Welcome to the coming Peter MacKay era in Canadian politics, eh!

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Welcome to the coming Peter MacKay era in Canadian politics, eh!

If political leadership conventions were only about choosing leaders, the coming Conservative leadership convention would be a huge waste of time, however these conventions are used for more than that.   Regardless, it's a wrap now for Peter MacKay to lead the Conservatives, and to try and put a contemporary face on their party.     

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I hope he gets the nomination . As the Journal de Montréal said, 'Good Luck Mister'

McKay can't speak French a la Andrew Sceer. That fact buried Scheer, I hope the same happens to this Cyclopse.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

alan smithee wrote:

I hope he gets the nomination . As the Journal de Montréal said, 'Good Luck Mister'

McKay can't speak French a la Andrew Sceer. That fact buried Scheer, I hope the same happens to this Cyclopse.

It's an open question as to how many of the seats taken by the Bloc in the '19 election would have gone Con if that party was led by a francophone or at least somebody who could've spoken a complete sentence in any form of French, let alone "joual".

Debater

alan smithee wrote:

I hope he gets the nomination . As the Journal de Montréal said, 'Good Luck Mister'

McKay can't speak French a la Andrew Sceer. That fact buried Scheer, I hope the same happens to this Cyclopse.

Indeed.

Journal de Montréal and the Quebec media said that MacKay's French yesterday was "atrocious".  Bernard Drainville said he was shocked at how bad it was.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

Army will get enough helicoptors now!

robbie_dee

A theme of the past three Conservative/OPC leadership conventions have been a socially liberal frontrunner (Christine Elliott in 2018, Max Bernier in 2017, and  Elliott previously in 2015) vs a relatively "dark horse" candidate who consolidated the social conservative vote against them (Doug Ford, Andrew Scheer, Patrick Brown).  And of course, on the three occasions mentioned the dark horse has won every time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Peter McKay face the same dynamic but I'm just not sure who the "dark horse" opponent is going to be. Richard Decarie hopes it will be him. What about Erin O'Toole? Does he have any credibility with the socons?  Marilyn Gladu? Derek Sloane? Someone not yet declared from out west?

pietro_bcc

His french skill is hilariously bad, but Scheer didn't lose because of his french, that's not true at all. He lost because he didn't know how to handle social issues. Also the Conservatives can win without Quebec, they won in 2011 with 5 seats in Quebec, they need to flip Ontario and don't need Quebec.

Debater

pietro_bcc wrote:

His french skill is hilariously bad, but Scheer didn't lose because of his french, that's not true at all. He lost because he didn't know how to handle social issues. Also the Conservatives can win without Quebec, they won in 2011 with 5 seats in Quebec, they need to flip Ontario and don't need Quebec.

If the Conservatives want to win a Majority again some day, they will need Quebec.  They can win a Minority without Quebec, but they will need more seats in QC to get to a Majority.

2011 was a very unusual election because the Liberals fell to 3rd place and crashed below 20% of the vote for the only time in Canada's history.  It is not a typical election to use as an example.

robbie_dee

Harper largely won without Quebec. You say 2011 was an anomaly because of the NDP surge and liberal collapse but, as a thought experiment just give all 59 Quebec seats won by the NDP to the Liberals instead, plus all 5 Quebec seats won by the Conservatives. Final result: Cons 161, Liberals 98, NDP 44 BQ 4 GRN 1. IOW still a Conservative majority. The critical factor was Harper's 73 seats in Ontario. How many seats did Doug Ford win in the last Ontario provincial election? 76. Yes the Liberals collapsed then, too, but that was with a federal Liberal government and a PM who was still quite popular before the SNC Lavelin fall-out. Yet no "halo effect" for Kathleen Wynne and a very strong performance by the OPCs despite a deeply divisive leader of their own. Imagine if the OPCs had been led by Christine Elliott instead? I think they could have cleared 90 seats. In any case, IMO a federal Conservative sweep of Ontario can definitely happen again and, frankly, is still the more likely path for the party to return to power federally.

 I would agree, though, that a lack of effort in Quebec - as evidenced by the lack of a leader's french language compentency - is a bad "signal" to send Ontario voters who care about national unity, and  it could ultimately makes the kind of numbers the Cons need from Ontario in the absence of a stronger Quebec vote more difficult.

