With the old guard tossed out and a new one taking over I thought I would start a thread for civil discussion here as was suggested by Noeller.

So have at it:

- with Trudeau and the Liberals in a majority, will we see most of all the "hopey, changy" materialize?

-what happens to the Conservatives? Will they become like the PC of old or lean more towards their Reformer roots?

-will Candians be better off?

-what happens to the NDP? Will they wilt back to stay in 3rd party status until the next Layton?

-will we see more of "Angry Tom" or more of "Smeying Thomas" (I so hope for the former, the latter scared the gravy outta me)

So once again have at it and try keeping away from the personal attacks, that includes making dumb assed comments which elicit (sometimes justifies) the personal attacks.

The Liberals took a few goofy kicks at the cat before they took a gamble on Trudeau.  Cons probably have more talent than the Liberals did, as far as experience goes.  Have to be careful not to go with someone that might be too connected with "failure".  Surprised to see Jean Charest's name mentioned, though he has said he's a no.

National Post:

 

After nearly a decade in power dedicated to tipping Canada’s political scales to the right, Conservatives were defeated by tax-and-spend Liberals Monday. With 32% of the popular vote and 99 seats, the election was far from a wipeout for the Tories, but there appears to be consensus that change will be needed to win back the electorate.

 

The following interview with Peter MacKay, former Conservative minister of justice, defence and foreign affairs, last leader of the federal Progressive Conservatives, has been edited and condensed:

 

I think it’s frankly right now more a matter of tone than policy or vision. I think it’s really important that we communicate more effectively and take a little bit of the edge and some of the hardness out of the messaging.

 

I’m really proud of what we accomplished in government. I’m proud of a lot of the policies we pursued. I think that particularly in recent years, we moved away from presenting it to Canadians in a way that they understood fully, not only the policy, but that it wasn’t intended to be done in a way that came across as mean and even intolerant at times.

 

It’s what happens after almost a decade in government. You tend to be too insular and in a bit of an echo chamber.

 

The criminal justice issues that I was involved with I sincerely believe were very necessary to recalibrate where we were going with our justice system. The victims’ bill of rights, in particular, is a centrepiece of what we did in terms of putting the emphasis back on those who have suffered as a result of crime.

We were, some would say, thrashing around a bit and trying to come up with policies that perhaps were aimed a little too narrowly, things like niqab and life-means-life sentencing. Some of the direction was not as appealing to a broader swath of people who would be viewed in the more centrist, progressive heart of the population. You have to appeal to the masses in order to maintain a level of support that’s going to keep you in government.

 

There’s a calculated risk in sometimes taking too strategic an approach. You lose the human touch, and you lose the ability to connect to people on a whole range of issues as opposed to just those specific ones you may be trying to slice off.

 

There’s been a tendency toward what I call big-box politics, but things don’t work the same in rural Saskatchewan as they do in Toronto or Montreal. It takes real effort to connect to people these days. It takes tremendous insight and intelligence and collaboration, and that’s something else frankly that we’ve suffered from a little bit. We’ve moved away from getting the broader view from all of the people who have expertise that we should rely on a little more.

 

Your party has to be a mirror of Canadian citizenship, and I think the current Conservative party is pretty good reflection of that citizenship. But on some policy matters we’re going to have to be cautious in that regard. We have to be an inclusive party. We can never give the impression that this is a party that is exclusive, that is anti-this, or pro-that. We’ve got to be a broad-based party. That more than anything was what was grafted together particularly from the roots of the Progressive Conservative party.

The Liberals took a few goofy kicks at the cat before they took a gamble on Trudeau.  Cons probably have more talent than the Liberals did, as far as experience goes.  Have to be careful not to go with someone that might be too connected with "failure".  Surprised to see Jean Charest's name mentioned, though he has said he's a no.

 

The Liberals took a few goofy kicks at the cat before they took a gamble on Trudeau.  Cons probably have more talent than the Liberals did, as far as experience goes.  Have to be careful not to go with someone that might be too connected with "failure".  Surprised to see Jean Charest's name mentioned, though he has said he's a no.

Charest was an opportunist leaving the Conservatives to become leader of the Quebec Libs & then premier. He'd never be successful as leader & he has old ties to Brian Mulroney . 

 

The Liberals took a few goofy kicks at the cat before they took a gamble on Trudeau.  Cons probably have more talent than the Liberals did, as far as experience goes.  Have to be careful not to go with someone that might be too connected with "failure".  Surprised to see Jean Charest's name mentioned, though he has said he's a no.

 

The Liberals took a few goofy kicks at the cat before they took a gamble on Trudeau.  Cons probably have more talent than the Liberals did, as far as experience goes.  Have to be careful not to go with someone that might be too connected with "failure".  Surprised to see Jean Charest's name mentioned, though he has said he's a no.

Charest was an opportunist leaving the Conservatives to become leader of the Quebec Libs & then premier. He'd never be successful as leader & he has old ties to Brian Mulroney . 

 

I vaguely recall this but wasnt it less being an opportunist and more so an effort to thwart the separatists?  I mean, I guess it could be both.  But I seem to recall there being a lot of positivity around Charest's decision and it impacting the BQ.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking but I saw someone mentioning Gary Filmon the other day as a possibility. How old is that guy now?

Maybe it's just wishful thinking but I saw someone mentioning Gary Filmon the other day as a possibility. How old is that guy now?

73. Think his political days are done

Maybe it's just wishful thinking but I saw someone mentioning Gary Filmon the other day as a possibility. How old is that guy now?

