[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

By Winning the war?

Really? After Afghanistan and Iraq 1 and 2, are we still at the point where we imagine a) that military conflict - much less "winning" a war solves things neatly, b) that it will be over by Christmas, c) that there is "a" war, as opposed to the Islamic state emerging out of the previous wars, the now almost forgotten Arab Spring, the dictatorship of Al-Assad? Have our political imagination of war traversed unscathed the last 30 years, unaffected by the events around us?

we could put flowers on our soldiers bayonnets, that worked before.

The Arab spring is dead.  Europe and America refused to help these countries make a peaceful transition, now, there's nothing left to save.

As I said in my other post, there are two objectives:
1) Solving the refugee crisis.  That involved defeating ISIS.
2) Solving the problem of radical islam.  That involves a lot of more, and I am unconvinced that people who voted Liberal would even recognize the problem.  What will happen is the tree huggers will win in the short time and faced with increased attacks, most western countries will then shift to Trump/Front National policies in the mid to long term.  We are still a few decades away from seeing this here, but it's happenning.

[Barrister]

And you genuinely believe that French and US intervention - with whatever level of Canadian backing is forthcoming - will reduce the number of refugees?

I don't see how that's a defensible position given the numbers of actors involved in the conflict, and the recent history of creating stability through the use of military intervention.

Now, there may be other good arguments for military intervention, but "taking out Daesh will significantly address the refugee crisis" is not one of them.

Eventually, yes.

Look we know there are multiple factions in the Syrian civil war, but Daesh is an outlier in that it proclaims to be the Caliphate reborn.  This is not a group that can sit down and negotiate with.  It needs to be militarily destroyed, and there is reason to think the rest of the world is having some success in doing so.  They're recruiting is drying up, they're experiencing withdrawls on the ground.

Once Daesh is removed, there is some hope (not confidence, but hope) that some kind of negotiated settlement can then end the civil war.  Hopefully with Assad stepping down.

[Grey Fox]

Viper: not my point. I am not opposed to conflict on principle. I have lost any faith in our ability to conduct meaningful, purposeful, conflict with a real  understanding of the underlying issues and consequences of the action, and nothing I have seen or read about Syria, and Daesh in the last years have convinced me there is a plan other than respond haphazardly according to the outrage du jour.

That is obviously true. We are not really committed to end the Islamist threat. We are just chugging along for fuel & to fuel industry while Saudi Arabia provides the initial investment to start all these littles wars for us.

[viper37]

And you genuinely believe that French and US intervention - with whatever level of Canadian backing is forthcoming - will reduce the number of refugees?

to advance, infantry needs artillery support.  That means airstrikes to soften up the ennemies, then ground artillery barrage.  Lots of airstrikes.  Then lots of ground artillery to preven the ennemy from regrouping.  That also means striking oil fields and oil transports.

The Kurds and the Iraquis are making small advance, but there needs to be more troops and more support in the air and on the ground.
Canada's 6 CF-18 will not change the course the war, no more than a dozen instructors to Kurds that don't want to hear them will change anything.  Canada is way too small to make a difference by itself.

But ISIS is dangerous and must be fought by everyone, this is ennemy #1 for now.  We can't strike everywhere at once, we can't do everything at once, but we need to start somewhere, otherwise, we will need to grant asylum to most the survivors from Syria, Irak, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, all the places were ISIS is currently fighting or soon will be.

[viper37]

This is not a group that can sit down and negotiate with. 

Well, Trudeau told everyone Canada was back at international relations.  Trudeau insist on Canada's past glory at diplomacy.  We keep hearing about negotiated truces between Palestinian factions and Israel (and that was a great success, as we can see today, all these groups live perfectly happy together).  I say, we send Trudeau in to negotiate a peace, or at least, to let emergency supplies flow to refugees.  It would be a dream come true, Canada doing what it does best: sitting and talking while pretending to solve a problem.

[Josephus]

Caroline Mulroney next Conservative leader (I guess she's deflowered by now).

What say you Conservative types?

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/12/caroline-mulroney-lapham-could-be-tories-heir-apparent?ref=yfp

[Malthus]

Caroline Mulroney next Conservative leader (I guess she's deflowered by now).

What say you Conservative types?

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/12/caroline-mulroney-lapham-could-be-tories-heir-apparent?ref=yfp

Great. Battle of the political dynasts:  Trudeau vs. Mulroney. 

Personally, I think anyone accepting leadership of the Cons right now is taking on a bit of a poisoned chalice: the Cons will, I think, be in the wilderness for a some years (unless the Libs totally screw everything up, which seems to me unlikely). At least, if past patterns are any guide.

[Barrister]

Caroline Mulroney next Conservative leader (I guess she's deflowered by now).

What say you Conservative types?

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/12/caroline-mulroney-lapham-could-be-tories-heir-apparent?ref=yfp

That's a terrible idea.  Take a complete unknown, with zero political experience, and put her at the head of a Canadian political party?

"But what about Justin"?  Yeah - what about him?  The guy who was a political laughing stock for much of his first year, who trailed in 3rd place for most of the campaign until he caught lightning in a bottle to unite the Anyone But Harper crowd in the end?  And the guy who, unlike Caroline, at least had been a sitting MP for a few years and had been at least starting to earn his political chops.

