Singh poised to vote against government to try to force another election

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
swallow swallow's picture

Misfit wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Does anyone know what the position of the Manitoba NDP & Saskachewan NDP towards Pipelines?

It is Saskatchewan that builds the steel pipes for the pipelines. That means jobs for Saskatchewan steel workers.

Sask NDP echoes Alberta NDP:  https://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan/meilis-nuanced-stance-on-pipelines-draws-flak-from-environmentalists

Aristotleded24

brookmere wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
As for governing for everybody? It's a pipeline. There's no compromise position on that one. You either build the pipeline or you don't. Somebody is going to be angry either way.

Indeed somebody is going to be angry, but take a look at how many. The NDP failed to take Burnaby North - Seymour from the Liberals despite having one of the highest profile candidates possible. The NDP lost Port Moody - Coquitlam right next door on Burrard Inlet to the Conservatives. The NDP also lost another BC seat and did not pick up seats anywhere in BC.

If TM isn't a winning issue for the NDP in BC, it's not a winning issue anywhere. Now don't take that as an endorsement of TM from me. I'm just telling you what the voters said.

That's true, but there's a flip side to that. Anything less than a full-throated opposition to pipelines would have handed Victoria over to the Greens, and quite likely handed other Van Isle seats to the Conservatives, as the Greens pick up environmentalist voters who don't want pipelines there. I also think that some of that is due to (misguided, IMO) public perception that Trudeau is trying to address climate change. So people are willing to give him a chance. I can remember in 2015 the Conservatives took a hard line on building pipelines to the coast at all costs. BC was the only province other than Quebec where the Conservatives finished below second place in seat count. It's a testament to the PR work on the environmental file that the Trudeau Liberals have done.

jerrym

 

brookmere wrote:

The NDP failed to take Burnaby North - Seymour from the Liberals despite having one of the highest profile candidates possible. The NDP lost Port Moody - Coquitlam right next door on Burrard Inlet to the Conservatives. The NDP also lost another BC seat and did not pick up seats anywhere in BC.

If TM isn't a winning issue for the NDP in BC, it's not a winning issue anywhere. 

Liberals conintue to congratulate themselves on winning the election by saying the words "climate change" while building Trans Mountain and Line 3 (which started pumping 400,000 barrels of diluted bituemen per day [bpd] from Alberta to Manitoba last week and will increase production to 760,000 bpd when the Minnesota branch is connected in 2020 - (https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/enbridge-line-three-shipping-oil-1.5377031). Unfortunately, the planet we live on is losing in this process. This only delays the absolutely essential transition to renewables that must occur over the next decade. The Liberals also have not indicated that they have any opposition to the proposed $14 billion 782 km pipeline extension and LNG plant from Ontario to Saguenay Quebec for LNG exports to Europe, Asia, and South America (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/energie-saguenay-how-green-is-na...) This does not include the extra oil production from the Keystone XL pipeline, which is being pushed in the United States being held up by the action of individual protesters and indigenous groups in the United States.

ETA: "Keystone XL is estimated to be able to carry over 800,000 barrels of oil a day" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline). "Total Canadian crude oil production, most of which is coming from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB), is forecast to increase from 3.85 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2016 to 5.12 million b/d by 2030 [see graph below]." (canadian oil production barrels per day) This represents an increase in production of 32.9% by Canada from 2016 to 2030, a period entirely under a Liberal government so far.

  • Oil Production In Canada (red line is historical production; blue line is estimated increased production under current planning until 2030)

In March 2018, the auditor general warned that Canada cannot possibly meet its 2020 greenhouse emission reduction targets ( (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_otp_201803_e_42883.html)). In April, the Environmental Commissioner, Julie Gelfand warned that the Canadian government is highly unlikely to meet its 2030 targets, targets set by Harper that the scientific community says are completely inadequate (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-commissioner-julie-gelfand-...). 