Funny you say that, I was about to make a joke about him.  He's 73.  Not a chance.  I remember talk of his son for Manitoba PC's but I dont think he went into politics did he?

 

 

The Liberals took a few goofy kicks at the cat before they took a gamble on Trudeau.  Cons probably have more talent than the Liberals did, as far as experience goes.  Have to be careful not to go with someone that might be too connected with "failure".  Surprised to see Jean Charest's name mentioned, though he has said he's a no.

 

The Liberals took a few goofy kicks at the cat before they took a gamble on Trudeau.  Cons probably have more talent than the Liberals did, as far as experience goes.  Have to be careful not to go with someone that might be too connected with "failure".  Surprised to see Jean Charest's name mentioned, though he has said he's a no.

Charest was an opportunist leaving the Conservatives to become leader of the Quebec Libs & then premier. He'd never be successful as leader & he has old ties to Brian Mulroney . 

 

I vaguely recall this but wasnt it less being an opportunist and more so an effort to thwart the separatists?  I mean, I guess it could be both.  But I seem to recall there being a lot of positivity around Charest's decision and it impacting the BQ.

 

It could have been but I think Charest knew he had a good chance to be Premier so he left federal politics. 

Charest has the advantages of being from Quebec and being seen as more of a Progressive Conservative than a Reformer.

 

They really need a young (35-49) female from Ontario.

Charest has the advantages of being from Quebec and being seen as more of a Progressive Conservative than a Reformer.

 

They really need a young (35-49) female from Ontario.

I don't see him as being any different than a Liberal & he's in his 60's now. 

Iso, agree on Charest just why I think he appeals to many as a candidate.

 

I think young, preferably female, central Canadian and relative unknown is the best bet for the Conservatives.

You really think a female is best for the Conservtives? There is still too much sexism I think and the base of the party (Alberta) has had some issues with female party leaders lately that likely stir up all sorts of sexist attitudes. 

I think the best candidate shouldn't matter if it is a man or woman. But I haven't a clue as to who that may be. 

A women defeats the "politics as usual" argument. But unfortunately I think women still get held to different standards then men. They need to choose carefull.

What would be the point of this, to try and avoid leaks as to what is discussed? Seems disrespectful and heavy handed.

@paulvieira: Senior Harper aides said to block defeated Conservative MPs from attending final caucus meeting, reports @InklessPW https://t.co/DXUyYO1FVL

What would be the point of this, to try and avoid leaks as to what is discussed? Seems disrespectful and heavy handed.

@paulvieira: Senior Harper aides said to block defeated Conservative MPs from attending final caucus meeting, reports @InklessPW https://t.co/DXUyYO1FVL

To me, this sums up the final years of the Harper Government. Say what you like about his early years, but toward the end...this was his legacy, and it doesn't seem surprising.

 

The Liberals took a few goofy kicks at the cat before they took a gamble on Trudeau.  Cons probably have more talent than the Liberals did, as far as experience goes.  Have to be careful not to go with someone that might be too connected with "failure".  Surprised to see Jean Charest's name mentioned, though he has said he's a no.

 

The Liberals took a few goofy kicks at the cat before they took a gamble on Trudeau.  Cons probably have more talent than the Liberals did, as far as experience goes.  Have to be careful not to go with someone that might be too connected with "failure".  Surprised to see Jean Charest's name mentioned, though he has said he's a no.

Charest was an opportunist leaving the Conservatives to become leader of the Quebec Libs & then premier. He'd never be successful as leader & he has old ties to Brian Mulroney . 

 

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with how certain candidates do their thing regardless of political stripe.

 

What would be the point of this, to try and avoid leaks as to what is discussed? Seems disrespectful and heavy handed.

@paulvieira: Senior Harper aides said to block defeated Conservative MPs from attending final caucus meeting, reports @InklessPW https://t.co/DXUyYO1FVL

To me, this sums up the final years of the Harper Government. Say what you like about his early years, but toward the end...this was his legacy, and it doesn't seem surprising.

 

And that's the thanks these former MPs get from Harper? That's bad.

Is this where Conservative supporters come to lick their wounds?

Instead of barring 60 plus former Cons  MP's maybe the answer is to bar Harper.

 

 

What would be the point of this, to try and avoid leaks as to what is discussed? Seems disrespectful and heavy handed.

@paulvieira: Senior Harper aides said to block defeated Conservative MPs from attending final caucus meeting, reports @InklessPW https://t.co/DXUyYO1FVL

To me, this sums up the final years of the Harper Government. Say what you like about his early years, but toward the end...this was his legacy, and it doesn't seem surprising.

 

And that's the thanks these former MPs get from Harper? That's bad.

 

 

Might be that a few of these ex-MP's might actually throw off the muzzle and speak their minds on the election results and the direction the party is headed.  Harper is a control freak beyond compare and he probably doesn't want dissenting viewpoints voiced less the party divides back into it's original fragments of PC's and Reformers.  Why he would even give a **** at this point is anyone's guess as he has basically left the party bereft of any legitimate successors.

Don't even get why anyone would listen to him anyway. I'm sure by the time the caucus meeting takes place almost all of Harper's people will be gone or unable to exercise any influence... 

Is this where Conservative supporters come to lick their wounds?

 

????

Don't even get why anyone would listen to him anyway. I'm sure by the time the caucus meeting takes place almost all of Harper's people will be gone or unable to exercise any influence... 

 

Whatever will become of the "boy's in short pants" that ran the PMO?

 

Is this where Conservative supporters come to lick their wounds?

 

????

 

Actually according to the story that particular caucus meeting is.