The Conservative Party is not a "poisoned chalice" - it maintains its traditional strengths and supporters.  The election of 2019 will be very winnable - depending on circumstances of course.  The overall economy is going to very much factor into whether Trudeau can be re-elected.  Right now the signs are negative - oil continues to slump, the US is set to raise interest rates (putting even more pressure on the loonie), and the new home down payment rules may cause big harm to real estate prices in Toronto / Vancouver.

Don't look at the current honeymoon as anything that is going to last.  Rachel Notley had a honeymoon period as well.  She's now well behind in the polls, and we're still less than a year after her election.

I'm tentatively a Brad Wall supporter, although he's said he's not interested.  Rona Ambrose is doing very well as Interim leader as well, may I say.  I like Jason Kenney very much, but I suspect he's a better power behind the throne.

[viper37]

Caroline Mulroney would be a good addition to the party, but not for 2019 and not for leader.
First, ger her elected so she has some political experience.  I'm not aware of any Canadian PM that was ever elected as such for his/her first run as MP (meaning zero political experience).  I'm not fond of having 60 year old as politicians, but you kinda need some experience before becoming party leader, so you understand perfectly how the House of Commons works with its rules&procedures.

[Barrister]

Caroline Mulroney would be a good addition to the party, but not for 2019 and not for leader.
First, ger her elected so she has some political experience.  I'm not aware of any Canadian PM that was ever elected as such for his/her first run as MP (meaning zero political experience).  I'm not fond of having 60 year old as politicians, but you kinda need some experience before becoming party leader, so you understand perfectly how the House of Commons works with its rules&procedures.

Curiously enough, the example you're looking for is Brian Mulroney.  He'd never been an elected politician before becoming PC leader.

But even that example is misleading.  Mulroney had been very active behind the scenes for years and years in the PC Party.  He had also run for leader once before in the 70s, coming in second behind Joe Clark.  Caroline Mulroney has none of that.  Instead she sounds like she'd be more of a Belinda Stronach figure, who was ultimately deeply disappointing as a politician.

[viper37]

ah, I did not realized that about Mulroney, thanks.

[Barrister]

ah, I did not realized that about Mulroney, thanks.

Also remember that although Mulroney did win re-election, he basically destroyed the PC Party as a national force in this country.

[Jacob]

That's a terrible idea.  Take a complete unknown, with zero political experience, and put her at the head of a Canadian political party?

"But what about Justin"?  Yeah - what about him?  The guy who was a political laughing stock for much of his first year, who trailed in 3rd place for most of the campaign until he caught lightning in a bottle to unite the Anyone But Harper crowd in the end?  And the guy who, unlike Caroline, at least had been a sitting MP for a few years and had been at least starting to earn his political chops.

The Conservative Party is not a "poisoned chalice" - it maintains its traditional strengths and supporters.  The election of 2019 will be very winnable - depending on circumstances of course.  The overall economy is going to very much factor into whether Trudeau can be re-elected.  Right now the signs are negative - oil continues to slump, the US is set to raise interest rates (putting even more pressure on the loonie), and the new home down payment rules may cause big harm to real estate prices in Toronto / Vancouver.

Don't look at the current honeymoon as anything that is going to last.  Rachel Notley had a honeymoon period as well.  She's now well behind in the polls, and we're still less than a year after her election.

I'm tentatively a Brad Wall supporter, although he's said he's not interested.  Rona Ambrose is doing very well as Interim leader as well, may I say.  I like Jason Kenney very much, but I suspect he's a better power behind the throne.

I generally concur.

I don't think leadership of the Conservatives is necessarily a poisoned chalice at this point. There are significant risks at this point.

The best case scenario is that someone comes in who can invigorate core supporters with enough distance from the perceived negatives of Harper to appeal to the swing voters who were sick of him; combined with a potentially disappointing Liberal government near the end of their term. In that case the Conservatives could come back strong.

The worst case scenario, of course, is protracted factional infighting where different contenders hurting one another - and the Conservative brand - as they slug it out, continuously reminding swing voters why they rejected the Conservatives this last election.

Ultimately, whether leadership of the Conservative Party is a poisoned chalice depends on what the internal politics are like right now, and consequently how the leadership transition goes.

I concur re: Mulroney - I think Trudeau demonstrated the bare minimum of qualifying conditions for someone in her position. She'll need her boxing match equivalent, plus something to point at as legitimate experience.

As for Rona Ambrose, she's come across as a reasonable Conservative so far.

[viper37]

Also remember that although Mulroney did win re-election, he basically destroyed the PC Party as a national force in this country.

Trudeau and Chrétien did that by sabotaging Lake Meech Accord.  They pitched East vs West and Quebec vs Canada.  It let them rule unopposed.

Mulroney's mistake was trying to appease everyone instead of maintaining the hardline.

Chrétien just did what any good Liberal does, he lied his way to the top, ranted against Free Trade agreement, helicopters and airport privatization.

[crazy canuck]

ah, I did not realized that about Mulroney, thanks.

Also remember that although Mulroney did win re-election, he basically destroyed the PC Party as a national force in this country.

I think the Reformer splinter group had a lot more to do with the destruction of the PCs.  As for Mulroney's daughter,  I don't know anything about her.  But I do know that if the Reform faction within the Conservative party are going to react strongly against her then that would certainly be a problem for any chance the Conservatives have to be re-elected.