Young people have noticed the political contradictions that are being delivered to them  and are demanding change through protests around the world, including Canada, before it is too late for their generation. Whether it is too late or not to start this transition is debatable, considering that more than 10,000 scientists say we have a ten years left to reduce greenhouse gas emissions drastically. How drastically? The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has warned, in its 2019 Emissions Gap Report, that greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 7.6 per cent per year from 2020 to 2030 are needed to meet the internationally agreed goal of a 1.5°C increase in temperatures over pre-industrial levels. (UN Emissions Gap Report - need to reduce emissions 7.6% a year)

What is not debatable is the fact that Liberal actions on pipelines and even on the signals that they are now sending to Kenney in Alberta, as opposed to their words on climate change, are moving us away from such a transition, not towards it. 

The existential threat to the next generation is not the national debt. It's global warming. Meanwhile the Liberals fiddle while the planet burns. 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

jatt_1947 wrote:

jatt_1947 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

My Dharma is not trolling

Maybe but you are in posting that.

No, I'm really not. Weapons are sacred||

Also Burch you don't know a hair about Sikhi||

I entirely concede that I don't know that much about the tenets of the Sikh faith...but I DO know that the actions of Modi have created a massive movement for an independent Khalistan(which would be a Sikh homeland) within India and throughout the global Sikh diaspora.  Jagmeet Singh was repeatedly attacked by political opponents in Canada for supporting that cause, and was falsely accused of supporting terrorism in the name of that cause even though everyone knew he did no such thing.  Sikhs are living in fear of what the Hindu nationalist regime will do to them.   Hindu nationalism is essentially a form of religious fascism now, and has totally rejected the humane, inclusive. egalitarian vision of Mohandas Gandhi.

brookmere

Aristotleded24 wrote:
That's true, but there's a flip side to that. Anything less than a full-throated opposition to pipelines would have handed Victoria over to the Greens, and quite likely handed other Van Isle seats to the Conservatives, as the Greens pick up environmentalist voters who don't want pipelines there.

Yes I agree, opposition to TM was a necessary strategy to hold off loss of support to the Greens in BC. And I don't think a softer position would have won over anyone who voted Liberal or Conservative last time. But it didn't grow the NDP's vote beyond its core supporters.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

You're not far off the mark. I could bore you with details but your instincts are more or less correct.

Gandhi was a casteist & a coward.

Sikh don't fear anything.

For record: I'm anti-India & anti-Pakistan.
Modi's gov has seemingly allowed things like Sanskrit education & some infra development but it's long term self-defeating

You've helped me realize that. An immoral gov will fall & all its works for naught.
Ultimately, it's all entertainment cuz Truth & Righteousness always prevail.

I'm just bored biding time until things are at a point of crisis.
Lift weights, respect women & weapons, & black pepper ;)

Thanks Burch.

jerrym

jerrym wrote

Liberals conintue to congratulate themselves on winning the election by saying the words "climate change" while building Trans Mountain and Line 3 (which started pumping 400,000 barrels of diluted bituemen per day [bpd] from Alberta to Manitoba last week and will increase production to 760,000 bpd when the Minnesota branch is connected in 2020 - (https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/enbridge-line-three-shipping-oil-1.5377031). Unfortunately, the planet we live on is losing in this process. This only delays the absolutely essential transition to renewables that must occur over the next decade. The Liberals also have not indicated that they have any opposition to the proposed $14 billion 782 km pipeline extension and LNG plant from Ontario to Saguenay Quebec for LNG exports to Europe, Asia, and South America (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/energie-saguenay-how-green-is-na...) This does not include the extra oil production from the Keystone XL pipeline, which is being pushed in the United States being held up by the action of individual protesters and indigenous groups in the United States.

ETA: "Keystone XL is estimated to be able to carry over 800,000 barrels of oil a day" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline). "Total Canadian crude oil production, most of which is coming from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB), is forecast to increase from 3.85 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2016 to 5.12 million b/d by 2030 [see graph below]." (canadian oil production barrels per day) This represents an increase in production of 32.9% by Canada from 2016 to 2030, a period entirely under a Liberal government so far.

  • Oil Production In Canada (red line is historical production; blue line is estimated increased production under current planning until 2030)

In March 2018, the auditor general warned that Canada cannot possibly meet its 2020 greenhouse emission reduction targets ( (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_otp_201803_e_42883.html)). In April, the Environmental Commissioner, Julie Gelfand warned that the Canadian government is highly unlikely to meet its 2030 targets, targets set by Harper that the scientific community says are completely inadequate (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-commissioner-julie-gelfand-...). 