Sean in Ottawa

Yes -- hard to win without Quebec but possible. Reality is that the last few seat increases to the provinces really put the lie to the can't win without Quebec. Quebec has 78 seats. Alberta and Saskatchewan have 48. You have 30 seats to make up elsewhere out of the remaining 212. Ontario has 121. 

For Conservatives to win a majority they need 170:

 

Places they have enough now

BC 17 

AB 33

Prairies 21

QC 10

= 81

Places they need more

Atlantic Canada

They have 4 with McKay they may be able to get 15 given that he comes from there 

Now = 96

So from Ontario they need 74 and have 36. So they need 38 more. Without Rob Ford this is certainly doable.

The math says not easy but certainly possible.

To make it more difficult though McKay has to hold the right flank from either Bernier's party or Wexiters. I am not sure if he can do this. I think that McKay's difficulties lie in two places and both could be overcome with some challenges: 

1) Ontario - the Ford government. Facts are that Ford might not be Premier in the next election

2) Wexit and Bernier - both could be possiblt contained knowing that they must be to win by proposals that offer them something. So perhaps McKay comes out as a harder line Conservative appeasing those he needs to and wins. 

Quebec's position in the federation is more delecate in part becuase it no longer can decide the government. In 1975 it had 28% of the seats. Now it has an easier to ignore 23%. West of Ontario in 1975 there were 60 seats good for 23%. a number that could be ignored (as Quebec has now). Now it has 106 for 31% a number more than Quebec used to have.

Of course I am including everything west of Ontario which is multiple regions that have little in common with each other except for the fact that the Liberals have few strongholds there. Some of these places can often vote Liberal (like the north, some of BC and Manitoba) but the NDP is stronger historically West of Ontario than the Liberals and the NDP can take many of those seats. The West more than balances Quebec now and Quebec does not concentrate in one party any more than the West does.

McKay has this other advantage: while he does not speak French, being from Atlantic Canada he stands to lose less there in francophone NB than he will gain elsewhere in Atlantic Canada (or at least the maritimes).

The bad news is that McKay's path to victory will be in not being very progressive and making some gestures (dramatic ones) to the extremes of his party. I do think he can win. I do not think he would be a whole lot better than any other. He would be less social Conservative and probably will feel the need to be more fiscally conservative to make up for it. But with a big horsey smile.

 

 

robbie_dee

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So from Ontario they need 74 and have 36. So they need 38 more. Without Rob Ford this is certainly doable.

You mean Doug of course.

Agree largely with the rest of your analysis, except I'm not convinced that McKay will be crowned yet. The socon wing is much more powerful in internal Conservative politics than in a general election and if they find a champion they can certainly still stop McKay. Unless they have been sufficiently cowed by the last federal election that they decide to sit this leadership contest out?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

pietro_bcc wrote:

His french skill is hilariously bad, but Scheer didn't lose because of his french, that's not true at all. He lost because he didn't know how to handle social issues. Also the Conservatives can win without Quebec, they won in 2011 with 5 seats in Quebec, they need to flip Ontario and don't need Quebec.

The Liberals don't need Albertchewan.......Just keep appeasing Ontario and Quebec while the Conservatives send in the clowns and I just may not have to worry for a Con majority again in my lifetime. That SoCon shit goes a long way in the Prairies. Not very long in Ontario and Quebec as well as the Maritimes and a portion of BC.

Send in the next loser.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Wouldn't it be great if the Liberals responded to MacKay winning the Con leadership by replacing Justin with Belinda?  Nothing better than a relationship grudge match election.

Debater

Ken Burch wrote:

Wouldn't it be great if the Liberals responded to MacKay winning the Con leadership by replacing Justin with Belinda?  Nothing better than a relationship grudge match election.

Hopefully people will at least remember that MacKay called Belinda Stronach a dog in the House of Commons.

One of several misogynist comments he has made over the years (the comment about female judges being another one).

cco

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The bad news is that McKay's path to victory will be in not being very progressive and making some gestures (dramatic ones) to the extremes of his party.

