Giving Thanks in Troubled Times

It’s a challenge to remain optimistic about the future in this troubled world. One could easily give in to feelings of despair, cynicism and apathy.

Never have I seen such divisiveness in our society. One would almost think there is a deliberate plot to sow discord among various competing religious, political, regional and economic tribes.

We see the politics of division displayed by the actions of the Trudeau Government. Just like his father, Justin Trudeau is pitting East against West; Energy sector against environmentalists.

But Justin goes further and favours certain religious rights at the expense of others and of free speech. And Bill Morneau’s proposed tax reforms have done nothing but stoke anger among small businesses, all in a crass populist political maneuver likely inspired by “class warfare” instigators.

Some see Donald Trump as a divisive figure. Or is it actually the left which is so divisive and constantly stoking anger and discord?

Of course terror remains our greatest threat to Western life as we know it. How do we deal with a world where almost every day you hear of another attack somewhere? We’ve almost come to expect it now.

And so at this Thanksgiving I try to put on my blinders and just focus on my own blessings: family, friends, relatively good health and the simple beauty of life right around me. I thank God for that and I ask for peace – even if it can be only found in my own heart.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Canadian Economy, Canadian Elections, Canadian Politics, Provincial Politics, U.S. Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to Giving Thanks in Troubled Times

  1. Liz J says:

    You’re so right….need to put on the blinders and enjoy the people and things that mean most to us…at least for this weekend!
    It’s going to be hard to ignore the destructive policies the Liberals are bent on pushing ahead on.
    It’s really an insult for the likes of Morneau to be flying around “listening” when we know it’s a sham exercise.

    Like

  2. fh says:

    Top drawer best post ever. Agree with everything you expressed.
    Hope you and your family had a wonderful Thanksgiving.

    Like

  3. Greg says:

    I see the latest from those geniuses is pitting business owners against their employees with this employee discount tax. No business will want to go through the expense of tracking every discount burger or pair of shoes their minimum wage employee is getting at a discount to they can trat it as a taxable benefit. The discount will be eliminated instead and the employees will be PO’d at their employer.

    Like

  4. Liz J says:

    The Liberal/Justin/Butts collaboration say they’re going to grow the middle class while at the same time making policies to push more people out of work. Assuming middle class is working class it should follow less work means we have a class called the working poor and growing welfare ranks.

    Business employers are not going to pay higher and higher taxes for the governments to squander while they watch their bottom line shrink to a point it’s not profitable enough to keep afloat.

    I’m tired of the blame game being played by the Liberal Cabal, it’s their policies that ended Energy East and killed jobs….pure politics of the worst order, pitting East against West and sucking up Quebec, a welfare recipient in perpetuity in the name of Equalization.

    I’d say we deserve better but that’s not accurate, we deserve the government we elect.
    We sure fuddle duddled up….as they say in Newfie “the arse is outta ‘er”…. hope this isn’t too profane!

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Unfortunately after the Occupy Wall Street, far too many Canadians bought into the soak the rich kool aid. Under Harper, our top marginal rate was already the 13th highest in the OECD while now we are the eighth highest and would have been in the top four if other countries didn’t raise theirs (most other countries that raised theirs did so to fight runaway deficits, not redistribution and will likely cut the top rate when fiscal conditions allow). The problem is whenever a government promises to hike taxes on the top earners usually they have to go further down the chain as they don’t raise enough so each time the definition of rich gets expanded. It seems today too many Canadians want a government to give them free stuff and have others pay for it. That type of attitude if it continues will harm us economically. Anyways hopefully Ontario next year and Alberta in 2019 swing rightward to help balance things out and unlike a year where the polls were depressing, at least now we are within striking distance of the Liberals and if Trudeau continues to mess up we might pull of an upset. Most Liberals who I talk to think they have 2019 in the bag and it is that type of arrogant attitude that gets parties defeated. I think many of us who work hard, pay our bills and aren’t active in politics are beginning to wake up to the fact the Liberals are more like the NDP than the Liberals of the 90s and we now have a government that wants to punish success. Hopefully enough of them turn up and vote the Liberals out in 2019.

      Like

  5. Liz J says:

    Can’t help but wonder how Stephen Harper would be handling talks on trade with President Trump.
    Apparently Harper is in Washington today taking part in a discussion about trade….great timing for contrast!

    Like

  6. gabbyinqc says:

    IMO, the tax on employee discounts was a ruse to get people riled up — so that Trudeau aka Captain Canada could come in and nix the employee discounts tax talk. Trudeau’s theme song? Adapted from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdIev12fCPs

    I also fear that the other proposed tax reforms, like the so-called “income sprinkling” & “passive investments” may eventually lead to increasing the capital gains tax and maybe even lowering or completely eliminating other forms of tax sheltering, like the TFSA (already lowered from the Conservatives’ $10,000/year) and even the RRSP. I’m far from a tax expert but let’s face it, this government has to find revenue somewhere because of the way it throws money around to every cause they think will make them look good.

    It is difficult to hold on to a sunny disposition with a government like the one we’re saddled with … and with a majority of Canadians apparently still enamoured of its leader.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I wouldn’t say most are enamoured with Trudeau. His approval rating is around 50% so half the population and his disapproval is over 40% so close to evenly split. Yes that looks good compared to most premiers or other G7 leaders, but compared to past PMs hardly unusual. Only slightly higher than Harper was at the two year mark, well below where Chretien was at this point although well above where Mulroney was. Also of those who approve of Trudeau, most are somewhat approve while only 15% strongly approve. By contrast over 25% strongly disapprove so those who dislike him tend to feel a lot stronger about it than those who like him (actually this is generally the case with most politicians very rare to have strongly approve higher than strongly disapprove). Still interesting Turkey talk myself. My Grandfather at 97 and aunt and uncle were not impressed with Trudeau at all, but their daughter my cousin who is a millennial likes him and it seems he really connects well with the under 40, but less so with the older crowd who remember last time such policies were tried and failed. Also a gender gap too as I have another millennial cousin who voted for him, but regrets voting for Trudeau and it does seem he does better amongst females than males even though his policies are hardly feminist, that is just a soundbyte he uses. I’ve figured the way to beat him is to make sure the older generation massively rejects him. Corbyn won millennials by a bigger margin in the UK than Trudeau did, but he lost since seniors went massively against him to cancel the millennial vote out whereas with Trudeau we didn’t have that offset.

