Politics Overload

Between the Comey testimony, British election, and various situations going on in Canada, it’s been difficult to keep up with everything.

I sometimes feel like I have social media ADD. Twitter can be especially addictive as Jad noted in the previous post. It’s been difficult to focus my thoughts on any one topic.

A few stalwart folks from BLY nation have followed me to this new forum. I welcome their comments and those of any newcomers who may find themselves here.

Thanks for your interest and patience.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in British Politics, Canadian Politics, U.S. Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Politics Overload

  1. fh says:

    The media are unbelievable how they expect us to believe they are non partisan boggles my mind
    Andrew Scheer is equal to the task of dealing with the MSM. I will continue my support for the only political party I believe have the Canadian People’s interests ahead of the parties.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      I agree Fh, Let’s give Andrew Scheer a chance.

      And the Trudeau Liberals may self-implode. Already there are signs that people from the left who voted for Justin in the last election are feeling buyer’s remorse because of the failed promise regarding FPTP.

      Like

  2. gabbyinqc says:

    There are very few conservative blogs still active so I definitely hope you find the time to continue posting periodically.

    On the national front: I hope the Conservatives decide on a set of winning policies that they explain clearly to the Canadian public. I have been somewhat disappointed by lack of clarity on some issues. The motion on the Paris Accord comes to mind.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Thanks Gabby. We’ll see how it goes. I do enjoy the back and forth with you guys. 😉

      Yes the Paris Accord was disappointing. My sense of it is that Andrew Scheer is taking a page from Patrick Brown’s playbook and not allowing the party to get bogged down in distractions. I think we need to give him a chance. There’s probably a crazy amount of planning and decisions to be made right now.

      The other interesting facet of all this will be the NDP leadership convention. If Jagmeet Singh wins that could really challenge Trudeau on the left. And that would help the CPC.

      Like

      • gabbyinqc says:

        You’re right about the stylish NDP leadership candidate giving Trudeau a run for his money. Or maybe they’ll colour- coordinate their sartorial choices, Trudeau with his stylish socks & Singh with his equally stylish turbans.

        Yes, Scheer should be given a chance but a whipped vote in favour of the Paris Accord seems to contradict the current CPC position against a carbon tax.

        Like

  3. joannebly says:

    Ha-ha! Gabby what I like about Singh is that he is young and would likely draw votes away from Liberals in dense urban centers. Justin wouldn’t be able to skate through an election on his looks and pedigree.

    Yes I was disappointed too about the whipped vote.

    Like

  4. Anne in swON says:

    It should be very interesting to see how the CPC will separate supporting the Paris Agreement and opposing a carbon tax. They’re going to have to do some pretty delicate footwork as far as I can see since the two seem to me to be pretty intricately related. Any party supporting a scheme to get any more of my tax dollars for “climate change” fixes will lose my vote. I’m tired of being duped. Patrick Brown doesn’t care in Ontario. Will Andrew Scheer? Listen to what Ezra Levant has to say about this topic. https://www.therebel.media/backstabbers

    Like

  5. Ruth says:

    Is it just me or do others think Question Period is a lot better when the Prime Minister is on the road!!

    Like

  6. Miles Lunn says:

    Certainly lots going on now with the NDP leadership race heating up, recent British election, French legislative, Comey testimony, and the drama in BC politics. On some of the issues, I think Scheer made the right decision on the Paris Agreement as the agreement is more aspirational and not binding so voting against it was a trap the Liberals tried to trip him up and failed. Much like the OLP has tried to do with Patrick Brown, I am sure the Liberals will try to trip Scheer up. While more of a Red Tory myself, we have to choose our battles carefully and focus on one’s we can win, than one’s we cannot as a few victories is better than going backwards.

    As for GabbyinQuebec’s mention on millennials, its true they certainly do seem to lean left, that was certainly the case in the most recent British election and unlike the UK, we cannot count on a 30-40 point lead amongst seniors which the Tories had there, but unlike UK we do have more of a split and I also think most millennials care more about results than ideology. So my suggestion would be for Scheer to adopt Erin O’Toole’s generation kick start plan as I think this could help us do better amongst millennials. We don’t need to win them, but we can ill afford to lose them badly. Agreed the NDP choosing Jagmeet Singh could help split the progressive vote, but we need do better than 32% regardless of the split to win, so we should focus on winning back those who voted for us in 2011, but switched to the Liberals in 2015 as well as those voting for centre-right parties provincially who didn’t vote Conservative last time around. I think the economy, taxes, and spending is where the Liberals are most vulnerable and that is where our focus should be.