Totally baseless speculation on my part, but I'm imagining his leadership team workshopping a staged "hot mic" moment where he says something racist enough to shore up votes, but not so racist he can't walk it back in the general.

Sean in Ottawa

robbie_dee wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So from Ontario they need 74 and have 36. So they need 38 more. Without Rob Ford this is certainly doable.

You mean Doug of course.

Agree largely with the rest of your analysis, except I'm not convinced that McKay will be crowned yet. The socon wing is much more powerful in internal Conservative politics than in a general election and if they find a champion they can certainly still stop McKay. Unless they have been sufficiently cowed by the last federal election that they decide to sit this leadership contest out?

Yes - my mistake.

I agree as well. I do not think it will be much harder to win an election than it will be for him to win the leadership.

Of course much will ride on the economy. After two terms under the Liberals they will get a lot of credit for the economy -- good or bad and that will partly decide the election. 

McKay gives off a feel in the way he speaks of being more reasonable than he is if you actually listen well. 

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

Wouldn't it be great if the Liberals responded to MacKay winning the Con leadership by replacing Justin with Belinda?  Nothing better than a relationship grudge match election.

LOL - Good one

Sean in Ottawa

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The bad news is that McKay's path to victory will be in not being very progressive and making some gestures (dramatic ones) to the extremes of his party.

Totally baseless speculation on my part, but I'm imagining his leadership team workshopping a staged "hot mic" moment where he says something racist enough to shore up votes, but not so racist he can't walk it back in the general.

I think we will see soem dog whistles and some promotions of particularly right wing Western Conservatives within the shadow cabinet.

kropotkin1951

alan smithee wrote:

The Liberals don't need Albertchewan.......Just keep appeasing Ontario and Quebec while the Conservatives send in the clowns and I just may not have to worry for a Con majority again in my lifetime. That SoCon shit goes a long way in the Prairies. Not very long in Ontario and Quebec as well as the Maritimes and a portion of BC.

Send in the next loser.

Thanks Allan this is the best description of the Central Canadian juggernaut that I have read in a long time.

Debater

Why can’t Peter MacKay speak French?

MacKay had lots of time to learn passable French. That he didn’t do the work should raise some questions about his candidacy.

by Stephen Maher

Jan 27, 2020

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-cant-peter-mackay-speak-french/

Misfit Misfit's picture

Debater's article also wonders why he never worked at one of the prestigious law offices in Toronto like other former cabinet ministers often do.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I am enjoying this thread far more than many others. Very amusing and at times very insightful.

JKR

Over the last 52 years Quebecers have been prime minister for 40 years and counting! P.E. Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin, and now Justin Trudeau have all represented Quebec ridings for 80% of the time over the last half century. So being able to speak fluent French does seem to be an important part of being a successful party leader in Canada as does just being from Quebec. Harper seems to be the exception to this phenomena and his only majority occurred when he faced Ignatieff, another non-Quebecer. If winning was the only consideration for the Conservatives, Jean Charest would have been their clear choice. The West's antagonism toward Quebec seems to have hobbled the Conservatives and PC's chances of obtaining power. It's interesting that regionalism has a great impact on federal politics, maybe as much as ideology?

voice of the damned

Smithee wrote:

That SoCon shit goes a long way in the Prairies. Not very long in Ontario and Quebec as well as the Maritimes and a portion of BC.

The Maritimes have pretty much the worst record in Canada for abortion funding/access. I don't think that's because they're a bastion of social liberalism.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

Over the last 52 years Quebecers have been prime minister for 40 years and counting! P.E. Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin, and now Justin Trudeau have all represented Quebec ridings for 80% of the time over the last half century. So being able to speak fluent French does seem to be an important part of being a successful party leader in Canada as does just being from Quebec. Harper seems to be the exception to this phenomena and his only majority occurred when he faced Ignatieff, another non-Quebecer. If winning was the only consideration for the Conservatives, Jean Charest would have been their clear choice. The West's antagonism toward Quebec seems to have hobbled the Conservatives and PC's chances of obtaining power. It's interesting that regionalism has a great impact on federal politics, maybe as much as ideology?

The history of the last 52 years is not the present. As I documented above, the political weight of the country has shifted and this is significant.

