Conservative leadership master thread

[Omnitheo]

I expect to see a number of different threads about O'Leary, but I'd like to make a thread to discuss all the potential candidates, and let people discuss their candidate of choice.

It should go without saying, but this is not a Trudeau or NDP thread, so if you're an agitator please keep those to other threads

To start the discussion, Erin O'toole today indicated that he is advocating for a trade and security pact with other commonwealth members to give citizens freedom to live, work, and invest in those countries.

http://www.erinotoole.ca/canzuk

I'm all for globalism and like this idea personally. i know a lot of people on the right wing tend to be against similar such arrangements, like in the EU, however given the relatively equal economic footing of these commonwealth members, are you for or against such a plan?

[Omnitheo]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/hami ... -1.3963530

Though he's far from the picture of a card-carrying Conservative, urbanist Ryan McGreal has joined the Conservative party to vote in its 2017 leadership election — in what he says is an effort to save the Tories from "extremist views."

And he's not alone. Several Hamiltonians are doing the exact same thing, in a movement that has been adopted by everyone from singer Amy Millan to Dave Bagler, former president of the Green Party of Canada.

Some are first time Conservatives, with no real ties to the party. Others are former members who have found their way back through the wilderness.

In each case, their rallying cry is the same — they don't want Kellie Leitch (and in some cases, Kevin O'Leary) to lead the federal Conservatives come the vote in May. The party itself isn't weighing in on the issue, but Leitch's former campaign manager knew about it, and said in an interview he was actively trying to root out "imposters" in the party's voting base.

"The party that I supported was global in its outlook, stood up to international bullies and had strong economic policies," said Rich Gelder, a longtime Conservative Party member from Dundas who rejoined just to vote in the upcoming leadership election.

"I never signed up for immigration bans or profiling."

I'm glad that people are standing up to try to save the party from the likes of O'Leary and Lietch who seem to want to turn the Conservatives into the Republicans. I wonder though if this may lead to split conservative parties, one more moderate and one ...less moderate. Unfortunately without the proposed election reforms, it's unlikely for any conservative government to get in unless they all band together, which sadly lumps economic conservatives with some of the more fringe conservative ideals that have re-emerged as of late.

[Omnitheo]

Here's the debate

[hobbyguy]

Michael Chong is the candidate I am most interested in. Lisa Raitt a close second.

Chong initially impressed me because he is one of only two Conservative MPs that really chose to "stand up and be counted" and try to work to improve our democracy. (The other was Brent Rathgeber from Edmonton.)

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/we-looked-at-each-other-and-kind-of-knew/

"After the Tories won the 2006 election, Harper named Chong—a surprise pick at the time—to his first cabinet as minister of intergovernmental affairs and sport. But he quit later that same year over a point of principle in a highly public split with the prime minister. The issue was Harper’s unexpected tabling of a motion in the House declaring that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.” Chong wouldn’t vote for it, and cabinet ministers aren’t allowed to be so free-thinking. “I believe in this great country of ours and I believe in one nation, undivided,” he said at the time, adding that defining the Québécois as distinct from other Canadian citizens smacked of an “ethnic nationalism” that he could never support."

" RELATED: Michael Chong explains his Reform Act in 60 seconds

It amounts to a modest start to pulling power away from party leaders and putting it into the hands of ordinary MPs. As a leadership contender, Chong continues to urge more reforms in that direction. For instance, he says the membership of House of Commons committees—now tightly controlled by party leaders—should be decided by a secret-ballot vote of MPs. Membership on the committees, he adds, should be guaranteed for a full parliamentary session, eliminating the power of leaders to control their MPs by threatening to deny them plum committee assignments.

Griffiths says Chong’s enthusiasm for this sort of parliamentary change puts him squarely in the tradition of Preston Manning’s Reform party of the 1990s"

Michael Chong thus impresses me as a man of principle, not just talk, and I like his positions. There seems to be a genuine streak of altruism in him, something sadly lacking in many modern politicians, and he seems to want to unite us all as Canadians first - a refreshing change from the typical "divide and conquer" politicians.

[Omnitheo]

Chong and Raitt I think stood out to me the most during the debate.

I perhaps should have put a poll in this thread for leadership picks. Mods is there a way to change that?

[hobbyguy]

I notice that my least favorite candidate starts his arguments by repeating a debunked myth. Canada's managed forests fluctuate as a carbon sink, some years (fire years) being net sources and some years being sinks. The best year as a sink is listed as 101 Mt of carbon sink. Unfortunately Canada emits 732 Mt of CO2 equivalents. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-canada-trees_wittjan02-story.html

Of course, the premise of the question is false to start with, as the BC experience has shown that yes, carbon taxes work, and yes it can be done in a progressive fashion. Interesting that Michael Chong supports the BC model.

[rustled]

I notice that my least favorite candidate starts his arguments by repeating a debunked myth. Canada's managed forests fluctuate as a carbon sink, some years (fire years) being net sources and some years being sinks. The best year as a sink is listed as 101 Mt of carbon sink. Unfortunately Canada emits 732 Mt of CO2 equivalents. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-canada-trees_wittjan02-story.html

Of course, the premise of the question is false to start with, as the BC experience has shown that yes, carbon taxes work, and yes it can be done in a progressive fashion. Interesting that Michael Chong supports the BC model.