      Like

      • gabbyinqc says:

        Unlike you, I don’t have stats to back up my assertion that a majority of Canadians are still smitten by Trudeau’s rock-star aura. I’m basing myself on the reaction of most radio personalities on my local radio station — both women & men, not all youngish — who still think Trudeau is “dreamy” (as the morning show host refers to him). Maybe that host is being sarcastic, but it doesn’t sound like it. Whether we like it or not, these media types ultimately influence public opinion.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Could also be where you live. Montreal always has been considerably more Liberal friendly than Canada as a whole. I was in High River, Alberta for Thanksgiving and there Trudeau is pretty much universally despised so that is why I look at the topline numbers in the polls as opinions vary considerably. Right now polls show Trudeau still fairly popular in Atlantic Canada, somewhat in Quebec but benefits from a rudderless and divided opposition, mixed in Ontario but an urban/rural divide, mixed in Saskatchewan and Manitoba although less popular in Saskatchewan, very unpopular in Alberta, while mixed in British Columbia although in BC unlike Ontario opposition comes from both the left and the right whereas in Ontario it is almost all from the right. Where I live in Vancouver, Trudeau is fairly well liked too and in the central parts most of his opposition comes from the left who think he is insufficiently left wing not the right, but go travel 100km east and almost all the opposition is from the right.

          That being said I cannot see the Conservatives doing well in the Greater Montreal area. If they gain seats in Quebec, it will be in the regions and areas further east towards Quebec City. NDP is a wildcard but I suspect Singh’s turban will be less of an issue in Montreal than elsewhere in Quebec. The BQ could win seats on the East end of Montreal and the off island suburbs, but the rest of the Island of Montreal is solidly Liberal. Now provincially things are a bit better as the CAQ is competitive unlike the Tories federally in the off island suburbs, while the provincial Liberals are also more fiscally conservative so I actually like Philippe Couillard unlike Wynne or Trudeau. BC and Quebec are the only provinces I would in the former or would consider in the latter voting Liberal provincially, every other province and federally I would not.

          Like

  7. Liz J says:

    I’ve been invited to join a movement called “Take back our PC Party”! This might be just what Wynne needs to win, division within the PC Party. The Liberals will make use of this one

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I also refused this. It seems there are some in the party more concerned about ideological purity than electability. Sure Brown is not perfect and yes Elliott was my preferred choice, but I still think Brown is head and shoulders above Wynne. Also a party can only be as conservative as the public wants it and I think Brown has found the right mix to be fiscally conservative unlike we have now, but still electable. I also wonder if those running this group are Liberals trying to cause trouble.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        I hope it gets lots of refusals but it’s still going to be fodder for the Liberals, they’re pretty desperate for something, anything they can use against their main opposition.

        Like

  8. Miles Lunn says:

    This is an interesting one http://tvo.org/blog/current-affairs/the-liberal-traps-patrick-brown-has-so-far-avoided and how the Liberals in Ontario have tried to trip up Brown, but seem to fail each time. It looks like so far he has done a good job of avoiding the traps that have landed the PCs in trouble in the past. Here are the policies the PCs will be voting on https://convention.ontariopc.ca/recommended_policy_resolutions . Looking through them most seem reasonable, nothing too glamorous but nothing that I think will spook too many voters. No doubt the Liberals will try to find any hole in it they can, but I think the PCs are doing a decent job of making it tough for the Liberals to attack them. Yes I know some wish they would do more to promote conservative ideas, but it seems right now too many are frightened of them so better to get into office and then gradually implement them once the public is more comfortable with conservatives being in power. That was the path Brad Wall followed and it worked quite well.

    Like

  9. Liz J says:

    Trudeau and company are backtracking like mad, trying to convince us the laws haven’t changed on taxing employee perks etc when they had every intention of going through with it.
    They are getting mired in so many screw ups lately it’s starting to look like material for a gong show.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      When Trudeau first came he promised only to raise taxes on the top 1% and cut the middle income. I think raising it on the top 1% was dumb as it puts our top marginal rate when provinces included at over 50% in 7 out of 10 provinces and one of the higher top marginal rates in the OECD while third highest in the G7 (Japan and France are slightly higher, but even Italy and Germany have lower top marginal rates as do US and UK). But since it affects very few people and most in the top 1% have good accountants who can get the amount they actually pay down a lot this was fairly popular (disclosure I got hit by this, but I switched to capital gains thus only paid 28.8% instead of the 53.53% rate in Ontario, so they got less from me and I am sure many others with similar salaries did the same). Now he says 150K as rich, sooner or later it will be 80K or 90K. I don’t think he will raise income tax on the middle class around 40K to 50K but with the carbon tax, removal of tax credits (I actually support this provided they are offset with income tax cuts) as well as CPP hikes (Liberals claim this is an investment not a tax, but if you die before retiring or shortly after you won’t get that back so only an investment if you live beyond the average life expectancy) the middle class will pay more. Never mind if you made under 45K you got no tax cut at all which is 2/3 of Canadians and if making 50K you got a paltry $90 tax cut which will be cancelled out by CPP hikes. Otherwise the definition of rich will keep changing to fund their spending. And with mostly left wing governments at the provincial level it is a double whammy since at least if we had right wing provincially they would be cutting taxes to offset. Sadly in Ontario and Alberta which are the only two provinces likely to swing rightward the current administrations have left such a fiscal mess that it is unlikely the incoming conservative ones can cut taxes that much, just as it is in Manitoba. The problem with taxing the rich, is if you go after the truly rich, you won’t raise much revenue as there just aren’t that many of them out there, simple arithmetic. If you go after the upper middle class you are going after high skilled professionals we need more of, never mind most live in large cities where the cost of living is quite high so making 200K may seem like a lot but hardly rich if you live in Toronto or Vancouver when you consider real estate prices in both cities.

      The problem is many are economically illiterate and sadly it seems the entrepreneurial spirit Canada was built on is dying off. Rather than having a country full of motivated people determined to work hard and succeed, we have too many takers who want lots of free stuff for the government and want someone else to pay for it (be it the rich, big corporations or future generations i.e. deficits). And Trudeau, Wynne, and Notley play well with the takers. Yes using such term is considered insulting by many, but I have a tough time believing that the majority of people in one of the richest countries on earth need government assistance. I am a strong supporter of doing more to reduce poverty but you can help the poor without punishing the rich and also a strong growing economy means more revenue. In addition I don’t think we need to spend more to reduce poverty, we just need to re-prioritize our spending never mind a reduction in poverty will actually save us money in terms of lower health care costs, less crime (so less policing and prisons costs) and more people paying into the system. I actually much like Milton Friedman support the idea of GAI as that would eliminate the bureaucracy and we could get rid of all social assistance programs like welfare, EI, OAS, GIS while give the poor more freedom to spend than be dependent on the government. Also to discourage laziness and not working, it would be clawed back at 50% instead of 100% so that way any amount of work would pay more than not working.

      Like

  10. Liz J says:

    Just heard Ottawa City Hall will have gender neutral washrooms. Is this where we are headed everywhere?

    Like

    • fh says:

      Women must insist on women’s washrooms.Nothing wrong with gender neutral washrooms as long as women have right to choose women’s only washroom

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        I would imagine a lot of men would be uncomfortable using the same washrooms as women.
        I would assume there will be no more open urinals!