There is good value in a bilingual PM but it is not a political necessity according to the maths.

JKR

I agree that it's now not nearly as much of a necessity as Quebec's ridings make up a smaller proportion of the House of Commons than it used to. But it sure helps! Without Quebec a party has to win Ontario by a significant margin in order to have a chance at forming a government.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

I agree that it's now not nearly as much of a necessity as Quebec's ridings make up a smaller proportion of the House of Commons than it used to. But it sure helps! Without Quebec a party has to win Ontario by a significant margin in order to have a chance at forming a government.

True -- although it is also possible that a Conservative party may conclude that this is easier to do than to win Quebec by a smaller margin.

voice of the damned

JKR wrote:

 Without Quebec a party has to win Ontario by a significant margin in order to have a chance at forming a government.

Which Chretien proved was possible to do, but no one in Canadian politics right now is sitting as comfortably as he was throughout his tenure.

Misfit Misfit's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Smithee wrote:

That SoCon shit goes a long way in the Prairies. Not very long in Ontario and Quebec as well as the Maritimes and a portion of BC.

The Maritimes have pretty much the worst record in Canada for abortion funding/access. I don't think that's because they're a bastion of social liberalism.

And Saskatchewan has had the most advanced social programs in Canada due to our social democratic history.

It was just an ignorant comment that came from a Liberal Quebecer who supports the slashing of our social programs under Liberal administrations. That is the mentality from which this comment stemmed from.

Oh, and here is a website for abortion access in Alberta, that dang SoCon province...

Alberta Abortion website

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

JKR wrote:

 Without Quebec a party has to win Ontario by a significant margin in order to have a chance at forming a government.

Which Chretien proved was possible to do, but no one in Canadian politics right now is sitting as comfortably as he was throughout his tenure.

Liberal losses were heavy but they always got a good number of seats from Quebec during Chrétien's time: 19, 26 and 36. conservatives average far less on a regular basis.

I think before the previous seat additions this would have been harder to do. I think, without checking, the lowest seat count in Quebec ever for a majority goverment was 2011 (I think they got less than 6). There is no coincidence that this is recent as it reflects the changing balance of population in Canada. It is very likely that this will continue.

As well French in Quebec has changed. Quebec retains a high number of Francophones, however, bilingualism has increased and the number whose first language is French has decreased. As well the most seat-rich parts of the province concentrate this. This means that without a French speaking leader it is theoretically possible to get a few seats out of the parts of Quebec where language may be less of an issue becuase people are looking for other priorities, where people may understand an anglophone, and where a large number are not first language French so may be less opposed to someone else speaking French as a second language.

An important caveat is the reality that it is easier in Quebec for the Liberals to elect a number of seats with a non-Francophone than a Conservative or New Democrat. A quick look at the party strengths in the regions will show this. The most urban, bilingual, cosmopolitan and non-French-mother tongue regions of Quebec are heavily Liberal. The places other parties need to make inroads are less bilingual and more mother-tongue French. So while it is possible to have a majority without Quebec, increasingly possible, it is less easy for a Conservative to do so. It is also less likely that a Liberal would not speak decent French. However, the Liberals also have vote sparse regions in different parts of the West and the Conservatives, when strong, are only weak in Quebec.

BTW Layton, whose French was not his mother tongue, performed well in places normally only a Francophone does well showing how special that was (his French was good but by no means at the level of a person speaking their mother tongue). I do think that Quebec is capable of voting for a person who understands Quebec and its priorities and speaks in shaky French. I think the Conservatives in Quebec face problems of policy that exceed any language issues and that spekaing about how little they understand Quebec in perfect French may not bring great returns.

Canada still has two official languages. Many voters, even those who do not speak French, will consider a candidate for PM to be only credible if they speak both languages. This seems to be less common in Western provinces but a large number of anglophones in a number of English speaking provinces still respect the political need for a bilingual PM. I think that being bilingual is not essential politically but I also think it helps not just in Quebec, but places outside Quebec where Francophones reside but also in many anglophone parts of the country. I think resistance to French is perhaps a thing more concentrated among Conservative supporters but not all of them. I think the job of PM should be a bilingual position although Indigenous or immigrants get a pass as they bring something else valuable and in often can be understood to not have the opportunity, but a white man like McKay who has spent a lifetime in politics ought to have learned French and I do hold that against him.

