Predict the result of the 2019 federal election

[TorontoDrew]

Thanks to Ford see a massive conservative meltdown in Ontario.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

By the way you guys, the Conservative Party are neither the Tories nor the PC's. It's amazing how many people i've had to correct over the years from calling them the Tories

Different name, same old twats.

[vid]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Thanks to Ford see a massive conservative meltdown in Ontario.

I think we're going to see a Trump and Republicans situation where Ford tries to campaign in support of them, but they reject him. Especially in Toronto and the North. (Not that Ford comes to the North anyway.)

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Thanks to Ford see a massive conservative meltdown in Ontario.

Are Fords policies unpopular in ridings likely to vote Tory?

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That surprises me - I don't really see any big differences between the Harper Conservatives and the Scheer Conservatives, beyond the "kinder, gentler" thing.

While I understand your sentiment about the `kinder, gentler thing` , I`m not sure it`s fair. Yes there are still a lot of red-necks in the camp but there are also many more moderate Conservatives who were afraid to raise their voice under Harper`s dictatorship. Sheer has allowed a far wider range of policy discussions than Harper ever would of. He is a social conservative but doesn`t strike me as being wildly ideological.

Sheer is also far more than a `kinder, gentler` Harper. The 2 having almost nothing in common which is part of the reason why so many found him appealing and refreshing. Most Conservative voters and politicians hated Harper`s vindictive, authoritarian style, and his near neurotic inability to handle any criticism.

Sheer seems like a genuinely likeable character and is open to new ideas without being strictly ideological. Every year there is an MP that is voted by ALL parties and MPs about who they think the hardest working MP was in the House and Sheer won due to his strong work ethic and his ability to work with all sides of the House effectively.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Thanks to Ford see a massive conservative meltdown in Ontario.

Fingers crossed.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Are Fords policies unpopular in ridings likely to vote Tory?

What policies? Seriously, what policies?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

While I understand your sentiment about the `kinder, gentler thing` , I`m not sure it`s fair. Yes there are still a lot of red-necks in the camp but there are also many more moderate Conservatives who were afraid to raise their voice under Harper`s dictatorship. Sheer has allowed a far wider range of policy discussions than Harper ever would of. He is a social conservative but doesn`t strike me as being wildly ideological.

Sheer is also far more than a `kinder, gentler` Harper. The 2 having almost nothing in common which is part of the reason why so many found him appealing and refreshing. Most Conservative voters and politicians hated Harper`s vindictive, authoritarian style, and his near neurotic inability to handle any criticism.

Sheer seems like a genuinely likeable character and is open to new ideas without being strictly ideological. Every year there is an MP that is voted by ALL parties and MPs about who they think the hardest working MP was in the House and Sheer won due to his strong work ethic and his ability to work with all sides of the House effectively.

Really? I thought Harper was Scheer's political mentor. In any event, I meant "kinder, gentler" as a compliment.

[Phil McAvity]

^Let's hope Scheer uses Harper as his mentor over say, Mulroney. Stephen Harper wasn't exactly mr. fun-loving and gregarious like Scheer and Trudeau yet he's also the only right-winger to form a majority government in Canada in a long time and I actually liked the fact that Harper had all the personality of a cheese sandwich because I didn't feel like I was being swindled by some charismatic con man

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

We can't know that - Harper only had to deal with Bernier's incompetence, not with a situation where he defeated him for party leadership followed by efforts to underminde that leadership.

You're right, I don't know that Harper would have been able to keep Bernier happy and within the ranks of the party, I just strongly suspect it based on Harper's intelligence

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

They are the unified Conservative Party, and for this reason, I think they rightfully can claim the nickname "Tory".

You're wrong because there is no unified Conservative Party, there is only the Conservative Party and the old Progressive Conservative Party (Joe Clark anyone?) because when the Conservative Party was formed it was mostly a mix of Reform Party members and Tories then those two parties folded to form the Conservative Party

Originally Posted by ssiguy

While I understand your sentiment about the `kinder, gentler thing` , I`m not sure it`s fair. Yes there are still a lot of red-necks in the camp but there are also many more moderate Conservatives who were afraid to raise their voice under Harper`s dictatorship. Sheer has allowed a far wider range of policy discussions than Harper ever would of. He is a social conservative but doesn`t strike me as being wildly ideological.

Sheer is also far more than a `kinder, gentler` Harper. The 2 having almost nothing in common which is part of the reason why so many found him appealing and refreshing. Most Conservative voters and politicians hated Harper`s vindictive, authoritarian style, and his near neurotic inability to handle any criticism.

Sheer seems like a genuinely likeable character and is open to new ideas without being strictly ideological. Every year there is an MP that is voted by ALL parties and MPs about who they think the hardest working MP was in the House and Sheer won due to his strong work ethic and his ability to work with all sides of the House effectively.