Young people have noticed the political contradictions that are being delivered to them  and are demanding change through protests around the world, including Canada, before it is too late for their generation. Whether it is too late or not to start this transition is debatable, considering that more than 10,000 scientists say we have a ten years left to reduce greenhouse gas emissions drastically. How drastically? The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has warned, in its 2019 Emissions Gap Report, that greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 7.6 per cent per year from 2020 to 2030 are needed to meet the internationally agreed goal of a 1.5°C increase in temperatures over pre-industrial levels. (UN Emissions Gap Report - need to reduce emissions 7.6% a year)

What is not debatable is the fact that Liberal actions on pipelines and even on the signals that they are now sending to Kenney in Alberta, as opposed to their words on climate change, are moving us away from such a transition, not towards it. 

The existential threat to the next generation is not the national debt. It's global warming. Meanwhile the Liberals fiddle while the planet burns. 

Brookmere wrote:

 Yes I agree, opposition to TM was a necessary strategy to hold off loss of support to the Greens in BC. And      I don't think a softer position would have won over anyone who voted Liberal or Conservative last time. But it didn't grow the NDP's vote beyond its core supporters.

 

You have failed to address the fundamental failure of the Liberal campaign strategy and governance: its failure to address climate change and the existential threat that increased greenhouse gas emissions represents to life on this planet. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..let's not forget singh supported the lng project which included pipelines. this all happened before the election. in addition the bc ndp gave the go ahead to site c. then the mb ndp, when in power, also supported the pipelines..on top of sk and alta. these hypocrisies do not go unnoticed. people should stop assuming that the election was a referendum on the pipeline. or that it was voters who were the fickle one. or that people should believe politicians because they are honourable and tell the truth. 

brookmere

jerrym wrote:
You have failed to address the fundamental failure of the Liberal campaign strategy and governance

I wasn't talking about whether the Liberal or NDP's position was better on a scientific basis. I was just trying to analyze why the NDP didn't make gains in BC and lost seats where TM was expected to be an issue. And the NDP's position was closer to my own views. If the electorate didn't buy it, blame the NDP for not addressing the failure of the Liberals' position.

Whether you or I support a particular policy and whether the electorate at large will be swayed by it are two different things.

 

Unionist

epaulo13 wrote:

..let's not forget singh supported the lng project which included pipelines. this all happened before the election. in addition the bc ndp gave the go ahead to site c. then the mb ndp, when in power, also supported the pipelines..on top of sk and alta. these hypocrisies do not go unnoticed. people should stop assuming that the election was a referendum on the pipeline. or that it was voters who were the fickle one. or that people should believe politicians because they are honourable and tell the truth. 

Hope folks notice epaulo's reality check. Thank you.

jerrym

My outline of the history of Liberal actions on climate change wasn't to excuse the NDP for its problems with LNG but with Brookmere's contention that since the NDP didn't win in certain ridings or the election, that the Liberals having won power because of the voters, the Liberals have nothing to worry about going into the future when it comes to climate change.

As I said at the end of my post, the big loser is the planet and everyone that lives on it. It is going to be a major problem everywhere in the world for politicians as time goes on. One cannot conclude that despite the scientific evidence, "If TM isn't a winning issue for the NDP in BC, it's not a winning issue anywhere," as Brookmere did. The Liberals are not homefree on this as time goes on, anymore than anyone else.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

jatt_1947 wrote:

You're not far off the mark. I could bore you with details but your instincts are more or less correct.

Gandhi was a casteist & a coward.

Sikh don't fear anything.

For record: I'm anti-India & anti-Pakistan.
Modi's gov has seemingly allowed things like Sanskrit education & some infra development but it's long term self-defeating

You've helped me realize that. An immoral gov will fall & all its works for naught.
Ultimately, it's all entertainment cuz Truth & Righteousness always prevail.

I'm just bored biding time until things are at a point of crisis.
Lift weights, respect women & weapons, & black pepper ;)

Thanks Burch.