Sean in Ottawa

Wouldn't it be great if the job of PM would require a person who understands Indigenous realities in Canada? 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Misfit wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Smithee wrote:

That SoCon shit goes a long way in the Prairies. Not very long in Ontario and Quebec as well as the Maritimes and a portion of BC.

The Maritimes have pretty much the worst record in Canada for abortion funding/access. I don't think that's because they're a bastion of social liberalism.

And Saskatchewan has had the most advanced social programs in Canada due to our social democratic history.

It was just an ignorant comment that came from a Liberal Quebecer who supports the slashing of our social programs under Liberal administrations. That is the mentality from which this comment stemmed from.

Oh, and here is a website for abortion access in Alberta, that dang SoCon province...

Alberta Abortion website

Are you insinuating I'm in favour of service cuts? Wow, you never read any of my comments.

Riddle me this, why is that the country's worst MP's are all Conservatives from Western Canada? THESE are the people that want to cut our services. It's their raison d'etre.

And why do Westerners vote blindly for the most abhorrent leaders both provincially and federally?

My last comment was simple. TRhe Liberals tried to bail out Alberta and end an ongoing trade war between BC/Alberta.

My question is why? Win Quebec, win Ontario, win the election. Westerners can't wrap their heads around the case that Albertchewan means NOTHING. They are rightfully expendable.

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

Misfit wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Smithee wrote:

That SoCon shit goes a long way in the Prairies. Not very long in Ontario and Quebec as well as the Maritimes and a portion of BC.

The Maritimes have pretty much the worst record in Canada for abortion funding/access. I don't think that's because they're a bastion of social liberalism.

And Saskatchewan has had the most advanced social programs in Canada due to our social democratic history.

It was just an ignorant comment that came from a Liberal Quebecer who supports the slashing of our social programs under Liberal administrations. That is the mentality from which this comment stemmed from.

Oh, and here is a website for abortion access in Alberta, that dang SoCon province...

Alberta Abortion website

Are you insinuating I'm in favour of service cuts? Wow, you never read any of my comments.

Riddle me this, why is that the country's worst MP's are all Conservatives from Western Canada? THESE are the people that want to cut our services. It's their raison d'etre.

And why do Westerners vote blindly for the most abhorrent leaders both provincially and federally?

My last comment was simple. TRhe Liberals tried to bail out Alberta and end an ongoing trade war between BC/Alberta.

My question is why? Win Quebec, win Ontario, win the election. Westerners can't wrap their heads around the case that Albertchewan means NOTHING. They are rightfully expendable.

No the formula is that you have to win two out of three: Quebec, Ontario, and the West.

The problem for conservatives is that the West is more and more divided and it always reflected very different regions with little in common that are lumped together by political scientists. Manitoba normally splits but that is a handful of seats, BC splits between Interior and coast and that has always been important but is even bigger now. Alberta, Saskatchewan are also capable of splits even if they did little of that this time. Quebec is also splitting more than it used to. Ontario is capable of having the North go a completely different direction than the rest and the NDP often benefits.

I take your point though that the extremes of the politics of the prairies can take themselves out of the equation. But this is not necessarily true. Ontario swings madly between Liberal and Conservative with a lot of seats even as the rest of the country tends to be more stable. It is not just size that makes Ontario important to elections -- it is the willingness to change parties in dozens of seats. Typically well more than half the swing seats are in Ontario. Look at any election prediction project-type analysis. You will see that most of Canada can have 3/4 of the seats assumed for one party or another. In Ontario you cannot do that. Increasingly there are more Quebec seats in play in recent years but do a list of the truly swing seats and no province has the high numbers except for Ontario.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The Liberals cut massively to our social programs. They have been just as destructive as any Conservative government can be. So, if you vote Liberal then you endorse the dismantling of our social programs plain and simple.

You have been informed of this before and you have made your choice to support the Liberal party and trash western Canada.  It is nothing more than the same old garbage that we have learned to expect from you. You offer nothing better than divisive hatred and ignorant insults.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Wouldn't it be great if the job of PM would require a person who understands Indigenous realities in Canada? 