        Like

  11. Liz J says:

    So it’s being reported our Finance Minister forgot to mention to the Ethics Commissioner he owns a villa in France. An honest mistake Liberal style?

    Nice to know we have such good people vowing to help the so-called middle class.
    Has Trudeau ever been asked to define “middle class”?

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      I’m guessing this is not in the tax cheating category.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        How about as a novel idea do what is best for Canada and stop defining who is in which class. We don’t have a fixed class system, except for those in extremely wealthy families most of us move up and down in our careers. We tend to start near the bottom but many of us in our prime earning years are upper middle class while incomes usually decline again after retirement. Of the much vilified 1%, they are not the same people year after year. Only the really super wealthy, otherwise top 0.01% stay in the top 1% permanently and while I don’t have the exact stats I would venture to say well over 90% of the top 1% are only part of it for a portion of their career not entire adult life and I would guess around 10% of the population moves into the top 1% at some point in their life. Likewise with poverty, only a minority of the 8% in poverty are consistently there for long periods. Many fall into poverty when they get laid off at a job, but once they find another job move out of it thus I would guess at least 25% probably higher fall below the poverty line at some point in their life and probably only 2% or so stay there for their whole life and most who are there persistently either have disabilities or addiction problems, which I do actually support doing more on, otherwise help bring up those at the bottom, not try to redistribute wealth. The market by and large does a much better job of distributing wealth than the government, only for those who fall through the cracks does the government need to step in.

        I think the real problem is much of our class conscious comes from what is happening in other countries not ours. Initially, much of our population came from Europe, especially Britain which does have a much stronger class system where there is less mobility between classes which is why they immigrated here, but many still carried on the resentment towards those above as their ancestors who came to Canada didn’t have the opportunities to move up like they do in Canada. More recently, much of the heightened attention to income inequality is due to what is going on in the US, but our levels of income inequality aren’t even remotely close to the US. We are near the middle of the pack of the G7 and OECD while they are the most unequal and in fact our income distribution (which will shock most on the left) is closer to that of the Nordic Countries than the US. When it comes to income mobility (which is what I care about, I believe in equality of opportunity not equality of outcome) we are the third highest in the OECD only behind Denmark and Finland (we beat Norway, Germany, and Sweden on this even if less equal in outcomes) while the US along with the UK are at the bottom on income mobility.

        Like

  12. Anne in swON says:

    Miles said: “How about as a novel idea do what is best for Canada and stop defining who is in which class.”

    How about telling that to the current government. They rattle on and on about ‘the middle class and those hoping to join it’ so much so that many of us are wondering which class we belong in. Not that it matters all that much since most people work their butts off just to get by – to pay the mortgage (should they be lucky enough to be able to afford to get one in the first place), to put food on the table and clothes on their families’ backs, to save enough to put their children through school, to afford a family vacation once in a while and still set aside enough money for emergencies and household repairs (new roof, furnace replacement, yada, yada, yada). All of the above happens in people’s most productive years when earnings are at their peak. So that income mobility you speak of takes care of all of that. Because when you retire with that lower income your house is paid for, your children are through school and beginning their own rat race to earn enough to go where you’ve already been and you still need a new roof or furnace. Oh, and then that shiny new government that promised to work for ‘the middle class and those hoping to join it’ decides to tax the hell out of you. Colour me disillusioned!

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Exactly and it seems Trudeau is importing a lot of his rhetoric from elsewhere. The idea of the class system comes from Britain where under the feudal system they actually had a fixed one, while today there is no fixed one but there is a strong social class (they label it A,B,C,D, and E with E being the lowest and A the highest) and very difficult to move out of it. But in Canada it is quite different and in fact my family is living proof of this as when my great-grandparents came over from Europe to Canada just over 100 years ago, they were very poor, but thanks to their hard work and that of future generations, my family is now in the top 1% and while few make it to the top 1%, what makes Canada great is no matter what your income is at birth you have a chance to move up and succeed in life.

      Likewise his obsession on the rich and income inequality is largely a product of the American influence. In the US the gap between the rich and poor is really bad, so his going after the 1% is just being taken from the occupy wall street movement which has little relevance to Canada. The problem with Trudeau is class is an arbitrary definition and in fact his middle class tax cut applied to those making 45K to 90K even though 67% of taxpayers make under 45K and 90% under 90K so it was more of an upper middle class tax cut than middle class one. It was really tax the upper class more to help the upper middle class while those in the middle class and below get ignored. And with CPP hikes and the carbon tax (note I unlike most conservatives do support a carbon tax but only as long as it is 100% revenue neutral like it was in BC until the NDP formed government, I oppose any carbon tax that is not offset by equal or larger tax cuts elsewhere) those making under 45K will see their taxes go up not down. And due to the way our brackets work so will the middle class since if you make 50K you got a $90 tax cut while at 90K it was $670 but the CPP hike will be larger than that. Now I know Wynne likes to say CPP is an investment, but in my books anytime you are forced to give money to the government it is a tax regardless of its purpose. Only if you live to retirement do you get any of it back and only if you live past the average life expectancy will you get the full amount back. You die before retirement or decide to work until you die, you get nothing while if you retire but die within 18 years of retirement (18 years is the average number of years one has to live at retirement) you only get part back. Now I hope to live beyond that, but I have no idea how long I will live whereas if I got to keep the money I could decide whether I wanted to spend today or save for retirement whereas with a CPP hike I lose that choice.

      Like

    • Liz J says:

      Agree Anne, you’ve summed it up perfectly.

      Like

  13. joannebly says:

    Hi everyone. Good discussion going on here.

    It will be interesting to see what this much-touted Liberal caucus meeting is all about tomorrow. I wonder what’s up their sleeves this time?

    Like

    • gabbyinqc says:

      “I wonder what’s up their sleeves this time?”
      Long arms permanently reaching into Canadians’ pockets.

      Like

      • joannebly says:

        Ha! They never met a Canadian they didn’t want to shake down it seems.

        Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        Hopefully some of those in marginal seats will push back hard and scare Trudeau into backing down, but I actually get the impression Trudeau would be quite happy to lose many of those marginal which lean right and thus form an Liberal-NDP coalition which would allow him to govern more to the left than many of his caucus are comfortable with. I heard Pierre Trudeau liked the 1972 to 1974 government as he could be as left wing as he wanted and since he had to rely on the NDP, he had an excuse to bring his more centrist caucus on side.

        Like

  14. Liz J says:

    Hmm…polls maybe? Morneau’s real estate in France? How to convince us they didn’t intend to tax employee benefits or grab a chunk of employer profits to eventually make it not feasible to stay in business? Or, perhaps just a pep rally to ensure everyone hones up on obfuscation.

