Who will replace Harper?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The answer is clear — the only thing that can end another Trudeau era is a another Mulroney

snaredrumface

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by logan5

Trudeau doesn't seem to have a mind of his own. He always sounds like he's reading off a script. There's going to be some embarrassing moments for him and for Canada during his tenure as Prime Minister.

I take it that you missed yesterday's press conference.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

Speaking of Joe Clark, is there anyone within the ranks of the current Conservative party like him? I would definitely rank him as one of the top PC leaders of the 20th century. It's a shame the party went with Mulroney in the 80's (Clark's fault, mind you.) A Clark government could have achieved great things during that time period.

He was very sharp as well as pragmatic, and much more moderate than later PC and Conservative leaders. The fact that he stayed on relatively good terms with PET despite their disagreements (in contrast to Trudeau/Mulroney who despised one another) definitely speaks to the content of his character.

Joe Clark would never make it in today's Conservative Party, heck he might be part of the NDP today.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Joe Clark would never make it in today's Conservative Party, heck he might be part of the NDP today.

The public estimation of Clark as a leader and a man of integrity has only risen with time. He is probably regarded more highly now than he ever was in the 70s or 80s. I doubt he'd be a NDPer today, but he'd quite likely land in the Liberal camp.

The fact that the Conservatives have succeeding at alienating moderate conservatives to the point where many now seek refuge in the Liberal party is going to hurt them in the long run.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by esquire

The public estimation of Clark as a leader and a man of integrity has only risen with time. He is probably regarded more highly now than he ever was in the 70s or 80s. I doubt he'd be a NDPer today, but he'd quite likely land in the Liberal camp.

The fact that the Conservatives have succeeding at alienating moderate conservatives to the point where many now seek refuge in the Liberal party is going to hurt them in the long run.

True on both counts. At the time he was active, he was widely seen as "just not ready".

[esquire]

^ The Cons in Canada have really taken their cue from the American Republicans, who have in turn taken a few pages out of the Maoist playbook of 1960s China where officials would tread in fear of being called out of as a traitor to the cause ("Capitalist roaders" back in Mao's China, "RINOs" or less tastefully "cuckservatives" in the modern day US).

So you end up this ridiculous scenario where you get the Conservative blogosphere aggressively attacking Conservative politicians who are deemed to be insufficiently faithful to the conservative cause. (Take a look at something like smalldeadanimals for an extreme example of this mentality.) Someone like Joe Clark would get eaten alive today by the shriller partisans in the Conservative world.

The hysterical obsession with ideological purity in some quarters is only going to hurt the electoral chances of the CPC down the road. The fact is that the bulk of voters are in the middle and are not ideologues... Harper's obsession with "the base", to the point where candidates refused to engage the media and the public through forums/debates, and the failure of that approach only drives that point home.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree. I still voted for the Liberals because I like their platform, but Trudeau as a leader was completely uninspiring to me. Sure he was energetic and even aggressive at times, but just about any time he talked and no matter what question he was asked he would answer with "fear and division/lowering taxes on middle class by asking 1% to pay a little more/modest deficits to invest in infrastructure." He reminds me of when I cram for a test so I go in and write everything I remember in the margin so I don't forget it later on. Feels like he was heavily coached and just had to choose from a bank of 5 responses to any question.

I actually found his speech on Monday night to be the shakiest of the three major leaders. And he won! Which kind of made me think of the "not ready" crap right then and there.

That said, I am more than willing to give him a chance. Especially given the leadership this country has had recently.

He's also got a good team around him.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree. I still voted for the Liberals because I like their platform, but Trudeau as a leader was completely uninspiring to me. Sure he was energetic and even aggressive at times, but just about any time he talked and no matter what question he was asked he would answer with "fear and division/lowering taxes on middle class by asking 1% to pay a little more/modest deficits to invest in infrastructure." He reminds me of when I cram for a test so I go in and write everything I remember in the margin so I don't forget it later on. Feels like he was heavily coached and just had to choose from a bank of 5 responses to any question.

LOL, and Harper didn't answer with "niqab wearing terrorists or criminals are going to murder you in your bed and take away your income splitting"?

Harper's campaign was uninspiring fearmongering that turned off everyone but the frightened old hicks who make up the Tory base.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I take it that you missed yesterday's press conference.

No kidding. That solidified my changed opinion of him. He was very prime ministerial.

[SkydivePilot]

There were musings around here that SK premier Brad Wall may be Interim Leader. Huh, well, we'll see.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Personally, I don't think there is any inherent contradiction in being both "progressive" and "conservative".

To me it means being socially progressive but economically conservative, and in terms of being progressive, it means seeking change in a pragmatic and cautious manner. Slow and steady can win the race.

Being Liberal on the other hand means being sometimes reckless, which can be upsetting and dangerous.

There is really no difference between a red Tory and a blue Liberal.

I think the two concepts are inherently incompatible and that the term progressive is just used to dress up conservatism to make it seem more enlightened. You hear a lot of people say they're socially progressive and fiscally conservative, but this completely misses the reality that the vast majority of social issues are not solely legislative, and are in fact fiscal issues that pertain to poverty, social spending and wealth distribution. Money affects how we live, how we treat the environment, how we interact with one another, our levels of crime, divorce, reproduction, substance abuse, how we transport ourselves ...

In order for major changes to happen in society, it often requires large financial investments and changes to funding mechanisms. Governments need to take a lead, as private industry typically just follows demand, and demand is heavily slanted toward convention. In order for a society to make a change such as moving from being oil powered to renewable energy powered, governments would need to be proactive with things like legislative targets, tax incentives, and transportation / infrastructure spending. But fiscal conservative governments are simply too... conservative to make such big leaps. It doesn't mean cautious vs reckless, because it's often an equally big risk not to act decisively when facing important problems as it is to jump into making major changes. There are risks to inaction just as there are risks to action.

