to complete the task.
He has yet to show, more than two weeks after the vote, that he has learned anything. Much of the criticism about Scheer’s performance has been centred around his handling of social conservative issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. As brutal as his answers on those questions could be, I don’t buy that as the reason he lost.
Story continues below
Scheer’s main problem on answering those questions was the same problem that he had answering questions about his insurance career, his American citizenship or his hiring of my friend and colleague Warren Kinsella. He didn’t sound believable or sure of himself and voters won’t back someone who doesn’t sound like they believe the words coming out of their own mouth.
As a friend who isn’t obsessed with politics said to me after watching one of Scheer’s more difficult press conferences: “I’m not sure what the issue he’s talking about really is, but he sure looks guilty.”
If that’s how casual voters viewed him, no wonder he lost the Ontario vote the way he did.
Now Scheer faces his own caucus, a group of people who, through a complex set of rules, could try to remove their own leader.
Before they get to that, Scheer will try to convince them not to dump him by telling Conservative MPs and Senators three key messages.
Trudeau is weakened, Trudeau is beatable and to accomplish that goal, they must stick together.
There is truth to that, Trudeau is weakened. He dropped 27 seats compared to his 2015 election result and dropped 6 points in the popular vote, which Scheer and the Conservatives actually won this time around. The Liberals expected to win a second majority and only won a minority because Ontario vote splits favoured them.
The question is whether Scheer can keep Conservatives together.
I think, and have been saying for more than a week, that if Scheer wants to stick around, then he needs decisive action. He can’t simply tell MPs, as he told leadership last week, that he had some bad luck and that with more events, he can win. More barbecues won’t beat Justin Trudeau, they won’t even save Scheer’s leadership.
Scheer needs to offer a full-fledged mea culpa to his party; he can do that in private if he wants, but it must be done. He and his team screwed up some key parts of the election and that must be acknowledged.
Then he has to fire people, mainly the key staff around him that allowed him to think he was winning the election, that he was saying the right things and that everything was going fine. Leaders rely on good advice and Scheer didn’t get good advice.
LILLEY: Premiers look for unity while Trudeau surfs
LILLEY: Ford government set to update the books
LILLEY: National pharmacare shouldn't force me to give up my plan
Since the day after the election, I’ve been hearing rumours of Brian Mulroney making calls and trying to put in place funding for a leadership bid for his daughter Caroline, something she told me she isn’t interested in. More recently, I’ve heard that the Mulroney money is looking to back Peter MacKay who has said he is not looking to run.
Scheer needs to realize that if he won’t show leadership and take action to show he is in control of his party and his agenda, others will and that will leave him on the outside looking in.
The choice is his.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/column...rs-act-for-him
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+2
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminator View Post

LILLEY: Scheer needs to act before others act for him
Brian Lilley
Published:
November 5, 2019
Updated:
November 5, 2019 9:26 PM EST
Federal Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer addresses journalists during a news conference in Toronto, on Thursday, August 29, 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young
Andrew Scheer is quickly becoming a lonely man.
Trying to find supporters for the Conservative leader as he heads into a crucial meeting of the Conservative caucus on Wednesday afternoon is becoming more difficult by the day. It’s not that Conservative MPs and supporters suddenly hate the man that they were rallying around during the election just days ago, it’s worse than that.
They are now indifferent. That’s my take away from conversations with close to two dozen Conservative MPs, staffers, workers and insiders.
There are Conservative candidates who — after putting the last six to 12 months of their lives on hold to run for the party — still have not been called by Scheer. That’s pretty basic and customary for a leader to do, yet Scheer has failed to complete the task.
He has yet to show, more than two weeks after the vote, that he has learned anything. Much of the criticism about Scheer’s performance has been centred around his handling of social conservative issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. As brutal as his answers on those questions could be, I don’t buy that as the reason he lost.
Story continues below
Scheer’s main problem on answering those questions was the same problem that he had answering questions about his insurance career, his American citizenship or his hiring of my friend and colleague Warren Kinsella. He didn’t sound believable or sure of himself and voters won’t back someone who doesn’t sound like they believe the words coming out of their own mouth.
As a friend who isn’t obsessed with politics said to me after watching one of Scheer’s more difficult press conferences: “I’m not sure what the issue he’s talking about really is, but he sure looks guilty.”
If that’s how casual voters viewed him, no wonder he lost the Ontario vote the way he did.
Now Scheer faces his own caucus, a group of people who, through a complex set of rules, could try to remove their own leader.
Before they get to that, Scheer will try to convince them not to dump him by telling Conservative MPs and Senators three key messages.
Trudeau is weakened, Trudeau is beatable and to accomplish that goal, they must stick together.
There is truth to that, Trudeau is weakened. He dropped 27 seats compared to his 2015 election result and dropped 6 points in the popular vote, which Scheer and the Conservatives actually won this time around. The Liberals expected to win a second majority and only won a minority because Ontario vote splits favoured them.
The question is whether Scheer can keep Conservatives together.
I think, and have been saying for more than a week, that if Scheer wants to stick around, then he needs decisive action. He can’t simply tell MPs, as he told leadership last week, that he had some bad luck and that with more events, he can win. More barbecues won’t beat Justin Trudeau, they won’t even save Scheer’s leadership.
Scheer needs to offer a full-fledged mea culpa to his party; he can do that in private if he wants, but it must be done. He and his team screwed up some key parts of the election and that must be acknowledged.
Then he has to fire people, mainly the key staff around him that allowed him to think he was winning the election, that he was saying the right things and that everything was going fine. Leaders rely on good advice and Scheer didn’t get good advice.
LILLEY: Premiers look for unity while Trudeau surfs
LILLEY: Ford government set to update the books
LILLEY: National pharmacare shouldn't force me to give up my plan
Since the day after the election, I’ve been hearing rumours of Brian Mulroney making calls and trying to put in place funding for a leadership bid for his daughter Caroline, something she told me she isn’t interested in. More recently, I’ve heard that the Mulroney money is looking to back Peter MacKay who has said he is not looking to run.
Scheer needs to realize that if he won’t show leadership and take action to show he is in control of his party and his agenda, others will and that will leave him on the outside looking in.
The choice is his.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/column...rs-act-for-him