    Like

  15. Miles Lunn says:

    Just posted a recent blog, in how we have a left wing Canada in a right wing world afiscalconservativepointofview.com/2017/10/15/a-left-wing-canada-in-a-right-wing-world/. Note the US as we all know is swinging to the right, but even Europe which many on the left like to hold up as a model has mostly centre or centre-right governments. Otherwise on the political spectrum most European governments would be comparable to a Blue Liberal or Red Tory one. In Asia it’s a bit messier but still more lean right than left and in Latin America the Pink Tide is receding (which was we see in Venezuela was a disaster). Also the left often cherry picks those who did better than expected but still lost such as Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, and Podemos in Spain and talk about how they are all about to sweep to power, but they haven’t yet and I am skeptical they will. The only positive if any does is we will get to see first hand how bad left wing governments are and I would rather someone else experience the pain if we must than us.

    Like

  16. Anne in swON says:

    It seems Canada is leading from behind once again. While we celebrate (cough, cough) an agenda that leans left, left and more left, Austria has learned the lesson of open borders as today’s election results will attest. There’s hope for us yet, albeit not for at least another election or two or three. More’s the pity.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      In terms of the Austrian election don’t care much for the FPO as on immigration I am actually fairly liberal although I don’t support open borders which Austria due to its geography has issues with, but I do support the OVP who came in first on tax cuts as I think our taxes are too high and need to come down. I am more of a fiscal conservative while liberal on most non-economic issues so it is economic issues that I dislike most about the Trudeau government. On Friday I will give the Trudeau government on my blog it’s midterm report card (as October 20th is the exact half way point) and I will try to be fair as giving straight F’s would make it seem like I am hardcore partisan, but as a hint his grades on taxation and finance will be very low.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        Here’s an article I recommend written by someone who describes himself as follows: “My political leanings would make me either a classical liberal, or perhaps a left-leaning libertarian, depending on the criteria used. I am not a conservative or a Trump supporter, but I have been forced to abandon my support for the Left because of its increasingly alarming and bizarre politics.” He goes on to detail why he finds “Justin Trudeau is Far More Dangerous Than Donald Trump.” It’s certainly well worth the read and, whaddaya know, I finally found myself agreeing whole heartedly with a lefty! Who’da thunk it! https://www.newcenter.ca/news/2017/10/7/justin-trudeau-is-far-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Interesting. I guess the reason I see Trump as more dangerous has nothing to do with left vs. right, but rather he seems mentally unstable and the US has nuclear weapons so my biggest concern is he will push the button over some tweet. Trudeau doesn’t have access to nuclear weapons and is mentally stable although arrogant. On political correctness, I don’t think governments should force to be politically correct or jail those who are not, but as a white male myself who has never experienced discrimination I am politically correct more out of respect for others. In many ways I learned it from my mother who is a woman and has talked about the barriers women face and while I have no idea whether she is right or wrong, I take her word for it. I don’t support a post national state, but I am not afraid of our diversity or globalization. Our country is a young developing one and was built on immigration and since most immigrants by and large due integrate well I am less fearful than some. Also in terms of national sovereignty, we are not part of any international organization that involves giving up a lot of it, whereas the European Union takes on a lot of nation like characteristics and if you travel there you may feel like it is a single country as they have a common currency, no border controls, and nowadays most government buildings fly both the national and EU flags alongside. Yet even in the UK which is the most Eurosceptic, 48% still wished to remain and many Europeans are supportive of close integration so my view is how much sovereignty a country chooses or choose not to maintain is up to its people. That being said with the amount of skepticism of the US in Canada and our geographic isolation from everyone else I don’t think you have to worry about Canada being part of an EU like arrangement ever. The UN even if some Liberals would like it to be a global version of the EU will not become that in our life time as the divergence between countries is just to great.

          On immigration I don’t support open borders where everyone gets to come, but I do believe we should maintain our current levels as we have an aging population and without immigration, it means higher taxes, cuts to social programs, bigger deficits, or a combination of all three. Now if we can find a way to increase birth rates then there would be less need for immigration. I do however think the focus should be more on skilled immigrants, otherwise I support increasing the numbers taken in economic class while cutting family class, while the Liberals did the opposite. I also like Australia think on our points system there should be bonus points for those who wish to settle outside the big centres so we can encourage more immigrants to move to smaller communities which face labour shortages while fewer in Vancouver and Toronto where real estate prices are becoming too high.

          Like

          • Anne in swON says:

            I, too, support immigration (I should, after all I am one) but only through legal channels. Trudeau encouraged border jumpers for purely political reasons to increase his voter base and to virtue signal and thumb his nose at Trump. As a result we taxpayers will bear the burden to support them for some time to come and our taxes must of necessity rise, the wasteful spending of the Liberals must be curtailed or both. They are not thoroughly vetted as would be those who apply to come here, no matter how many times we are assured that they are. We’ve seen the problems these illegals have caused in the US, the UK and in Europe and I don’t want those problems to appear here. It may take some years for that to occur but unless this government is more vigilant it’s only a matter of time.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            I agree it should only be through legal channels and my understanding is 95% of border jumpers get rejected as well as the Liberals have put out advertisements in Miami’s Haitian community warning them that entering Canada doesn’t give them the right to stay. Harper did the same in Hungary when we got a flood of Roma refugees from Hungary and they put up ads in a couple of Hungarian cities were most were coming from in Hungarian warning them they would be refused. Nonetheless the Singh decision from 1985 says anyone who declares refugee status must be given a hearing. The danger is those who go AWOL which happens all to often. I think the best way is all refugees who come here will get ankle bracelets as that would avoid having to detain them but also stop them from going AWOL. Likewise we could do what the UK did which is offer $2,000 to every refugee who agrees to withdraw their application and return home so yes it would cost us some money in paying for the flight and the $2,000 but a lot less than the regular process would and a surprising number agreed to take this.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            Anne in swON – Just out of curiosity which country are you originally from? If from Europe I travel there on average twice a year so quite up more so than many Canadians on what is happening in Europe.

            Like

  17. Liz J says:

    Will Morneau take the heat or get out of the kitchen?

    Like

  18. Liz J says:

    Just listening to Trudeau and Morneau is making me ill….they’re doing a total backtrack….and a little bit of blaming it on the previous government….they are reminding me of shysters.

    Like

  19. Liz J says:

    Oh, and no problem with Morneau and his real estate….everything was cleared with the Ethics Commish….must be something different we don’t know about…different strokes for different folks?

    Like

  20. Liz J says:

    Either Morneau should resign or the Ethics Commissioner should be asked to explain it all.

    Like

  21. Liz J says:

    Also remind of snake oil salesmen political style….smiling through with have we got a deal for you!

    I will now go off and cool down!

    Like

  22. Miles Lunn says:

    I was looking through the cabinet ministers as well as used this simulator based on results http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/p/canada-simulator.html and it midpoint these are the cabinet ministers who would be in danger of losing their seats. Off course their could be more if Trudeau continues to act arrogantly like he is. A lot of those ones though were really close and could go either way.

