2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[Remius]

The very FIRST thing the CPC government MUST do is analyze the financials to find out the TRUTH as to what position the government finances are in. That will take some time.

That generally happens. Promises are made knowing that they can’t or won’t deliver them blame the previous finances for breaking the promises.

Sorry, but personally, don't trust the financial reporting of this government or Statistics Canada reports.

Why?

The SECOND thing to do is to immediately stop all aid giveaways by Gobal Affairs et al until they are vetted. This will save Billions.

And what is the cost of stopping all foreign aid? What gives you the impression that most of it isn’t vetted already? It’s a populist approach but it also shows how foreign aid benefits are misunderstood. Not saying they shouldn’t review and or align foreign aids differently. But I am willing to bet that an incoming CPC gvt will NOT arbitrarily cut all foreign aid. If they don’t what will you do?

The THIRD thing to do is to round up all the people who should not be legally in Canada and sent them to their home countries. Quickly.

Are they not being rounded up and sent back already? If we look at 2023 numbers about 30k crossed in and claimed asylum. That same year we deported about 16k (the highest amount since 2012)
Does quickly mean without due process and if not what does that mean?

The FORTH thing is to pass a Criminal Code of Canada amendment to make if an Offence to mask/disguise your face in public.

Generally? Or under specific circumstances? Because that is already an offence when committing a crime. Why would it matter if an individual chooses to mask up but isn’t doing anything wrong? Would that not be an infringement on freedom of expression or privacy?

Plus axe the tax, defund CBC.

Sure. What if the CBC doesn’t get defunded? Mixed messages from PP on that one on how that could even be done.

Concurrently if possible.

 

[ArmyRick]

Mixed messages from PP on that one on how that could even be done.

Nope. He has outright said, english CBC will go. French Radio-Canada will get to stay, in remote areas only.

 

[Remius]

Nope. He has outright said, english CBC will go. French Radio-Canada will get to stay, in remote areas only.

Except he only mentions the French part when speaking to Franco audiences. He omits it when talking to anglos.

And given CBCs governance apparatus on how it is financed that plan may not even work.

I suspect CBC will see cuts but it won’t be defunded the way people think it will.

It isn’t impossible but it is far more complicated than advertised by PP.

 

[ArmyRick]

He omits it when talking to anglos

I heard it from him. I speak anglo

 

[IKnowNothing]

How so? If 10-20 Liberals LEFT their party and sat as independents, and didn't wait until the LPC was crashing epically, it would have shown integrity on their part.
Pierre is not responsible for the sheer weakness in the LPC as a whole.


Id rather Pierre stands by his principals than compromise them for "political favour" with others (As Singh did, and its killed their party)

A leader is ultimately accountable for accomplishing their objectives yes? The primary objective of the CPC for the last 18 months was/should have been bringing down the government, yes?

• The only way to accomplish that objective is to either
  • Get the NDP to vote against the government
  • Erode the support of the LPC caucus

To get people to do the things you want to do, it's generally best practice to make it in their best interest to do so rather than back them into a lose/lose corner where they're both slightly better off choosing against what you want, AND want to choose against you out of spite. You want the government to fall? Shape the situation so that it's in Singh's best for them to fall. Craft your messaging to target JT and leave Singh and the NDP room to maneuver clear and be a solid bet to usurp the liberals on the left with
Singh claiming leader of the opposition status. You want the LPC back benchers to break rank? Invite them in. Court the blue grits. Sell them on being sold out by a PMO and cabinet gone rogue. Guarantee their nomination as CPC incumbents and the support of their party. Work to accomplish the objective.


It the interview you posted upthread (overall much better tone, it was actually PM like), he ended it with a very, very strong section calling for centrist consensus, referenced the old gas pedal/ brake analogy and accused JT of breaking it and swerving off into the ditch. It was really good stuff. More of that I can get behind.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Does anyone believe that the budget vote will be anything other than a Liberal whipped vote with NDP supporting a modest expansion of pharmacare?

