[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

No MPs from Quebec support Bernier.  His own support base in Quebec isn't really there outside of his home territory, south of Quebec city.

He's not the one that will convince Montrealers to join the cause (well, I don't think anybody can, but Bernier sure can't do it, he's the laughing stock of the montreal intelligentsia).

Two separate questions though - Bernier's support within Conservative members in Quebec (which I believe is high), and his support amongst Quebeckers at large (here I'm not so sure).  But of course it's only the former that matters right now.

I'm also given to believe that Bernier's support in Alberta is quite high, due to his economic right-wing stance.

The last one matters if the Conservatives want to win an election.

[Barrister]

No MPs from Quebec support Bernier.  His own support base in Quebec isn't really there outside of his home territory, south of Quebec city.

He's not the one that will convince Montrealers to join the cause (well, I don't think anybody can, but Bernier sure can't do it, he's the laughing stock of the montreal intelligentsia).

Two separate questions though - Bernier's support within Conservative members in Quebec (which I believe is high), and his support amongst Quebeckers at large (here I'm not so sure).  But of course it's only the former that matters right now.

I'm also given to believe that Bernier's support in Alberta is quite high, due to his economic right-wing stance.

The last one matters if the Conservatives want to win an election.

At least a couple years between now and then.  "Run to the base in the leadership race, run to the middle in the general election" is as old as the hills.

[crazy canuck]

At least a couple years between now and then.  "Run to the base in the leadership race, run to the middle in the general election" is as old as the hills.

As noted before, everyone is now watching as a candidate runs to what they identify as their "base" and so it could have lasting detrimental effects.  People who continue to use strategies that are as old as the hills likely won't make it very far in a general election.

[Valmy]

I think it is harder to do that now with the modern media and social media. It bit Romney pretty hard in 2012.

[Barrister]

At least a couple years between now and then.  "Run to the base in the leadership race, run to the middle in the general election" is as old as the hills.

As noted before, everyone is now watching as a candidate runs to what they identify as their "base" and so it could have lasting detrimental effects.  People who continue to use strategies that are as old as the hills likely won't make it very far in a general election.

I think you over-estimate how involved the Canadian electorate is in the Conservative Party's leadership campaign.

[viper37]

No MPs from Quebec support Bernier.  His own support base in Quebec isn't really there outside of his home territory, south of Quebec city.

He's not the one that will convince Montrealers to join the cause (well, I don't think anybody can, but Bernier sure can't do it, he's the laughing stock of the montreal intelligentsia).

Two separate questions though - Bernier's support within Conservative members in Quebec (which I believe is high), and his support amongst Quebeckers at large (here I'm not so sure).  But of course it's only the former that matters right now.

I'm also given to believe that Bernier's support in Alberta is quite high, due to his economic right-wing stance.

The last one matters if the Conservatives want to win an election.

At least a couple years between now and then.  "Run to the base in the leadership race, run to the middle in the general election" is as old as the hills.

see answers by CC and Valmy.  Harper won because he was straightforward with everyone.  He didn't use double talk like the Libs.  The message to the base was the same as to all Canadians, the message was the same in English and in French.

Bernier is an ideologue.  His roots come from MEI, known for its libertarian bias.  No matter the problem, the solution is always in the private sector. I find it hard to believe that every single problem has the same solution   and I disregard them as much as I do for their leftwing equivalent the media likes to quote.  When you decide of the result before making the study, you run an high risk of bias.

And his campaign proposals have been done exactly like that.  There is no deep thought to the implications of any of his proposals.  There is no rational analysis of anything.

The quotas are bad?  Yes!  I agree!  Npw, what do you have in mind to compete with other countried that heavily subsidize their agriculture?  How do you transition farmers with, at the very best, 3 years post high school education with 45hrs of management class from a system of price stability to one of increase volatility where they need to learn how to look in advance for market fluctuations and plan increase liquidities in reaction to such exernal event? 

I can tell you right now, the near totality of them are incapable of understanding such principles.
They lack the knowledge, the skills, and most importandly the time.  We're talking about people waking up at 4:45 to work, not to spend 3 hours in traffic listening to radio.  They work from 5:00am to 6:00pm in winter 7 days a week, and much longer&intensively during summer.

Some of them tried themselves at such industries, like pork production.  Most of them failed miserably.  It's just not in their mindset to plan for fluctuations in demand&price.  They just tried their way the same they did with milk, and they ended up becoming simple employees, at best.