    Jane Phippott – I show her narrowly losing her seat to the Conservatives – Markham-Stouffville

    Jean-Yves Duclos – He only got 29% last time so definitely vulnerable although would hold his seat at the moment – Quebec

    Kent Hehr – Depending on which poll you use I show this as close, but the Conservatives in each one are over 45% meaning any uptick from the NDP in Alberta would doom him – Calgary Centre

    Catherine McKenna – Unlike others in Ontario it is the NDP not Tories who are most likely to challenge her and if they get up to 20% in Ontario she is toast – Ottawa Centre

    Amarjeet Sohi – Very close either way and with Tories over 40% in his riding any uptick for either NDP or Tories would put his seat in danger – Edmonton-Mill Woods

    Maryam Monsef – Most simulations still show her narrowly clinging on but by only one to two points so definitely beatable – Peterborough-Kawartha

    Karina Gould – I show her losing in every simulation run albeit by a fairly narrow margin. A slight uptick in Tory support though would push this one over 50% for them or a slight uptick in NDP would create better splits as Tories over 42% in all simulations here – Burlington

    So right now as it stands 7 cabinet ministers are in danger of losing their seats. This excludes many backbenchers never mind if Liberals mess up more others could become vulnerable. In Quebec large swings are common and some like Francois Philippe Champagne (Saint Maurice-Champlain) come from ridings that don’t traditionally vote Liberal.

    Like

  23. Miles Lunn says:

    Looking at the next Ontario election we have a lot more cabinet ministers in danger. I only put ones down here though her are or may run again, those who have bowed out I excluded.

    Kathleen Wynne – Yes she will probably win her seat but if the Tories are ahead in the 416 she could be in trouble – Don Valley West

    Chris Ballard – This is a low hanging fruit so I fully expect the PCs to take this one next time around – Newmarket-Aurora

    Michael Gravelle – Would require a large swing but as we saw in Sault Ste. Marie this is more common in Northern Ontario than Southern. If he loses his seat it will be to the NDP though – Thunder Bay-Superior North

    Helena Jaczek – Also would fall to the PCs right now and if they don’t win this, they won’t win provincially – Markham-Stouffville

    Reza Moridi – A typical 905 swing one so if the polls are correct he would be toast – Richmond Hill

    Jeff Leal – This constituency has for the past 30 years always picked the governing party so whomever wins should win provincewide – Peterborough-Kawartha

    Bill Mauro – Won by a comfortable margin, but again like Michael Gravelle could face an NDP challenge – Thunder Bay-Atikokan

    David Zimmer – One of the more vulnerable 416 ridings so if the PC’s are tied or ahead there he is toast, Liberals need to be ahead in the 416 by 5 or more to have a chance here – Willowdale

    Michael Coteau – Probably a long shot, but if the Forum polls showing Liberals in third are correct it would make his vulnerable but I suspect this will stay Liberal unless we get a strong three way split – Don Valley East

    Yasir Navqi – His main challenge is the NDP and being in the only Ottawa area riding the NDP has a shot at expect unlike the other two the NDP from around the city to put all their resouces into this – Ottawa Centre

    Charles Sousa – I even show the Conservatives picking this up federally in addition to provincially so looking good at taking him down – Mississauga-Lakeshore

    Steve Del Duca – Won by a big margin but this riding has a large Italian community who are mostly Blue Liberals/Red Tories and tend to swing massively towards whomever wins so definitely winneable, we won this quite handidly in 1999 provincially and 2011 federally – Vaughan-Woodbridge

    Bob Chiarelli – Up until recently was very competitive for the PCs but did swing heavily towards the Liberals federally, this is though John Baird’s old riding so winneable still – Ottawa West-Nepean

    Michael Chan – He choose the safer of the two his is being split into, but has a large Chinese community so if Brown can connect well with them possible – Markham-Thornhill

    Tracy MacCharles – Depends on which riding she runs in. If in Scarborough-Rouge Park she is safe, but if in Pickering-Uxbridge then I think we have a good shot at defeating her.

    Kevin Flynne – With this riding being more PC friendly than most 905 belt, he looks in trouble unless polls change dramatically – Oakville

    Dipika Demarla – While her riding is more Liberal friendly than most 905 ones, as long as the PCs maintain a double digit lead there, she is in a difficult position – Mississauga East-Cooksville

    Laura Albanese – Her main threat comes from the NDP who could easily win here, not the PCs – York South-Weston

    Peter Milczyn – If we do knock him off, it means a PC majority after all this is the same riding Michael Ignatieff lost in – Etobicoke-Lakeshore

    Marie France Lalonde – Was until recently a very marginal and close one but swung quite heavily towards the Liberals both provincially and federally in 2014 and 2015, but still winneable – Orleans

    Kathryn McGarry – Normally a traditional PC riding so we should win this back and in fact even federally we have a good shot too – Cambridge

    Eleanor McMahon – Much like Karina Gould federally she is in a traditional PC one so unless things change dramatically will probably lose – Burlington

    Indira Nadoo Harris – She is in Lisa Raitt’s riding which we held federally so this should be an easy one to retake – Milton

    Glenn Thibeault – With all the controversy he should be toast. Probably NDP, but PCs have a former NHL player as a star candidate – Sudbury

    Actually in sum Mitzie Hunter (Scarborough-Guildwood) and Eric Hoskins (Toronto-St. Paul’s) are the only cabinet ministers whose seats are safe so I am hopeful we can defeat a lot of these including even taking out Wynne in her own seat and sending her into retirement.

    Like

  24. Anne in swON says:

    The Libranos certainly are back, aren’t they? And it only took them two years to show their true colours. If you haven’t yet read the article I linked earlier, please do so.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I kind of saw that coming all along. My reasoning is simple, every Liberal I talked to was convinced the Tories would be in opposition for a long time, probably over a decade and that they would easily win 2019 and that the Tories were so hated they could do whatever they wanted. I’ve found when parties think they have the next election in the bag they get arrogant while if they are afraid of losing they tend to be more careful. The problem is once habits develop it is tough to break them. I am not sure now if the polls have scared the Liberals or they somehow think once the campaign starts they will go up, but it seems their habits are too entrenched. Anyways I also think had they chosen a more centrist one like Marc Garneau or Martha Hall Findlay you would see less of this as even though those two may not agree with the Tories they can at least understand why some people might be attracted to their policies whereas I think a lot on the left flank of the party cannot understand how anyone can be right wing, they assume it is so self explanatory that only a person whose brain is messed up or is bad can be on the right and thus why they behave the way they do.