Interesting you should mention caste.  As I understand it, the main reason for large-scale conversions to Islam was that conversion was a way to get out of the caste system.  Agreed that Gandhi should have called for the abolition of caste, but was it not better that he took the anti-colonialist movement in a nonviolent direction?  It seems to me that continuing to run it as, say, the RSS did was just going to give the Raj pretexts to commit atrocities.

If you are anti-India AND anti-Pakistan, what kind of set-up would you like to see for the Subcontinent?  For myself, I think both India and Pakistan should respect the wish of Kashmir to be part of neither country.

BTW, did previous Indian governments actually bar education in Sanskrit?  Inexcusable if they did.

 

brookmere

jerrym wrote:
Brookmere's contention that since the NDP didn't win in certain ridings or the election, that the Liberals having won power because of the voters, the Liberals have nothing to worry about going into the future when it comes to climate change.

I said no such thing. Don't make something up and claim it's someone else's "contention". By the way, the NDP seat of Port Moody - Coquitlam was lost to the Conservatives, not the Liberals.

The NDP failed to use the TM issue to its electoral advantage in the last election. That's a fact. The scientific case for taking action against climate change exists independently of that, and it's something we will all have to face going forward.

 

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

He supported the Khilafat movement which laid the groundwork for partition. Also recruited for the world wars. 

Many Sikh holy sites are in Pakistan. Balochistan was smajority Hindu/Sikh & Pashtuns in the NW (Khyber) were also against partition. 

Partition was a disaster. There's also his sexual perversions. The Raj left because the Army and Navy mutinied. Gandhi didn't do anything but cause millions of deaths. 

Guru Sahib said when struck by a brick hit back with a Boulder. British would have left in the 20s without Gandhi.

https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/1/10/it-cost-a-fortune-to-keep-gandh...

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks Alan for the Liberal perspective. The NDP cannot support this government unless it puts significant parts of their platform on the table that the Liberals have repeatedly stolen election after election. Pipelines not pharmacare or housing deserves not support at all. Let the BQ abstain or vote with Trudeau and show the voters they have little to offer in Ottawa.

It's not the 'Liberal perspective' It's called reality. You can avoid all you want but you can't shut out the truth. What I said in the post  think you're referring to  is the truth. But partisan dreamers like you can't take the truth. Poor you.

It's people like you that impose Conservative governments on the rest of us. You're holding us all back from moving forward. Wake up.

cco

What kind of electoral nihilism does it take to say that requiring the Liberals to keep some of their own promises is "impos[ing] Conservative governments on the rest of us"?

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks Alan for the Liberal perspective. The NDP cannot support this government unless it puts significant parts of their platform on the table that the Liberals have repeatedly stolen election after election. Pipelines not pharmacare or housing deserves not support at all. Let the BQ abstain or vote with Trudeau and show the voters they have little to offer in Ottawa.

It's not the 'Liberal perspective' It's called reality. You can avoid all you want but you can't shut out the truth. What I said in the post  think you're referring to  is the truth. But partisan dreamers like you can't take the truth. Poor you.

It's people like you that impose Conservative governments on the rest of us. You're holding us all back from moving forward. Wake up.

What reality are you referring to Alan? The Liberals have to do more than just not be the Conservatives. They got a minority because of how they have governed. 

The Conservatives will take us to hell faster but that is where the Liberals are taking us too.  Supporting a party going in the other direction makes sense. There is no indication that the Conservatives are gaining and there is no election on the horizon. The Liberals have a chance to do better. 

kropotkin1951

With the resignation this morning it is clear that there will be no snap election and the normal business as usual for corporate Canada will continue in the halls of Ottawa while the players are shuffled in the ongoing theatrical farce that some people actually believe is a democracy.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

With the resignation this morning it is clear that there will be no snap election and the normal business as usual for corporate Canada will continue in the halls of Ottawa while the players are shuffled in the ongoing theatrical farce that some people actually believe is a democracy.

There wasn't going to be any snap election anyway. The Conservatives will continue to vote against the Liberals and the Bloc will continue to support them because there is no reason for the Bloc to go back to the polls. 