Exactly what I told the PC candidate in my riding . Sheer was/is a weak leader .
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+4
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Conservatism is the very practical realization that the U.S. and Canada have provided their people with more peace, prosperity, and freedom than any other system in history, period. And proven more willing to correct their mistakes than any other system (western Europe is a close second).
Conservatism looks at proposed fixes to our problems with a sceptical eye, asking for facts and sound reasoning that the proposed fix will actually make things better, and that the cost is not too high. It proceeds from the notion that the system as is has worked pretty damn well, and is reluctant to sacrifice its features without a careful analysis of what may be lost and what may be gained.
This isn't a quote, it's my own conclusions. And that's coming from a member of a traditionally disadvantaged race.
The real difference between me and the tight whitey righties is that I don't deny the problems exist. I just want the facts and reasoning about how your whiz-bang solutions will actually fix them.

Here in Canada we are constantly asking the so called progressives how their feel good expenditures will make things better and how more government intrusion in our lives is good for us. They never have good answers but always claim the rich have to pay their fair share without defining what fair share is. Few of them understand economics at all.
Have to remember that I live in BC where most of the real nutbars like cliffy and hoid migrate to and then want us to support them.Only they don't want us to have an economy to provide the taxes necessary to provide their freebees. Acording to our NDP MP building bicycle trails is better for the economy than Exporting resources.
 
spaminator
+1
#25
Tory Sen. Dagenais quits caucus over Scheer's socially conservative views
Canadian Press
Published:
November 18, 2019
Updated:
November 18, 2019 1:06 PM EST
Sen. Jean-Guy Dagenais poses for a photo in his office in Ottawa Feb 21, 2012. ANDRE FORGET / Postmedia Network File Photo
OTTAWA — Conservative Sen. Jean-Guy Dagenais is leaving his party’s caucus over concerns about leader Andrew Scheer’s socially conservative views and will join a newly-formed group of independent senators in the upper chamber.
In a statement Monday, Dagenais said Scheer’s views on abortion and same-sex marriage led to a “mass exodus” of support in the province of Quebec, effectively ending the chances of electing more candidates there.
There’s no possibility things will change in time for the next election, Dagenais said.
“We have wasted a unique opportunity and the result will be the same the next time if the current leader and those who advise him remain in office as is the case at this time,” Dagenais said.
He said his opinions would make it inappropriate for him to continue to participate in the Conservative caucus, but he intends to remain a member of the party.
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet,
but your article continues below.
The Canadian Senators Group was formed earlier this month by 11 senators seeking to ensure regional issues get their due.
The majority of its members have links to the Conservative party, but the group also announced Monday that Sen. Percy Downe, who was appointed as a Liberal, was joining its ranks.
Downe had previously been one of the last members of the Senate Liberal caucus.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had severed all ties with the group in 2014, and upon forming government had appointed senators only as independents.
Last week, the remaining members of the Liberal caucus had also rebranded themselves as the Progressive Senate Group.
http://torontosun.com/news/national/...ervative-views
 
Girth
+1
#26
Andrew Scheer has to go, if the Conservatives want to win the next election. The guy just is not cut out for PM, and I knew he was a liability, and could not get the job done, when Trudeau was on the ropes. What is more concerning, is the Conservatives actually lost votes in Ontario, when they should have gained at least 10 seats.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#27
The way globalist elites rig an election on Canada is to pick un-electable opposition leaders to the one they want in. So we will get what ever the oil barrons want and will be doing what ever they want with our natural resources too.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

I am a fiscal conservative ...

It's cute to see Trumpites pretend to be fiscal conservatives
 
Tecumsehsbones
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Here in Canada we are constantly asking the so called progressives how their feel good expenditures will make things better and how more government intrusion in our lives is good for us. They never have good answers but always claim the rich have to pay their fair share without defining what fair share is. Few of them understand economics at all.
Have to remember that I live in BC where most of the real nutbars like cliffy and hoid migrate to and then want us to support them.Only they don't want us to have an economy to provide the taxes necessary to provide their freebees. Acording to our NDP MP building bicycle trails is better for the economy than Exporting resources.

Yeah, I always figured "BC" stands for "Boreal California."
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Yeah, I always figured "BC" stands for "Boreal California."

Bring Cash .
 

Similar Threads

12
Need some advice please.
by nickbroken | Apr 26th, 2011