      Like

  25. Miles Lunn says:

    Nenshi has been re-elected unfortunately, although the margin was much closer so at least directions good, but still means Calgary has left wing governments at all three levels for at least the next 19 months. That being said the council might be more conservative leaning. At the same time I’ve noticed big cities generally tend to have progressive mayors throughout the world, in many ways it is provincial and federal governments where you get the balance as they include suburbs and rural areas which are more conservative.

    Like

  26. Liz J says:

    Warren K thinks it was “weird, really weird” that Trudeau took questions directed at Morneau!
    Wonder how Morneau felt being taken care of ..or protected by his boss? It’s kind of a downer to be a Minister of Finance and be shoved aside, prevented from answering questions he is capable of answering himself. Morneau knows if he was cleared by the EC, and if so we may now need an explanation from that desk.
    Anyway, it was quite a show/spectacle.

    Like

  27. Liz J says:

    The result of the Mayoral race in Calgary could be a reflection of the change in demographics of that city and also the province of Alberta. So many people flocked there for jobs, they take their politics along.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Partly although as pollster Jan Brown pointed out in Alberta, generally the lower the level of government is, the more progressive the population is as Calgary has pretty much had Liberal mayors for all of the past 30 years yet asides from 2015 it has always gone PC provincially and always gone Conservative or one its predecessors federally. Likewise provincially, generally Tory support is 5 to 10 points lower than it is federally in Alberta so I think a lot of Albertans don’t mind an activist government at a local level, its more when it seems to remote and distant they favour a smaller government as provincially there is a strong Edmonton/Calgary rivalry and usually most governments favour one over the other so the one not favoured is unhappy and Notley clearly is seen as favouring Edmonton where she is quite popular and would probably win most if not all of seats in an election today whereas in Calgary it is a different story and that would probably go largely UCP and whichever party wins Calgary wins the province (Edmonton is always more progressive while Rural Alberta is solidly conservative). At the federal level I think many in Alberta feel most of their taxes will go to Central Canada so its less of being for small government and more feeling the government will put another region ahead of theirs.

      Like

  28. Liz J says:

    On the subject of the Trudeau takeover of Morneau…..why would Morneau put up with that? Is he such a Liberal stalwart he will tolerate such humility by remaining in the post?
    This is a huge story, it has legs, the media hacks are not happy. Why has Waterloo entered my mind?
    I will brag, I said before and after he was elected, Trudeau is not up to the job, here we have a glaring example to support that.

    Like

  29. Anne in swON says:

    Miles Lunn – I am from the northeast corner of England where my mother and father met at the end of WWII. My father was born in Poland, captured by the Russians during the early part of the joint invasions of Poland by the Russians and also the Germans and spent time as a ‘guest’ of Stalin in a prison with other Poles in Arkangelsk. Long story short, after they were released there was a trek through the various -stan countries and the survivors finally met up with and became a part of General Anders’ army which trained in what is now Israel. They were the Polish division of the British Army. He was discharged at the end of the war and was sent to England where he was hospitalized. My English mother was his nurse and the rest, as they say, is history. You listed the various class distinctions, Miles, but there was yet another – the non-Brits who were placed at the very bottom of the list. That was the reason our little family sought out the freedoms of my beloved Canada.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Very true about non-Brits. Interesting the Northeast tends to vote heavily Labour, although UKIP did quite well in 2015 there and it did vote heavily to Leave the European Union so it seems more like your typical blue collar working class socialists as opposed to your downtown liberal elite champagne socialists. The Tories also still got a 1/3 of the popular vote there which is their best showing in that region in over 30 years, but were nonetheless a full 20 points behind Labour. Only in the Northwest region and London did Labour do similarly well and the Northwest is much more mixed while London is much more of your champagne socialist types.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        The area I’m from was involved heavily in coal mining so Margaret Thatcher’s foray into phasing out that industry caused the populace to embrace Labour and its unions. Newcastle was a huge centre not only for shipbuilding but it was also the hub for the shipment of coal to Europe and Scandinavia. The region has never fully recovered. Moreover, it became a magnet for a certain group of migrants and was recently exposed as another Rochdale. This all happened after we left. Thank goodness.

        Like

        • Anne in swON says:

          Incidentally, the northeast suffered mightily at the hands of the EU which all but wiped out the fishing industry. The open border policy put in place by the EU allowed everybody and their brother to fish in the North Sea and limited fishing by those whose livelihoods for centuries depended upon the sea. Fishing limits were lowered, markets were closed and fishing boats lay idle and rotted. Is it really any wonder why the EU and its overreach were loathed? So much for open borders. As they say, give an inch and they take and take and take some more. Canada has much to learn.

          Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            Thankfully I don’t think we have to worry about Canada belonging to any EU like agreement. Asides from the US, all other countries are too geographically, economically, and politically distant to have an EU like agreement of open borders, laws being made in another capital etc. With the US, protectionist sentiment is quite strong so they would never agree to open borders with us while with still a strong cultural nationalist element amongst the left, I doubt we would even agree to an EU style agreement.

            I think in the case of the UK, the probably should have never joined the EU or at least vetoed treaties that gave it more power, but once in, it’s very difficult to pull out without strong economic consequences. The open fishing waters is a big reason Norway and Iceland have stayed out of the EU although both are part of the single market meaning free mobility of labour. The free mobility of labour worked fine when it was only Western European countries who had comparable standards of living, only become problematic when they expanded into Eastern Europe. Also its tough to move to another country and get a decent job if you cannot speak the language so the fact English is the most widely spoken second language in Europe is probably a big reason Britain got more than others. The big problem for UK is the EU will try to punish them to make an example of them so others don’t leave since if Brexit goes well others will likely follow thus risking eventual dismantling of the EU.

            Like

          • Anne in swON says:

            You underestimate the reach of the globalists and the powerful and nefarious pull of the UN and its agencies, especially now that Trudeau is in office. Remember how he referred to Canada as the first post-national state? Take him at his word. He is a globalist and globalists were/are the architects of the EU.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            I think the whole globalists talk is overexaggerated. Rather I think you have internationalists and nationalists. Internationalists believe in greater trade and greater global cooperation and tend to support liberal immigration (note it is still not easy to immigrate to Canada and if you’ve ever watched Border Security show, we do refuse and deport many people every day) whereas nationalists tend to want to preserve maximum national sovereignty, are opposed to free trade deals, and want restrictive immigration. At the end of the day it takes two to tango and so the reason I am not afraid of loss of sovereignty is who would agree to belong to such organization with Canada. EU involves a strong loss of sovereignty but again the countries are closely tied together and most agreements that involve strong loss of sovereignty are regional blocs. Since the US will never agree to belong to such while Canada would never want to be in one with the US dominating I think we are pretty safe. Otherwise geography is the biggest thing preventing us from ever being part of an EU type agreement. Some may talk about a global government, but the practicality of it happening is impossible so I think there is nothing to fear. I think cooperation with other countries is a good thing and Canada should continue to remain outward looking not inward.