A new leader will tell us which direction the party is taking. There have been clear demands that the party update on LGBTQ2 and on abortion from leaders and political pudits but it sounds almost like a plea, as though they know they will not be listened to. I don't have any depth of knowledge of the party but just looking at the surface facts I don't think those choosing the leader are likely to be listening. 

Scheer and Bernier had close to 50/50 support. Scheer was the moderate choice.  Bernier accepts LGBTQ2 but he is anti-immigrant pro free-market. These are the leaders the Conservatives were torn over. The thing about going populist is that you can't just turn it off when it is no longer convenient. 

The Conservative party depends on social conservatives and libertarians.  They are not natural bedfellows. The Conservatives had free market ideology for the libertarians and tough on crime for the social conservatives along with dog whistles. I don't think social conservatives are willing to accept that any longer. They chose Scheer and they wanted him to defend their views. 

Mighty Middle

kropotkin1951 wrote:

With the resignation this morning it is clear that there will be no snap election and the normal business as usual for corporate Canada will continue in the halls of Ottawa while the players are shuffled in the ongoing theatrical farce that some people actually believe is a democracy.

The Bloc leader was quoted as saying he doesn't see why the session doesn't last the full four years, despite it being a minority. He has no interest in bringing down the government.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

With the resignation this morning it is clear that there will be no snap election and the normal business as usual for corporate Canada will continue in the halls of Ottawa while the players are shuffled in the ongoing theatrical farce that some people actually believe is a democracy.

The Bloc leader was quoted as saying he doesn't see why the session doesn't last the full four years, despite it being a minority. He has no interest in bringing down the government.

The BQ was wiped out to less than party status and now are bck. This means these are almost all new MPs. They will want to get known and have something to show for it. I am sure that they will not want an election soon. 

That said, all parties will want to be seen to be reluctant. So if there is a good reason to go in a year and the BQ are potentially stronger than now they would go.

By then The Conservatives would also want to go for an election and that would leave the NDP which may not want an election and may instead work to get something to prop up the Liberals.

Now the Liberals do not have to give much as nobody wants an election. As more parties are prepared to go then supporters will have more leverage.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks Alan for the Liberal perspective. The NDP cannot support this government unless it puts significant parts of their platform on the table that the Liberals have repeatedly stolen election after election. Pipelines not pharmacare or housing deserves not support at all. Let the BQ abstain or vote with Trudeau and show the voters they have little to offer in Ottawa.

It's not the 'Liberal perspective' It's called reality. You can avoid all you want but you can't shut out the truth. What I said in the post  think you're referring to  is the truth. But partisan dreamers like you can't take the truth. Poor you.

It's people like you that impose Conservative governments on the rest of us. You're holding us all back from moving forward. Wake up.

What reality are you referring to Alan? The Liberals have to do more than just not be the Conservatives. They got a minority because of how they have governed. 

The Conservatives will take us to hell faster but that is where the Liberals are taking us too.  Supporting a party going in the other direction makes sense. There is no indication that the Conservatives are gaining and there is no election on the horizon. The Liberals have a chance to do better. 

You are very honest. I respect that. Thank you for the encouraging news that there is no snap election in the works. As I said, who wants to vote again this soon especially in the middle of winter?

If the Liberals totally fuck up as a minority, the Conservatives would take their place.

At this point I fear a Max Bernier becoming the new leader, a downgrade from Scheer IMO. Bernier would destroy this country. And that is today's Conservatives. far right Republicans that take their cues from DC.

They are long erased 'Progressive' from the party name for a reason. This whole situation reminds me of 1979 when Clark and Trudeau 1.0 were fighting for power in which the LIberals got back from a snap election.

I used to laugh about Joe Clark but he'sd be considered progressive next to the party he once lead..I wouldn't have a problem with Clark in 2020 or later we'll see what happens after the winter.

The Conservatives are not the Conservatives of old. They are now conspiracy theorist, free market Trumpists. As was said during the 1980 referendum, NON MERCI. No thank you.

Peace my brother.

 

Pondering

The Conservatives would not take the place of the Liberals were there a snap election tomorrow or anytime soon. Scheer is not going to win an election as interim leader who lost the confidence of the party. If Bernier wins the leadership the party loses the next election. He is too radical. The Liberals would win another minority or maybe even a majority. 