    As for UK election, it was really a two party race as the Tories had their best showing percentage wise since 1983 while Labour best since 2001 and both parties have won majorities with smaller shares of the popular vote, so the big story was the collapse of smaller parties. Also the Tories gaining 12 seats in Scotland is key to allowing them to maybe form a government whereas without those they would be in trouble. Also unlike past UK elections, it seemed age not class was the big dividing line with age 45 being the dividing point and millennials going massively Labour and seniors massively Tory. I think the reason for this is most seniors remember Old Labour and how badly they messed things up in the 70s, whereas many of the millennials liked Corbyn’s big spending promises without thinking about where the money would come from. Also the Tories ran a terrible campaign and Labour a very good one and perhaps a backlash against the early election call, sort of similar to the 1990 Ontario election where Peterson was punished for an early election call. I cannot see May lasting as leader and personally I think they should choose Boris Johnson as the next leader as he is from London and the party needs to do better in urban areas.

    Like

  7. gabbyinqc says:

    A few points on the Paris Agreement/climate change issues:
    • The phrase “carbon pollution” — a favourite of Environment Minister McKenna’s — should be used to gently deride her. She has used the phrase constantly to push the carbon tax. Does she not realize that the composition of the human body is 18.5%? So is carbon THAT harmful? What does she expect to accomplish? Change the composition of our human bodies with a wave of her carbon tax wand?

    Nevertheless … although he was labelled “a denier” even Stephen Harper did not deny that reduction of harmful GHG emissions had to be achieved … BUT not by a few countries only (Kyoto), action that would be punitive for countries like Canada. “A global problem calls for a global solution” is what I always understood from PM Harper’s position.

    Unfortunately, the CPC position on climate change has been ambiguous, so that the media & opposition cabal can keep stating that conservatives are climate change deniers. The Kyoto Protocol originally had 84 signatories, so the burden was limited to those countries who had signed & ratified the protocol. The Paris Agreement has more than doubled the number of signatories (192) who supposedly want to take concrete action on reducing their GHG emissions. IMO, because of our former PM’s insistence that “a global problem calls for a global solution”, more countries have pledged to reduce their harmful emissions. The big question still remains, though: what will they do concretely & which actual harmful emissions will they focus on & actually reduce? Canada, even though it pulled out of Kyoto, managed to reduce its CO2 emissions (which some consider a harmful emission) from 18 metric tons per capita (1980) to 13.5 metric tons per capita (2013). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

    Some conservatives pride themselves in calling climate change a hoax. IMO, that’s the wrong tack to take because many people (voters) have been persuaded — some might say brainwashed — into believing we must act “to save the planet”. IMO, it is not helpful for us conservatives to state that “climate change is a hoax”. What would be more helpful is admit that climate change is a fact; that it has been going on since the beginning of time; that it is Mother Nature’s domain, not that of presumptuous politicians who think THEY can “save the planet” by issuing diktats about how much “carbon pollution” we have to deal with. Realistic action using tested (nuclear) & new technologies (carbon capture, advanced biofuels) should be promoted, rather than punitive carbon taxes or cap & trade schemes that have no real tangible effect on reducing emissions.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Excellent points Gabby. You’re right of course that keeping a respectful and measured tone is best when dealing with such topics as climate change. That way the discussion isn’t shut down and we can perhaps even appeal to reason when talking to others about it.

      I like Lorrie Goldstein’s approach on the topic. He always uses facts to back up his arguments. Challenging to do so but it is effective.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        I try to when arguing on any issue with the left use facts and evidence not emotion as that doesn’t work. I guess my focus as one battle at a time as we are losing on so many fronts were better to take on the left where they are weakest and most vulnerable and then later can go after the more difficult ones. I think if the NDP-Green alliance here in BC is in office for any length of time people might see the dangers of going too far on the environment. Otherwise I think the environment is an area we can take a centrist approach and look reasonable while others look over the top.

        As the most recent Angus-reid poll showed and others have shown similar things, I think deficits, taxes, economy, and jobs is where the Liberals and other progressives are most vulnerable thus focus there. At the end of the day we are too small to have that big an impact on global temperature and while there is the moral argument I highly doubt the US or China or other big emitters are going to base their decisions on what Canada does. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything, but we should find a reasonable balance and never mind the market is already moving towards a greener path, just not to the extent or rate the environmentalists want.

        Like

    • fh says:

      I do not believe anyone does not believe in climate change. Climate has always changed.It is man made global Warming that is a hoax.Conservatives want to reduce pollution and conservatives will always continue to develop ways to reduce pollution.

      Like

      • joannebly says:

        I hear you Fh and I think what Gabby is getting at is that the discussion can be more nuanced for politicians. eg If someone asks if you believe in global warming, the answer can be “Of course. The climate has changed since the beginning of time.” Then if they persist with the Man-made aspect, one has to only point to the lack of clear scientific evidence as to how much is man-made and what is to do other phenomena.

        The left is trying to create tribal divisions and conservative politicians are wise to try to avoid that trap.

        BTW did you hear that that big apartment fire in London was made worse by government-mandated green energy requirements? This is a symbol of a far larger problem IMHO. The concerns about humans seem to be minimal compared to those for “Mother Earth”.

        And I totally agree with you that pollution is a matter we can all get onboard with. I hate how the left is trying to conflate “pollution” and “climate change.” That’s manipulative and deceiving.

        OK that’s enough preaching for me today. lol!

        Like

Comments are closed.