            The creation of the EU initially was actually to prevent a future war and while it did call for the eventual United States of Europe, the idea of a United Europe has been around since the Roman Empire whereas the only ones who have ever talked about a united North America are the Americans under the Manifest Destiny and Monroe Doctrine but thankfully it seems both are rarely discussed much in the US and besides to implement either would involve war and US credibility would destroyed internationally if they did that.

            Like

  30. Liz J says:

    Morneau apparently has written a letter to the Ethics Commissioner. Why is the question. Is he trying to lay some blame there?

    Like

  31. Anne in swON says:

    The EU sprang from the Common Market. It should have remained as such. Instead the ideas-folk spread their tentacles via threats both real and imagined in their forecast. It is a tyrannical institution, most assuredly not a democracy. But the UK wisely put a spoke in their wheel by refusing to adopt a common currency. In the meantime the amount of regulations imposed (for the greater good, of course) doubled, then tripled, then quadrupled and on and on. Almost every aspect of life is regulated. They’re even pushing for the creation of an EU Army taking direction from Brussels. Just in case there’s a war you see. And to think it all started with a trade agreement. The devil is always in the details. Know when to say no. It’s difficult when you don’t speak from a position of power. Canada under this government has a lot to learn – BS doesn’t always baffle brains.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I think the Maastricht Treaty was the real turning point as that is when it went from a common market to economic union. At the very least the EU should have perhaps moved to a two speed whereby countries like UK and others could stay in the single market but not be part of the economic union while the core countries where people wanted greater integration could do so as I know in Europe there are lots who do support deeper integration and lots who oppose it to. I will admit when travelling there I do like the common currency and lack of border controls, but agreed they have been problematic. The bureaucracy is way too big and that needs to be reformed and hopefully after Brexit the EU does make strong reforms to avoid future Brexits, but somehow I doubt it will.

      My point is due to Canada’s geography we couldn’t be part of any such union even if we wanted to. We are too geographically distant from every country save the US so if we proposed such union with any other country they would reject it, while the US would for political reasons so in many ways geography is probably what ultimately ensures we never go to such extent. I do however support free trade with as many countries as possible. I don’t support full free mobility but under NAFTA I do think we should greatly expand the professional classes that are eligible for TN Visas and allow free mobility in NAFTA within certain professions but not for everything like the EU does and certainly those who come would have to have no criminal record and would be prohibited from receiving any type of social assistance. Australia and New Zealand also allow free mobility between the two countries and it has worked reasonably well there as comparable standards of living as well as both countries still have the right to refuse someone who is a security risk or could be a burden on the social safety net. I oppose the idea of Canada joining any common currency. In terms of harmonizing rules, actually Canada and the US do in many areas harmonize our rules much like the EU, but more due to how closely tied our markets are and at least we aren’t obliged to, its more an individual choice we make, for example in the auto industry.

      That being said not being a European citizen myself, its ultimately up to them what they decide to do, so if they want a closer political union and the public votes for it, that is their choice. As long as all transfers of sovereignty are done democratically, I am fine with that, only when done without a vote do I have a problem.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        Geographical distances mean nothing. Technological advances continue to see to that. We have been castrated by globalists/climate cultists in one important sector of our economy, oil and gas, and the US is eating our lunch. We cannot get access to tidewater for export, our elections are influenced by big players in the US (Tides Foundation, Obama and the Democrats among many others) and we have to depend on a man with cutesy socks to fill some very big shoes. Not going to happen.

        Like

  32. Anne in swON says:

    Does anyone have any thoughts on the recent return of Joshua Boyle and family? I see that his wife has been rushed to hospital but details have been omitted. I note his children all bear Arabic names along with their English ones. Something doesn’t smell quite right to me.

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      I can’t get my head around it all either. It’s beyond bizarre, the whole story just doesn’t add up. Is he a missionary or an activist?
      Having children while in captivity and his excuse for doing so is not rational.
      His wife and children should be of most concern at this point.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        I’m surprised their captors allowed them to stay together. Had they been kept separate from one another wouldn’t that have discouraged either of them from attempting an escape, knowing the retribution that would likely be extracted on the one who remained? I wonder if any of Khadr’s $10 million assisted in their repatriation. Just speculating on the timing. Nah, must just be coincidence.

        Like

  33. Liz J says:

    We lost Gord Downey of Tragically Hip, very sad, we knew it was coming.
    Our Prime Minister was very dramatic in his reaction, breathlessly emoting, as if breaking down, saying, “I thought he would be alright, but I’m not”.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      Cancer is always a difficult way to die and it is indeed sad to learn of his untimely passing.

      May I add that my thoughts are with our PM who claims to be not alright. But then many of us already knew that. I hope you will understand the sarcasm of the two previous sentences. Trudeau expressed less grief over those who lost their lives at home and abroad in terror attacks.

      Like

    • Liz J says:

      Correction to my above quote from Trudeau “I thought ‘I’ would be alright, but I’m not”.

      Like

  34. Anne in swON says:

    Things are about to get very interesting: “Democracy Watch’s court case challenges Ethics Commissioner’s “smokescreens” such as the one she set up for Morneau as illegal under the Conflict of Interest Act – also challenging Trudeau Cabinet re-appointing Ethics Commissioner last June.” http://democracywatch.ca/ethics-commissioner-allowing-fed-liberal-finance-minister-to-violate-ethics-law/

    Like

  35. Miles Lunn says:

    It seems a lot of focus on Hamish Marshall who worked for the Rebel being chosen as chief campaign manager. While he may have talents probably should be lower down. I hate to say this, but the Liberals with their sorry record are going to attack us as being extremists and as we’ve seen in Ontario and the 2004 election federally it just might work so we need to give them as little ammo as possible. I like how with Patrick Brown, the OLP has done everything they can to try and trip him up and place him as too far right and every time they’ve tried he has refused to take the bait. While I know many may say the Liberals and media are being unfair and that is a fair point, but at the end of the day we have to win over the swing voters so what the base thinks and what the left who will never vote for us is less important as the former will vote for us no matter what and the latter never will. Some may say if we are insufficiently conservative the base will stay home, but I think many overestimate the size of those more ideological to the right. 97% of Canadians are not part of any political party and most people cannot easily be pidgeon holed on the ideological spectrum so people care most about who will help make their life better. Also every Liberal vote we pick up has twice the impact as every more right wing voter who choses to stay home. One base voter staying home is just one less vote for us, not another vote for anyone else. Every Liberal vote we pick up is not just one more for us, but one less for the Liberals. Now we shouldn’t try to be Liberal lite but rather try to appeal to the 10-15% who sometimes vote Liberal and sometimes vote Conservative, otherwise essentially win back those who voted for us in 2011, but we lost in 2015.