You just articulated exactly why people like Bernier and myself no longer like the Conservative Party because under Scheer the party doesn't stand for anything anymore. At the very least, a conservative party should stand for the free market but Scheer has even thrown that out the window in an attempt to be more electable. In other words, the party is indistinguishable from the Liberals in their zeal to govern.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

^Let's hope Scheer uses Harper as his mentor over say, Mulroney. Stephen Harper wasn't exactly mr. fun-loving and gregarious like Scheer and Trudeau yet he's also the only right-winger to form a majority government in Canada in a long time and I actually liked the fact that Harper had all the personality of a cheese sandwich because I didn't feel like I was being swindled by some charismatic con man

You're right, I don't know that Harper would have been able to keep Bernier happy and within the ranks of the party, I just strongly suspect it based on Harper's intelligence

You're wrong because there is no unified Conservative Party, there is only the Conservative Party and the old Progressive Conservative Party (Joe Clark anyone?) because when the Conservative Party was formed it was mostly a mix of Reform Party members and Tories then those two parties folded to form the Conservative Party


You just articulated exactly why people like Bernier and myself no longer like the Conservative Party because under Scheer the party doesn't stand for anything anymore. At the very least, a conservative party should stand for the free market but Scheer has even thrown that out the window in an attempt to be more electable. In other words, the party is indistinguishable from the Liberals in their zeal to govern.

Harper was an anti-science evangelical hiding under the disguise of Mr. Mild Sweaterman. In almost every way a worse PM than Mulroney.

[ssiguy]

You just articulated exactly why people like Bernier and myself no longer like the Conservative Party because under Scheer the party doesn't stand for anything anymore. At the very least, a conservative party should stand for the free market but Scheer has even thrown that out the window in an attempt to be more electable. In other words, the party is indistinguishable from the Liberals in their zeal to govern.[/QUOTE]

There is a VERY big difference between having firm convictions and being blindly ideological.

Harper's inability to accept any criticism truly bordered on the neurotic. Due to this I actually questioned the man's mental health. Harper could state 1+1= 3 and if someone tried to correct him, he is the type who would barrage you, throw you out of the party, and drag your reputation through the mud for questioning his belief. He fully believed that his MPs and even Cabinet were there solely to act like a bunch of well trained penguins clapping at his request and voting at his will.


Being a leader means not just having convictions but also being able to effectively work with other people in a constructive fashion, accepting feedback and being able to make informed decisions as opposed to strictly ideological based ones, and an acknowledgement that when governing a diverse country like Canada, there is no such thing as 'one size fits all' when creating and implementing policy. Harper was not a leader but rather a bully.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy;8320048You just articulated exactly why people like Bernier and myself no longer like the Conservative Party because under Scheer the party doesn't stand for [I

a]nything [/I]anymore. At the very least, a conservative party should stand for the free market but Scheer has even thrown that out the window in an attempt to be more electable. In other words, the party is indistinguishable from the Liberals in their zeal to govern.

There is a VERY big difference between having firm convictions and being blindly ideological.

Harper's inability to accept any criticism truly bordered on the neurotic. Due to this I actually questioned the man's mental health. Harper could state 1+1= 3 and if someone tried to correct him, he is the type who would barrage you, throw you out of the party, and drag your reputation through the mud for questioning his belief. He fully believed that his MPs and even Cabinet were there solely to act like a bunch of well trained penguins clapping at his request and voting at his will.


Being a leader means not just having convictions but also being able to effectively work with other people in a constructive fashion, accepting feedback and being able to make informed decisions as opposed to strictly ideological based ones, and an acknowledgement that when governing a diverse country like Canada, there is no such thing as 'one size fits all' when creating and implementing policy. Harper was not a leader but rather a bully.[/QUOTE]


I ask again - how does what the Conservatives stand for now differ in any substantive way for what it stood for under Harper? Nothing terribly divergent came out of the recent policy conference, afaik. If your comment about the free market is a reference to supply management, Harper retained it throughout his term in office. I see a difference in leadership style/personality, but not much else, at this stage of the game.

[ssiguy]

I agree that in terms of policy, the Conservatives really haven't changed much from Harper's reign. The issue here is that Sheer is the type who would be open to new ideas, ways of implementing them, and appreciate {if not agreeing} with alternative policies. This sets him, and the Conservative party, on a very different trajectory than what it was under during Harper's rule. His proven track record of working effectively with members from both sides of The House {as MPs of all political stripes agreed} confirms this. This will lead to more moderate voices in the Conservative party voicing their concerns and acting upon them as opposed to under Harper where they were afraid of doing so due to his vendictive mentality and hyper-partisan governing style.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I agree that in terms of policy, the Conservatives really haven't changed much from Harper's reign. The issue here is that Sheer is the type who would be open to new ideas, ways of implementing them, and appreciate {if not agreeing} with alternative policies. This sets him, and the Conservative party, on a very different trajectory than what it was under during Harper's rule. His proven track record of working effectively with members from both sides of The House {as MPs of all political stripes agreed} confirms this. This will lead to more moderate voices in the Conservative party voicing their concerns and acting upon them as opposed to under Harper where they were afraid of doing so due to his vendictive mentality and hyper-partisan governing style.