On a fundamental level, being progressive is a desire for progress. It's a desire to see changes, because one doesn't find the way things are or the way we currently do things as being acceptable. Conservatism is a desire to conserve what we have or resurrect traditions that we once followed, under the belief that the problems we currently face are the result of straying from these traditions. But for most issues, I just don't find it feasible to separate the social from the fiscal because they're fundamentally intertwined.

[geotag277]

I think it would be absurd to think the modern CPC party is "socially progressive". In fact, that is it's biggest problem, aside from Harper trying to follow in South-of-the-Border Republican footsteps in too many things (mainly militarily but also divisive politics like the niqab).

But it is also absurd to think that the CPC party isn't making big investments. Infrastructure investment at the federal level expanded the most under Harper, and Trudeau turned around and make expanding it even more his biggest policy plank to get elected. Harper also expanded government/industry partnerships and made huge investments to encourage businesses to invest in Canada.

The modern CPC party has been too focused on the financial/business side of things, but they will need to get more socially progressive if they want to stay relevant in Canada.

I know many here after coming out of 10 years of Harper mandates don't think they could ever imagine a CPC party they could ever possibly support, but many people said the same thing about the Liberals after Chretien.

The modern parties owe a lot of their policy direction to CPC initiatives over the last 10 years. From infrastructure investments, to balancing budgets, to tax cuts. The parties aren't as far apart as many people here pretend they are.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I actually found his speech on Monday night to be the shakiest of the three major leaders. And he won! Which kind of made me think of the "not ready" crap right then and there.

That said, I am more than willing to give him a chance. Especially given the leadership this country has had recently.

He's also got a good team around him.

Yeah I thought his victory speech was brutal. The "what Canadians want" thing went on for too long and I felt myself getting embarrassed for him. The fact that he still found a way to include his campaign talking points into the speech was even better.

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, and Harper didn't answer with "niqab wearing terrorists or criminals are going to murder you in your bed and take away your income splitting"?

Harper's campaign was uninspiring fearmongering that turned off everyone but the frightened old hicks who make up the Tory base.

That's true, Harper got really bad with that towards the end of the campaign. But just thinking back to the debates, both Harper and Mulcair seemed to do a better job of answering questions with detail and just generally going a bit beyond their flagship campaign promises.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I think it would be absurd to think the modern CPC party is "socially progressive". In fact, that is it's biggest problem, aside from Harper trying to follow in South-of-the-Border Republican footsteps in too many things (mainly militarily but also divisive politics like the niqab).

But it is also absurd to think that the CPC party isn't making big investments. Infrastructure investment at the federal level expanded the most under Harper, and Trudeau turned around and make expanding it even more his biggest policy plank to get elected. Harper also expanded government/industry partnerships and made huge investments to encourage businesses to invest in Canada.

The modern CPC party has been too focused on the financial/business side of things, but they will need to get more socially progressive if they want to stay relevant in Canada.

I know many here after coming out of 10 years of Harper mandates don't think they could ever imagine a CPC party they could ever possibly support, but many people said the same thing about the Liberals after Chretien.

The modern parties owe a lot of their policy direction to CPC initiatives over the last 10 years. From infrastructure investments, to balancing budgets, to tax cuts. The parties aren't as far apart as many people here pretend they are.

Fiscal conservatives are afraid to make big investments in major changes or things that aren't conventional. It isn't about how much money you're willing to spend; it's about whether you're willing to spend on major societal shifts or only on the status quo.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

There were musings around here that SK premier Brad Wall may be Interim Leader. Huh, well, we'll see.

The interim leader will need to be a sitting MP, no? How about Diane Finley?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree. I still voted for the Liberals because I like their platform, but Trudeau as a leader was completely uninspiring to me. Sure he was energetic and even aggressive at times, but just about any time he talked and no matter what question he was asked he would answer with "fear and division/lowering taxes on middle class by asking 1% to pay a little more/modest deficits to invest in infrastructure." He reminds me of when I cram for a test so I go in and write everything I remember in the margin so I don't forget it later on. Feels like he was heavily coached and just had to choose from a bank of 5 responses to any question.

Sometimes in politics, the most effective thing you can do is be clear and on message. Giving nuanced, intellectual sounding answers may make a person sound more intelligent and competent to some, but to most, it seems to make it less impactful and memorable.

For people like us, this style is not enjoyable. But for those who happen to have the TV on when getting ready for work, and just want to have brief discussions with co-workers around the water cooler or at Tims, they're ideal. Quick, clear, easy to remember.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Sometimes in politics, the most effective thing you can do is be clear and on message. Giving nuanced, intellectual sounding answers make make a person sound more intelligent and competent to some, but to most, it seems to make it less impactful and memorable.

This is basically the overarching principle of the Trump presidential campaign. No words with more than two syllables, please.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^Sometimes the tone of your voice in delivering the message is quite useful.

[SFUVancouver]

I found it fascinating that one of the biggest talking points for the CPCs was their investment in infrastructure as a way to climb out of the GFC, when they had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the opposition parties to invest in an infrastructure stimulus package. The CPCs were NOT on board with approach but ended up relenting and directing a disproportionate amount to their own ridings then campaigned on it like it was their idea all along. The conative dissonance is incredible.

[Mongo62]

Well, Tom Mulcair might be out of a job soon, so maybe...