If Singh backs the libs one more time, he's finished. Canadians have been more than patient with his grab for the golden ring. The longer singh holds out, the more his faults, like his recent racist comments come to light. Canadians are done with this government. Anyone creating slowdowns or stoppages on the way to a change is going to be seen as an obstructionist. My first prediction is singh will lose seats. Then a leadership review. Singh will lose to someone new. It also is looking more each day, like he won't even win his riding. He sacrificed his party for his pension. Members aren't liking they have been placed second behind singh's quest for his personal grail.

Trudeau is delusional, any thought he has about running again...and winning, is off the wall and appears fuelled by something obscure like peyote. I honestly can't track his reasoning.

 

[ArmyRick]

A leader is ultimately accountable for accomplishing their objectives yes? The primary objective of the CPC for the last 18 months was/should have been bringing down the government, yes?

• The only way to accomplish that objective is to either
  • Get the NDP to vote against the government
  • Erode the support of the LPC caucus

To get people to do the things you want to do, it's generally best practice to make it in their best interest to do so rather than back them into a lose/lose corner where they're both slightly better off choosing against what you want, AND want to choose against you out of spite. You want the government to fall? Shape the situation so that it's in Singh's best for them to fall. Craft your messaging to target JT and leave Singh and the NDP room to maneuver clear and be a solid bet to usurp the liberals on the left with
Singh claiming leader of the opposition status. You want the LPC back benchers to break rank? Invite them in. Court the blue grits. Sell them on being sold out by a PMO and cabinet gone rogue. Guarantee their nomination as CPC incumbents and the support of their party. Work to accomplish the objective.


It the interview you posted upthread (overall much better tone, it was actually PM like), he ended it with a very, very strong section calling for centrist consensus, referenced the old gas pedal/ brake analogy and accused JT of breaking it and swerving off into the ditch. It was really good stuff. More of that I can get behind.

The means are as important as the end result. So no. To cooperating with a party that lost all its core beliefs and principles (the NDP)

 

[ArmyRick]

Anyone creating slowdowns or stoppages on the way to a change is going to be seen as an obstructionist.

That is a very big consideration for the future LPC and NDP party leaders

 

[IKnowNothing]

The means are as important as the end result. So no. To cooperating with a party that lost all its core beliefs and principles (the NDP)

On one hand:
Self described existential threat to the country

Of equal importance:
Not doing actual politics to stop said threat because it would require working with... (gasp) them?

Threat must not be that existential.

Was it cooperating with them when the CPC voted with the Bloc and NDP (on a bill they dont actually like and runs contrary to all of their core messaging) to try and bring the LPC down?

 

[ArmyRick]

Was it cooperating with them when the CPC voted with the Bloc and NDP (on a bill they dont actually like and runs contrary to all of their core messaging) to try and bring the LPC down?

Which bill? When was it?

 

[IKnowNothing]

Which bill? When was it?

The OAS bill in Q4. When Blanchet tried (with NDP support) to shake down the LPC for a few billion in deficit funded seniors bribes and the CPC voted along with it as an "ends justify the means" move to try and trigger non-confidence.

 

[ArmyRick]

From this

Bloc Quebecois says ultimatum against government stands after Liberals vote against senior benefits motion

Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet says his ultimatum to the government stands, after the Liberals voted against a motion seeking money to boost seniors' benefits on Wednesday.

www.ctvnews.ca

"The non-binding motion still passed by a vote of 181 to 143, with the support of the other opposition parties on Wednesday, but despite the majority backing, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will not be compelled to issue the financial authorization needed for the bill to be passable.

The bill is one of two Blanchet has put the government on notice over. Under parliamentary rules, because Bill C-319 seeks to spend public funds, a royal recommendation must be provided or the legislation will be deemed out of order.