Yes!

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

What cuts to social programs?

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

The Liberals cut massively to our social programs. They have been just as destructive as any Conservative government can be. So, if you vote Liberal then you endorse the dismantling of our social programs plain and simple.

You have been informed of this before and you have made your choice to support the Liberal party and trash western Canada.  It is nothing more than the same old garbage that we have learned to expect from you. You offer nothing better than divisive hatred and ignorant insults.

I do not agree that it is an endorsement of cuts to vote Liberal becuase many Liberal voters are simply unaware of this and I do not think that there is really informed consent from voters.

The Liberals apporach to social programs is more sophisticated. At times they make cuts as they did in the 1990s. At other times they will simply let programs atrophy through lack of support. It really depends on what you define as social programs and what you define as cuts. 

We all agree that a reduction in money is a cut. What about when you do not index for inflation is that a cut? Both Liberals and Conservatives have done this. What about when you allow capacity to be reduced due to a lack of sufficient funding even if the funding has increased beyond inflation? Many examples of this exist. As needs change from one priority to another and some things cost more, funding should reflect this. 

Douglas Fir Premier

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What about when you do not index for inflation is that a cut?

Yes.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I do not agree that it is an endorsement of cuts to vote Liberal becuase many Liberal voters are simply unaware of this and I do not think that there is really informed consent from voters.

Yes, normally this is a sound argument. However, we are referring to Allan Smithee who has been a member of this board for many years. This issue has been hashed over numerous times during elections with him and he is set in his ways.

If someone votes Liberal and has been informed of  their history of cuts to social programs and then insists on voting Liberal anyway then that person is actively endorsing those very cuts.

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I do not agree that it is an endorsement of cuts to vote Liberal becuase many Liberal voters are simply unaware of this and I do not think that there is really informed consent from voters.

Yes, normally this is a sound argument. However, we are referring to Allan Smithee who has been a member of this board for many years. This issue has been hashed over numerous times during elections with him and he is set in his ways.

If someone votes Liberal and has been informed of  their history of cuts to social programs and then insists on voting Liberal anyway then that person is actively endorsing those very cuts.

Sorry - I did not realize that the you was just in that conversation - I thought it was meant as anyone.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

If the Liberals have made significant cuts to social programs, I'd like to know which ones.

Are we talking about the LPC in 2020 or 1999? After a while you have to let it go. Martin has been a blip in Canadian history since the late 90's/early 2000's.

But if we're talking about the party since 2016 I'm not aware of these social program cuts,so if anyone has the answers to that,I'd appreciate it.

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

If the Liberals have made significant cuts to social programs, I'd like to know which ones.

Are we talking about the LPC in 2020 or 1999? After a while you have to let it go. Martin has been a blip in Canadian history since the late 90's/early 2000's.

But if we're talking about the party since 2016 I'm not aware of these social program cuts,so if anyone has the answers to that,I'd appreciate it.

The recent record does not show significant cuts but is does show broken promises on pharmacare and childcare both made in 2015 and not yet delivered.

voice of the damned

Smithee wrote:

Riddle me this, why is that the country's worst MP's are all Conservatives from Western Canada? THESE are the people that want to cut our services. It's their raison d'etre.

If you're worried about cuts being made by Conservatives, wasn't Jim Flaherty the main guy responsible for that the last time the Conservative party was in power? Don't think he was from western Canada.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Trudeau cuts healthcare spending!

Article

"The Liberals came to power in 2015 promising to negotiate a new "collaborative" health accord with the provinces and territories. But when the 10-year deal was finally struck in 2017, it wasn't nearly as generous as the premiers had hoped: it capped increases to the Canada Health Transfer at three per cent per year, down from six per cent under the old agreement."

With an aging baby boom generation, this health care spending cut is even more egregious than what the numbers clearly indicate.

This issue was discussed at length during the election campaign. Much information was cited. People retain what is important to them. Liberal healthcare cuts is obviously NOT important to some on this board.

voice of the damned

Smithee wrote:

My question is why? Win Quebec, win Ontario, win the election. Westerners can't wrap their heads around the case that Albertchewan means NOTHING. They are rightfully expendable.