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      The Liberals will use Scheer’s choice of Marshall at a strategic time in the next campaign, you can count on it. They’ll say little now, this choice makes them very happy, adds to their arsenal.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        Then Scheer himself needs to tackle this now, not wait for the Liberals to use it to their supposed advantage. Take their ammunition away from them. Why do C/conservatives need to kowtow to L/liberals? Have they ever dismissed anyone because we disapproved of their position on any issue or their association with any group? Conservatives need to grow a pair (in fact, several pairs) and refuse to be dictated to otherwise there’s no rationale for the existence of any other party.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          I don’t think we should kowtow to Liberals rather essentially there are three groups who voted Liberal who I think we need to appeal to.

          1. Those that were lifetime Conservatives but swung over to the Liberals in 2015 to throw the bums out, those are probably more philosophically aligned with us so we need win those back.
          2. Red Tories from the former Progressive Conservatives. This is especially key if we want to win back Atlantic Canada. We don’t need to be as liberal as Joe Clark or Robert Stanfield, just make those types of voters comfortable in the coalition which I think we can do especially with the Liberals moving leftward.
          3. Win over the Blue Liberals, otherwise your John Manley types who probably don’t like the more leftward direction of the Liberals.

          The more progressive type Liberals, we shouldn’t try to appeal to them, just don’t scare them so much they vote strategically as the better the splits are the better are chances are. Also we absolutely should explain our policies, but also be patient. Otherwise try and do one thing at a time realizing we unfortunately live in a left leaning country so we won’t pull the country to the right overnight, we will do it one issue at a time.

          Here is another thing in the most recent provincial elections, the conservative counterparts asides from Ontario and Alberta did better than we did in 2015 and in Ontario they likely will in 2018 while Alberta we already have 60% support so if we can just get all those voting centre-right provincially to vote for us we have 40%.

          Newfoundland: Cons 10%, NL PCs 30%
          NS: Cons 18%, NS PCs 36%
          PEI: Cons 19% PEI PCs 37%
          NB: Cons 25% NB PCs 35%
          QC: Cons 17% CAQ 23% – If polls are right and stay the same they might even crack the 30% mark in next October’s election
          ON: Cons 35% Ontario PCs 31% – Most polls provincially show us over 40% and just a 5% rise in Ontario is 25-30 new seats
          MB: Cons 37% Manitoba PCs 53% – Note 53% is a highwater mark, but certainly 45% is doable.
          SK: Cons 49% Saskatchewan Party 62% – Again 62% is probably too high but certainly low to mid 50s is possible.
          AB: Cons 60%, Alberta PCs + WRA 52%
          BC: Cons 30%, BC Liberals 40% – Note despite different names BC Liberals are centre-right and 40% was the worst election showing since 1991 so probably down to their core.
          YK: Cons 24%, Yukon Party 33%

          Likewise Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Alberta and maybe PEI and Newfoundland and Labrador will all have provincial elections before next federal election and except Alberta, I suspect our provincial counterparts to do better so those they are winning and we are not is where we should look. Those voting left wing at both levels are probably off limits.

          Like

          • Anne in swON says:

            My mention of kowtowing to the Liberals was in reference to the decision made by Andrew Scheer to appoint Hamish Marshall. Dismissing a certain segment of the conservative voting pool in order to attract disaffected Liberals is both foolhardy and dangerous. You cannot blithely assume they’ll vote conservative anyway nor can you assume their number at this point. The big blue tent for which you advocated in a past post really wouldn’t be a big blue tent at all, would it, if certain voters are irrelevant? Why they just might go off and form a new party where their votes would be relevant. Now where have I seen that happen before? There’s already talk of that very thing right now.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            Anne in SwON – The problem is this, we cannot win in 2019 without picking up some new voters it is just not mathematically possible to win 170 seats with only 31.9% of the popular vote. As for forming a new party, I think people need to remember over 90% of Canadians aren’t political junkies and don’t spend a lot of time thinking about right vs. left, they think about more what benefits them and the country. So anytime a party comes across as too ideological on either side as opposed to pragmatic it tends to scare off the key swing voters.

            As for another split happening, I think that is very unlikely for a few reasons. Past splits have usually been when you’ve had a conservative government in power for a long time and they are very unpopular such as the Reform Party nationally and Wildrose Party, rarely doesn’t it happen with opposition parties. Also as much as we may not like it, Canada is less conservative than it was in the 90s so policies that might have sold then are lot tougher now. Lets remember 37% of eligible voters in 2019 will be millennials and when you factor in new immigrants that means over 40% of the electorate wasn’t able to vote when the Reform Party existed in the 90s. Likewise the fact Alison Redford won in 2012 and the NDP in 2015 in Alberta suggests to me Alberta which was the Reform’s power base is much less receptive to such a party today than it was in the past. Otherwise a more right wing party might win Rural Alberta, but wouldn’t win in either of the two cities. So that doesn’t mean being Liberal, it simply means having moderate conservative policies like balanced budgets outside of recessions, cutting waste in government, focus spending on priorities not giving out money to every group who asks for it, keeping taxes down, adopting a pro economic growth policy, a principled foreign policy. Otherwise the non controversial conservative policies will stay away from stuff like abortion, gay marriage, other social issues, and identity politics, that will just cause many moderate conservatives to either stay home or hold their nose up and vote Liberal. I won’t vote Liberal or stay home but I know many other moderate small c conservatives who would and we need those people on our side.

            Like

          • Anne in swON says:

            Miles, you and I will always look at things from opposite ends of the conservative spectrum. Our life paths have led each of us to adopt the positions we now hold. Conservatives have not proposed changes to “stuff like abortion, gay marriage, other social issues” and, in fact, it is the liberals who are pushing identity politics eg. M103, Bill C-16. Please take note of that. Thanks for being respectful, but I’m now bowing out of this particular debate.

            Like

  36. Anne in swON says:

    Does anyone know whether the Ethics Commissioner can be called before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics? Bob Zimmer, CPC is the Chair and Nathan Cullen, NDP is one of the Vice-Chairs with CPC members Peter Kent and Jacques Gourde. The other 7 are, of course, LPC.

    Like

  37. Miles Lunn says:

    Even the liberal leaning Toronto Star is saying Trudeau and Morneau bungled this badly https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2017/10/16/small-business-tax-cut-is-an-unseemly-buy-off-editorial.html. Governments are rarely defeated over one policy, but it’s rather repeated mistakes that do them in. If this is their only major hiccup between now and 2019 they may be fine, but if they continue to make stupid mistakes Trudeau just might be a one term wonder. Lets remember his father rode in on a wave of Trudeaumania but came within 2 seats of losing outright in 1972 and due to population shifts, had the current riding boundaries been used, Trudeau sr., would have lost in 1972 (note Ontario, BC, and Alberta have all gained many new seats due to population growth and those three provinces all had Liberals in second in the case of Ontario, wiped out in Alberta completely, and third in BC).

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s