Blanchet's line in the sand was seeing significant progress on both Bill C-319, and Bill C-282 – seeking supply management protections in future trade talks— or he'd start negotiating with the Conservatives and NDP to bring down the government."



I can't 100% speak as to what Pierre was thinking, but standing beside the Bloc on Old age security may not have been a bad thing. On the supply management, thats a bigger mess that needs unpacking, but not for many years to come.

 

[ArmyRick]

The OAS bill in Q4. When Blanchet tried (with NDP support) to shake down the LPC for a few billion in deficit funded seniors bribes and the CPC voted along with it as an "ends justify the means" move to try and trigger non-confidence.

So you get this, YOU CAN vote with opposition parties, where you have common ground. Don't go making dirty deals (Pierre never did) to get power. Trudeau and Singh did a dirty deal and both sold their souls out for the SACA

 

[The Bread Guy]

That is should be a very big consideration for the future LPC and NDP party leaders

Based on how Teams Red and Orange are acting so far, fixed that for you

 

[IKnowNothing]

I can't 100% speak as to what Pierre was thinking, but standing beside the Bloc on Old age security may not have been a bad thing. On the supply management, thats a bigger mess that needs unpacking, but not for many years to come.

So you get this, YOU CAN vote with opposition parties, where you have common ground. Don't go making dirty deals (Pierre never did) to get power. Trudeau and Singh did a dirty deal and both sold their souls out for the SACA

From multiple CPC MP's- the intent was 100% to contribute to putting the LPC in a bad spot. They didn't/don't like the bill itself. Is that a dirty deal? And would finding the common ground necessary to bring down an existential threat to the country be a "dirty deal" or "doing the job of the leader of the opposition"?

 

[ArmyRick]

From multiple CPC MP's- the intent was 100% to contribute to putting the LPC in a bad spot. They didn't/don't like the bill itself. Is that a dirty deal? And would finding the common ground necessary to bring down an existential threat to the country be a "dirty deal" or "doing the job of the leader of the opposition"?

What are you fishing for here? Are you looking for a big gotcha moment? Your so hyper-focused, I have no clue where your going with this one line of thinking.

 

[brihard]

For all the people with some very hopeful stretches of thought that we "somehow" won't get an election early, I think your wrong. Its an opinion not fact. My opinion is your wrong. If you end up being correct, so be it but then Canada will have suffered even more. So I say, get used to it, Trudeau is going out and Poilievre is coming in, most likely sooner rather than later.

Who here is it that you believe doesn’t want an election sooner rather than later, and who here do you think doesn’t expect a clear CPC victory? I don’t actually see anyone expressing either of those things.

 

[IKnowNothing]

What are you fishing for here? Are you looking for a big gotcha moment? Your so hyper-focused, I have no clue where your going with this one line of thinking.

I had a long post written out, not worth it.

Suffice to say theres a certain humour that when its criticism for something he didnt do: the ends of stopping an existential threat to the country and accomplishing his primary goal isn't worth the means of sullying his hands by working with another party*, but when its something he did do: (vote for legislation that actually runs directly contrary to his platform) its "finding common ground"

My initial point was that when it came to toplling the government the key was splitting the SACA, the key to splitting the SACA was divide and conquer, and its hard to divide and conquer when youre doing everything in your power to back the two back into the same corner and tie the same stone around their neck

 

[dimsum]

Except he only mentions the French part when speaking to Franco audiences. He omits it when talking to anglos.

And given CBCs governance apparatus on how it is financed that plan may not even work.

I suspect CBC will see cuts but it won’t be defunded the way people think it will.

It isn’t impossible but it is far more complicated than advertised by PP.

Isn’t CBC/SRC one company? If you defund one, you (by default) defund the other. CBC would take from SRC.

 

[Remius]

Isn’t CBC/SRC one company? If you defund one, you (by default) defund the other. CBC would take from SRC.

Correct. PP knows this. His audiences may not. It will take big legislative changes to make what he wants happen.