Because nothing in politics is guaranteed, especially not regional hegemony. Prior to the early 80s constitutional wars, nobody was predicting that Quebec would be a Tory bastion between 1984 and 1993, just for example.

And I hate to break it to you, but the Liberals aren't doing quite as fantastic as you might imagine. After one term, they've been reduced to a minority, and are garnering less of the popular vote than the supposedly moribund Conservatives. I agree it would be foolish for them to assume that they're going to sweep the prairies any time soon, but it would be equally reckless to think that they're in a position where they can simply laugh off the five seats they lost in "Albertchewan", or assume that they need not worry about garnering any more seats there in the future.

JKR

voice of the damned wrote:

If you're worried about cuts being made by Conservatives, wasn't Jim Flaherty the main guy responsible for that the last time the Conservative party was in power? Don't think he was from western Canada.

I think the main guy responsible for that was Conservative Prime Minister Stephen "Alberta Firewall" Harper. 

voice of the damned

JKR wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

If you're worried about cuts being made by Conservatives, wasn't Jim Flaherty the main guy responsible for that the last time the Conservative party was in power? Don't think he was from western Canada.

I think the main guy responsible for that was Conservative Prime Minister Stephen "Alberta Firewall" Harper. 

Yes, but Smithee speicified "Conservatives", plural. Once you start spreading the blame around(IOW not just the PM himself), the main point man in cabinet for the cuts was Flaherty.

Overall point, there were a lot more people involved in those cuts than just Albertans.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Michael Wilson was a finance minister in Mulroney's government. He too is from  Ontario.

One of the most viscous budgets ever was put out by Paul Martin Jr. Bill Morneau cut spending on health care and is from Toronto. Monique Begin was the Minoster of Health and endorsed a massive cut in healthcare spending.

i think that some people need to be more honest about the shortfalls of their own MPs rather than blaming western Canada for all their woes.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

 

And I hate to break it to you, but the Liberals aren't doing quite as fantastic as you might imagine.

I never said the Liberals are doing good. For years I have vented that I hate the Conservatives. You seem to think all your woes are because of the Liberals. You're kidding yourself.

I am not a fan of JT as is all my friends. I thank the Liberals for legalizing cannabis. Thsat was a bold thing to do. We are the 3rd country in the world to legalize it on a federal level.

Apart from that, they haven't really tabled anything else as large as the cannabis case.

I'm not an idiot. I see the writing on the wall but the alternative is worse. I hate to break it to you.

But I'm not too worried about the Libs.. If the Conservatives nominate Peter MacKay, the Liberals will win the next election.

So where does the NDP stand? They have a hard time breaking 20%.

When are people going to understand that we live in a 2 party system. Just like the US. So I will wear red because I'd NEVER wear blue under any circumstance. You think the Liberals are the worse but you'll be bitching about the Conservatives more because they will damage the country badly. They take all their cues from the Republican party and I don't know if you have been living under a rock or something but since 2016 they have become intensely corrupt and they personify fascism. They will govern exactly like Trump.

If that doesn't bother you, stop calling yourself progressive.

 

kropotkin1951

JKR wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

If you're worried about cuts being made by Conservatives, wasn't Jim Flaherty the main guy responsible for that the last time the Conservative party was in power? Don't think he was from western Canada.

I think the main guy responsible for that was Conservative Prime Minister Stephen "Alberta Firewall" Harper. 

Harper grew up in Ontario and immigrated to Alberta as an adult. He then worked in Calgary's  oil industry offices so its hardly like he is somehow a product of Albertan society.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

JKR wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

If you're worried about cuts being made by Conservatives, wasn't Jim Flaherty the main guy responsible for that the last time the Conservative party was in power? Don't think he was from western Canada.

I think the main guy responsible for that was Conservative Prime Minister Stephen "Alberta Firewall" Harper. 

Harper grew up in Ontario and immigrated to Alberta as an adult. He then worked in Calgary's  oil industry offices so its hardly like he is somehow a product of Albertan society.

Still, he was a Liberal before he went out west and then became a Conservative so surely there was some influence. Energy policy is his stated reason -- and this was something he learned in the West.

Pages