"Work", as in they accomplish what, specifically?

Some interesting considerations here http://business.financialpost.com/fp-co ... -trump-won about the pros and cons of Chong's proposal:

The pro-carbon-tax group Canadians for Clean Prosperity — whose director Mark Cameron is also quoted on Michael Chong’s website praising the candidate’s plan — notes on its website that Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate the social cost of carbon to be around $30 per tonne today. It’s true that the social cost of carbon rises over time. But even by the EPA’s estimate (which research from the Heritage Foundation suggests is probably overstating the social cost of carbon), it is unlikely to approach $130 a tonne by 2031.

To make matters worse, even if Chong can somehow scrape back federal emissions regulations, his $130-a-tonne tax would still be layered on top of countless provincial regulations. So, while such a high tax, by itself, would be overkill enough, adding it to provincial anti-emissions schemes would make it that much more costly. Unless provincial governments are also going to suddenly agree to dismantle their own anti-emissions plans (many of which are already irreversible) the best role for the federal government to play on emissions is probably to do nothing.

It’s a safe bet that a decent portion of the emissions reductions that would result from Michael Chong’s pricey tax would simply be emissions relocating, not disappearing. Cross-border shoppers and truckers will surely be encouraged by such a policy to cross the border south with an empty tank and return north with a full one. Any businesses that were able to relocate their emissions-intensive activities to the U.S. would surely do so.

One wonders what the North American playing field will look like closer to election time.

[hobbyguy]

All I can say is that BC's approach has indeed worked.

[rustled]

Worked, as in... what is it you're hoping Chong's policy will accomplish more of?

[hobbyguy]

BC has the lowest carbon footprint for gasoline usage, the second lowest carbon footprint overall, and one the best economies in country.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-insidious-truth-about-bcs-carbon-tax-it-works/article19512237/?1486352397861

[rustled]

Yes, the economy is doing relatively well, although it's difficult to see how that could be down to the carbon tax (other than fronting money for projects which may or may not prove to be an effective use of our investment).

As to the low carbon footprint, what exactly has this accomplished, that makes it important to you for Chong to do more of it? Particularly in light of the EPA comment in the piece linked to previously? And how well do you feel this will work (as mentioned in the piece) with the potential changes in North American policy driving competition in a different direction?

ETA: The opinion piece you linked to is a bit out of date, and one might consider the author's bias.

[hobbyguy]

The point is that the BC approach did no harm to the economy, and accomplishes the goal of reduced fossil fuel use.

That makes Chong's case for him. Although I do believe he is using one of the higher estimates for the social costs involved. It could well be correct, as a substantial portion of Canadians do live in areas that will be affected by things like sea level rise.

[The Green Barbarian]

Michael Chong wants a carbon tax, so that means he's out in my view. Anyone who hasn't figured out that carbon taxes are completely useless endeavors doesn't understand basic economics. The carbon tax has to go, end of story.

[The Green Barbarian]

That makes Chong's case for him. Although I do believe he is using one of the higher estimates for the social costs involved. It could well be correct, as a substantial portion of Canadians do live in areas that will be affected by things like sea level rise.

Except that sea levels aren't rising and won't rise, so there is no social cost, at all. This is just apocalyptic nonsense, designed to fear-monger so that governments can steal more money out of our pockets. It's just legalized theft.

[rustled]

Oh. I thought perhaps someone had determined that yes, the carbon tax was changing the climate, because as we know, to date the scientific data hasn't supported the theory of catastrophic man-made climate change at all (and shows little likelihood our efforts in this regard will make a difference in that department). I'm all for reducing pollution, as we've done and continued to do in our cities and around water management.

Chong's proposal doesn't seem to address the practical issues that need our attention. Yes, we have rising seawater. What's he doing about this? Taxing carbon. (Shrug.) Personally, I'm not excited about the possibility of another leader who is sticking with the disaster narratives around CO2 emissions, that we're killing the planet with it and can somehow manage climate by taxing the heck out of people who just want to heat their homes and buy groceries. If the US manages to get itself out of that hole, how long do you think people like the one you quoted can keep insisting it won't hurt our economy?

Meanwhile, why is there no investment in the improved infrastructure for those who will be most directly affected by events to come? So far, Chong isn't addressing that.

So if Chong's proposing we just dig our own hole deeper, if he's prepared to ignore how little the carbon taxes and green initiatives of other countries have done for them while leaving their most vulnerably-situated people increasingly vulnerable and impoverishing the rest, I'm not likely to become a fan. Yes, I know in other threads you've posted about how you managed to get your carbon taxes back, but you didn't explain how you did that, or how other ordinary citizens could do the same.

One of the reasons I'm less likely to vote for the federal Liberals again, despite our stellar local candidate, is Trudeau's "must do the popular thing" attitude, his persistence in clinging to popular fads even in the face of facts that should make him rethink his position.

If the Conservatives select a leader who's cut from the same cloth, I'll be disappointed.