The only people I've seen excited or interested in Scheer are those who already voted CPC in the last election. I find Scheer to be very awkward and uninteresting. He's very robotic and even more so when he speaks French. But I will say that he's more human than Harper.

[once]

Could it really be true every conservative is a robot? Could it really be true that every liberal is a social justice warrior?

If there will be any downfall of our society is will be self inflicted insanity caused by the petty redundancy of the recurring political insults.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by once

Could it really be true every conservative is a robot? Could it really be true that every liberal is a social justice warrior?

Conservatives are painted as alt-right neo-nazis much more than they are robots but in your analogy I would side with the robots much more than the SJW's because i'll take logic and data over virtue-signalling and feelings any day

Originally Posted by whatnext

Harper was an anti-science evangelical hiding under the disguise of Mr. Mild Sweaterman. In almost every way a worse PM than Mulroney.

I would prefer Mr. mild sweaterman any day of the week over charismatic gender equity man (Prime Minister Zoolander). On top of that Harper, in true conservative fashion lowered taxes, while Mulroney raised them. I'd also be willing to bet that Mulroney was pretty fast and loose with taxpayer's money, which Harper wasn't.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The issue here is that Sheer is the type who would be open to new ideas, ways of implementing them, and appreciate {if not agreeing} with alternative policies. This sets him, and the Conservative party, on a very different trajectory than what it was under during Harper's rule. His proven track record of working effectively with members from both sides of The House {as MPs of all political stripes agreed} confirms this. This will lead to more moderate voices in the Conservative party voicing their concerns and acting upon them as opposed to under Harper where they were afraid of doing so due to his vendictive mentality and hyper-partisan governing style.

Once again, this is exactly what's wrong with Scheer that you guys don't seem to understand. "Conservative" means sticking with what works rather than fucking around with the formula so conservatives by definition aren't open to new ideas, they know what works and they want to keep it that way, unlike liberals who are willing to try something new. Scheer's abandonment of anything resembling conservatism is precisely why Max and I are totally disillusioned with the party. If Scheer is really open to new ideas and collaborating with everyone, he is no different than the Liberals which means there are no longer viable options for right-wingers like myself in Canada

Also, do you guys have any evidence that Harper was a nasty, vindictive guy?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Conservatives are painted as alt-right neo-nazis much more than they are robots but in your analogy I would side with the robots much more than the SJW's because i'll take logic and data over virtue-signalling and feelings any day



I would prefer Mr. mild sweaterman any day of the week over charismatic gender equity man (Prime Minister Zoolander). On top of that Harper, in true conservative fashion lowered taxes, while Mulroney raised them. I'd also be willing to bet that Mulroney was pretty fast and loose with taxpayer's money, which Harper wasn't.



Once again, this is exactly what's wrong with Scheer that you guys don't seem to understand. "Conservative" means sticking with what works rather than fucking around with the formula so conservatives by definition aren't open to new ideas, they know what works and they want to keep it that way, unlike liberals who are willing to try something new. Scheer's abandonment of anything resembling conservatism is precisely why Max and I are totally disillusioned with the party. If Scheer is really open to new ideas and collaborating with everyone, he is no different than the Liberals which means there are no longer viable options for right-wingers like myself in Canada

Also, do you guys have any evidence that Harper was a nasty, vindictive guy?

Is there anybody in Ottawa who doesn't (or at least feared he was)? Allthough in that specific regard, Brian Mulroney was worse.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Thanks to Ford see a massive conservative meltdown in Ontario.

It may be the opposite. You may have your Toronto filters on in thinking Dougie has any impact on the Conservatives nationally. The 905 and outer ring suburbs are the temperature gauge for Conservatives, and Dougie Ford seems to be doing fine there. The hysteria of central Toronto (416) is all always appears isolated and can never tip the balance or scale with national politics.

If I recall, it was not long ago that JT dumped lots of goodies for the Ontario Liberals and made sure that the relationship was beneficial and the Liberals still got tossed to the waste bin. The OCD obsession with the Liberals (with national backing) on some of the Toronto outer ring and 905 ridings all proved not to matter in the end as they still got roasted.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Is there anybody in Ottawa who doesn't (or at least feared he was)? Allthough in that specific regard, Brian Mulroney was worse.

I don't think he was vindictive. He concentrated power in the PMO and was an ideologue but that is not the same thing. He was generally more respectful of appointments, etc. than the Martin Liberals were of the Chrétien Liberals.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think he was vindictive. He concentrated power in the PMO and was an ideologue but that is not the same thing. He was generally more respectful of appointments, etc. than the Martin Liberals were of the Chrétien Liberals.

Also Harper tried very hard to keep the feds nose out of provincial jurisdiction. Something that the Liberals love to do. With the resulting "events" of course.