Transitionning them to a free market economy will require time, effort and a lot of work with their respective federations.  And even them, it won't solve the other problems.  Compared to most of the US, we have a colder climate.  It means less overall production from our various crops and a certain need for isolated stables, and heating for other productions like chicken.  Something that a Californian or Spanish farmer does not have to worry about.  It means higher infrastructure costs that must figure in the end price.  Since we have a lot less lands available for agriculture than other, wamer, countries, it is again something that figures in our inhability to have multiple gigantic farms.  I know financial corporations like the National Bank are heavily investing in lands north of the Lac St-Jean, but seriously, do you consider the area north of Edmonton to be the best place for massive agriculture?  It will never be as productive as Kansas or South Carolina.

And then, even if we manage to fix that, we hit another wall: other countries subsidize their agriculture.  Heavily.  How do we counter that?  Do you think will announce the end to all farm subsidies as fast as he can sign a decree pulling the US out of NAFTA?

See, that is just one point of his plan.  And it's totally empty on everything.

There's a lot of problem with the quota system, but they're not easily fixable.  Unless you want to exchange one set of problem for another.

[crazy canuck]

At least a couple years between now and then.  "Run to the base in the leadership race, run to the middle in the general election" is as old as the hills.

As noted before, everyone is now watching as a candidate runs to what they identify as their "base" and so it could have lasting detrimental effects.  People who continue to use strategies that are as old as the hills likely won't make it very far in a general election.

I think you over-estimate how involved the Canadian electorate is in the Conservative Party's leadership campaign.

I think you underestimate how early impressions formed by social media will be very hard to change.

[crazy canuck]

It is election day in BC.  Elections here are always hotly contested events between the NDP and the coalition party of the day formed by supporters of the Federal Liberals and Conservatives.  That party is now the BC Liberal Party.  The NDP rarely win office and pundits are predicting the Liberals will hold on to power.  The big change is likely to be that the Greens will achieve official party status by winning at least 4 seats.  They have a good shot at 5 seats.  4 at the expense of the NDP.

[Monoriu]

The NDP rarely win office

I seem to recall that when I was in Vancouver, the NDP ruled BC. 

I also remember a really sad story that some dude told me.  There was this party with a really odd name, Social Credit or something, that used to win most elections in BC.  I love parties that win election after election.  But somehow they lost the mandate of heaven.  By the time I got there, they only had a few seats left.  Not sure how they are doing now.

[crazy canuck]

The NDP rarely win office

I seem to recall that when I was in Vancouver, the NDP ruled BC. 

I also remember a really sad story that some dude told me.  There was this party with a really odd name, Social Credit or something, that used to win most elections in BC.  I love parties that win election after election.  But somehow they lost the mandate of heaven.  By the time I got there, they only had a few seats left.  Not sure how they are doing now.

Yeah, you were in BC during one of the few periods the NDP were in power.  They defeated the Social Credit party which was then the coalition party.  Social Credit had made the mistake of electing a leader much like Trump and that killed the party fairly quickly.  The coalition then reformed around the Provincial Liberal party.  Social Credit does not exist anymore as a party.

[Barrister]

The NDP rarely win office

I seem to recall that when I was in Vancouver, the NDP ruled BC. 

I also remember a really sad story that some dude told me.  There was this party with a really odd name, Social Credit or something, that used to win most elections in BC.  I love parties that win election after election.  But somehow they lost the mandate of heaven.  By the time I got there, they only had a few seats left.  Not sure how they are doing now.

Yeah, you were in BC during one of the few periods the NDP were in power.  They defeated the Social Credit party which was then the coalition party.  Social Credit had made the mistake of electing a leader much like Trump and that killed the party fairly quickly.  The coalition then reformed around the Provincial Liberal party.  Social Credit does not exist anymore as a party.

Google suggests that BC SoCreds, were de-registered, but have since re-registered and do in fact exist.

I remember attending a political conference in Calgary in the mid-90s for youth groups.  It was put on by an American outfit that was deeply Republican-oriented.  Anyways, those were the days of the PC-Reform split, so there were a bunch of us Reform types, and a decent smattering of PCers.  There was also I think 2 BC SoCreds there.  It was decided that for the purposes of right-wing unity for the weekend if we needed party labels we would all be BC SoCreds.

[saskganesh]

That leader was Bill Vander Zalm. He owned a biblical theme park. He was succeeded by Rita Johnston ...  who owned a trailer park. Cue two NDP terms.

[crazy canuck]

It is a real nail biter.  Could even be a minority government with the Greens holding the balance of power with only 2 seats.

[viper37]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-2017-poll-tracker-1.4054593

[crazy canuck]

We won't know who will form government for about two weeks.  That is how long it will take before Elections BC counts all the absentee ballots.

Currently the Liberals are one seat away from a majority and they are only 10 votes behind the NDP in a riding on Vancouver Island.  So it is possible they can still form a majority government.

The Liberals also won the popular vote by a couple of percentage points.

But if the current seat totals hold, the Greens, with an historic win of three seats, have the balance of power.  It will be very interesting to see what will happen next.