The Liberals have now had 1 majority win and one minority win giving them 5 to 8 years governing. The Liberals can go to 16 years running without losing an election. 

The Liberals are in a tight spot. They can't afford any more big mistakes but if they only make medium ones there is no reason they can't win the next election. They won this one even after SNC and blackface. They might already be grooming the next leader in the background if they have decided that Trudeau is a dud. He's only the front man. 

I don't see any immediate threat from the Conservatives. There will be months of gossip over who the contenders will be. MSM Conservatives will continue pounding the need for a non-social conservative leader making it seem as though the choice will be inevidable. I really don't think the social conservatives are going to accept that lying down. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Given that we know there won't be another election anytime soon, as a result of Scheer's resignation from the Con  leadership, can the thread title please be changed?

Aristotleded24

Why would Bernier become the leader? I would think that he burned his bridges by going off on his own after losing the leadership. The fact that he doesn't have a seat isn't helping matters either. Can you imagine any of the Conservative MPs moving aside for him to run in a by-election?

Misfit Misfit's picture

No, not for him to run. However, the 4-5% of the national support that he received are votes that the Conservatives needs. They do bend over backwards to unite their party base. Harper did it federally and Jason Kenney did it in Alberta provincially.  They know that they are going to have to work with Bernier to get that support back somehow and then when they do they can campaign on a more moderate tone to attract right wing Liberal votes their way.

They are going to have to deal with Bernier somehow. They won't let him walk in and run for the leadership. However, I do see them letting him run as a candidate in their party and give him something nice in return.

They may not do this either, but then they would have to look elsewhere for votes and that would mean the Liberals. If Trudeau runs a scandal free term in office, this could prove to be difficult and there are no guarantees there either.

I think that it is easier to bring Bernier back than it is to depend on an error from the Liberals. Beenier's voters would be safe Conservative votes without the PPC.

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

No, not for him to run. However, the 4-5% of the national support that he received are votes that the Conservatives needs. They do bend over backwards to unite their party base. Harper did it federally and Jason Kenney did it in Alberta provincially.  They know that they are going to have to work with Bernier to get that support back somehow and then when they do they can campaign on a more moderate tone to attract right wing Liberal votes their way.

They are going to have to deal with Bernier somehow. They won't let him walk in and run for the leadership. However, I do see them letting him run as a candidate in their party and give him something nice in return.

They may not do this either, but then they would have to look elsewhere for votes and that would mean the Liberals. If Trudeau runs a scandal free term in office, this could prove to be difficult and there are no guarantees there either.

I think that it is easier to bring Bernier back than it is to depend on an error from the Liberals. Beenier's voters would be safe Conservative votes without the PPC.

Bernier only got 3% or so. To make him leader loses more than that. In fact him being out may be the ticket for that party to win. The activists who left for him may be the same people who prevented a moderate Conservative winning in the past.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I wasn't saying that they would allow him to run for the leadership. Ok, so it is 3%. That three percent can make a big difference between winning and losing. I think that some deal is going to be brokered between the new leader and Bernier at some point. 

Debater

Aristotleded24 is correct.  Bernier is not going to be Conservative leader.  He said this week on Twitter that he will not rejoin the Conservatives because he wants to continue his own movement.  And I don't think they would allow him anywhere near the leadership this time anyway.

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

I wasn't saying that they would allow him to run for the leadership. Ok, so it is 3%. That three percent can make a big difference between winning and losing. I think that some deal is going to be brokered between the new leader and Bernier at some point. 

I am not sure about this. I once thought this way but I started to consider the value to the conservatives of having both a right wing foil and a catch-basin for the refuse outside the party. So far it may actually be saving the CPC more lost votes to the Liberals than it is losing to the People's party.

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:
Aristotleded24 is correct.  Bernier is not going to be Conservative leader.  He said this week on Twitter that he will not rejoin the Conservatives because he wants to continue his own movement.  And I don't think they would allow him anywhere near the leadership this time anyway.

I would also wonder if he even has any political capital left after he couldn't even win a riding his father represented on his own merits.

Pages